Why do cell phones have no crosstalk? (and other questions)

[h***@bbs.cpcn.com]

I just replaced my old Motorola analog flip phone (#550) with a new
digital phone.

I'm disappointed in the sound quality. The analog phone had
reasonable sound quality and some crosstalk. The new Motorola digital
phone sound is "choppy", as if someone has sliced off bits of the
signal. (figuratively and literally). If the other party isn't
speaking clearly directly into his phone, it becomes garbled. There
is no cross talk at all, and often in the conversation I wondered if
we were still connected.

Also, the analog phone had a big LED display that clearly showed
signal strength and battery power. The new phone has very tiny little
symbols I could barely see.

Is this typical of today's digital phone quality?

Do new digital phones give a warning signal before the battery runs
out? My analog did with the older style battery but not with the
newer style premium battery.

They say I should "cycle" the battery--charge and discharge. Could
someone elaborate?

Thanks!

[Steven Lichter]

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
I just replaced my old Motorola analog flip phone (#550) with a new
digital phone.
I'm disappointed in the sound quality. The analog phone had
reasonable sound quality and some crosstalk. The new Motorola digital
phone sound is "choppy", as if someone has sliced off bits of the
signal. (figuratively and literally). If the other party isn't
speaking clearly directly into his phone, it becomes garbled. There
is no cross talk at all, and often in the conversation I wondered if
we were still connected.
Also, the analog phone had a big LED display that clearly showed
signal strength and battery power. The new phone has very tiny little
symbols I could barely see.
Is this typical of today's digital phone quality?
Do new digital phones give a warning signal before the battery runs
out? My analog did with the older style battery but not with the
newer style premium battery.
They say I should "cycle" the battery--charge and discharge. Could
someone elaborate?
Thanks!

Run the battery down to full discharge and then recharge several times
to prevent memory.

[h***@bbs.cpcn.com]

Post by Steven Lichter
Run the battery down to full discharge and then recharge several times
to prevent memory.

The battery was only partially charged upon receipt. Should I charge
it all the way up first, or run it down first?

Thanks again!

[Steven Lichter]

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by Steven Lichter
Run the battery down to full discharge and then recharge several times
to prevent memory.

The battery was only partially charged upon receipt. Should I charge
it all the way up first, or run it down first?
Thanks again!

Mine told me to charge it 24 hours then discharge it 4 times to prevent
memory effect. I would guess all new phones are about the same.

[Wolfgang S. Rupprecht]

Post by Steven Lichter
Mine told me to charge it 24 hours then discharge it 4 times to
prevent memory effect. I would guess all new phones are about the
same.

Sigh. Tech writers.

NiMH batteries need a few cycles to get to full capacity, but this
isn't memory. (Neither is what folks commonly call "memory" in nicad.
That's technically voltage depression caused by overcharging the
nicad. Real nicad memory is *fixed* by overcharging the battery.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battery_memory

And yea, my $20 Moto C139 came with a mostly discharged NiMH cell too.
It took a couple of hours charging before I noticed that the phone
said "charged". (Talk about wasteful pricing, it was cheaper to buy a
second identical phone and charger package than buy a spare factory
battery.)

-wolfgang

[Grant Edwards]

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
I just replaced my old Motorola analog flip phone (#550) with
a new digital phone.
I'm disappointed in the sound quality.

Welcome to digital: low quality sound, dropouts, and latencies
so high it's hard to carry on a normal conversation. Sure it
sucks, but it's cheap. It's impossible to underestimate the
desire of the American public to sacrifice quality in return
for quantity. I think television has pretty much proven that
beyond doubt.

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
The analog phone had reasonable sound quality and some
crosstalk. The new Motorola digital phone sound is "choppy",
as if someone has sliced off bits of the signal.

That's because they did. The more simultaneous calls they cram
into their allotted bandwidth, the lower the costs are and the
higher the profits are. As you increase calls/MHz, you decrease
sound quality. So they go to lower and lower bit-rate codecs
and allow more and more simultaneous calls. As a result,
digital cellular sounds like crap compared to a quality analog
phone.

It'll keep getting worse until it gets to the point where it's
hurting sales and causing customer to flee to providers with
higher quality connections (if there were any). I have little
hope that things will change since there doesn't appear to be
any significant market pressure on the providers to provided
decent connection quality.

[h***@bbs.cpcn.com]

Post by Grant Edwards
It's impossible to underestimate the
desire of the American public to sacrifice quality in return
for quantity. I think television has pretty much proven that
beyond doubt.

[sigh]

As an aside, I remember all the grand claims they made for cable TV,
how educational and cultural it would be. It turned out to be lots of
commercials (more than broadcast), lots of reruns, and lots of tabloid
junk. One "educational" channel now runs boob jobs all day long.

Post by Grant Edwards
It'll keep getting worse until it gets to the point where it's
hurting sales and causing customer to flee to providers with
higher quality connections (if there were any). I have little
hope that things will change since there doesn't appear to be
any significant market pressure on the providers to provided
decent connection quality.

I'm afraid most consumers don't know or don't care. After all, many
have installed cheap crappy landline phones in their homes where the
quality was far worse than Western Electric 500 sets. Someone once
said to me, "You sound very clear. What kind of phone are you on?" I
happened to be on a 302 set ("F" handset) from 1948, but that sounded
better. So it goes.

The big carriers advertise like crazy they offer better quality but do
they really?

Hmm, I wonder if I set my new phone to analog only if it will sound
better.

So far I wish I hadn't switched, but the batteries on my old analog
phone were shot. I used it mostly in the car off the adapter, which
was my original intent all along. But there were times I wanted to
have a phone with me.

[Grant Edwards]

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Hmm, I wonder if I set my new phone to analog only if it will
sound better.

It might, but the battery will die pretty quickly.

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
So far I wish I hadn't switched, but the batteries on my old
analog phone were shot. I used it mostly in the car off the
adapter, which was my original intent all along. But there
were times I wanted to have a phone with me.

Most of the carriers are forcing analog customers onto digital
plans whether they want to go or not. The carriers are going
to pull the plug on analog service one of these years (I don't
remember when, exactly).

[h***@bbs.cpcn.com]

Post by Grant Edwards
Most of the carriers are forcing analog customers onto digital
plans whether they want to go or not. The carriers are going
to pull the plug on analog service one of these years (I don't
remember when, exactly).

Verizon will kill analog in February 2008.

Getting back to the new battery of my phone, should I _first_
discharge it completely or charge it completely? It was delivered
half charged. Thanks.

[danny burstein]

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Verizon will kill analog in February 2008.
Getting back to the new battery of my phone, should I _first_
discharge it completely or charge it completely? It was delivered
half charged. Thanks.

You'll get 50 different answers from 25 different
people. Don't sweat it.

[Teodor Väänänen]

Post by danny burstein

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Verizon will kill analog in February 2008.
Getting back to the new battery of my phone, should I _first_
discharge it completely or charge it completely? It was delivered
half charged. Thanks.

You'll get 50 different answers from 25 different
people. Don't sweat it.

With the risk of giving you an 51st differing answer, I'd say it depends
what type of battery and what type of charger you have. My personal rule
of thumb for new rechargeable batteries (regardless of type) is as follows:

o Charge it completely, preferrably using a slow, "standard" type of
charger (sadly though, most cellphones tend to come with rapid/quick
chargers, but there are exceptions).

o Discharge it completely by normal use, i.e. use it as you intend to
use it, until the device shuts down due to low batteries, at which
point you plug in the charger and do step #1.

I always "break in" my new batteries this way the first half a dozen or
so first charges, then I repeat the above cycle whenever I feel like my
batteries need it (happens on average 1-2 times a month).

I also have the rule of thumb to avoid running a rechargeable device
connected to a external powersource if I can avoid it, as it is my
experience that it shortens the life of the battery. I've learnt this
the hard way with my previous cellphone (a Nokia2110/GSM), and strictly
following this rule with my new one (Nokia3110/GSM) gave me three years
before I had to buy a new battery (though the age of the battery has
been frustrating the last 6 months or so).

As to the sound quality of digital cell phones that was the topic a
little earlier in this thread, I have two general tips I can give, which
should be applicable to digital cell phone standards other than GSM
(which is the predominant (if not only) standard here in Europe).

The first tip is to use an external antenna if you're in a car or in an
area where the cell base stations aren't as densely packed as in cities.
It has its basis in the fact any digital signal tends to have an abrubt
quality drop when you reach low signal levels, and your description of
the sound being "choppy" suggests (at least to me) that you might have a
signal level problem, which can be resolved (within reasonable limits)
by improving the signal strength by using some other antenna than the
poor one built into the phone.

The second tip is one I read in a technical book about GSM. It has its
basis in the fact that all digital cell phone services (not just GSM)
use error correcting codes. Simply move the phone a little, directly or
indirectly (by moving yourself), causing the bit errors to move about,
making it easier for both your phone and the cell station to detect and
correct the errors. I've used it myself, and 2" to 3" seems to be
sufficient.

And since we're on the subject of cell phones, I have a question on an
idea I have on resolving a signal strength issue of a friend of mine,
whose flat apparently is located right in a "dead spot",
cell-phone-wise. My idea is to direct a yagi antenna (with 15dB or so of
amplification) towards a base station, but instead of connecting it to
the phone, I'd like to connect it to a good quarter or half-wave
antenna, located centrally in her flat. I'm not expecting miracles, only
to have a spot within a handful of yards of the 1/2 or 1/4 wave antenna
where reception is good.

The length of the cable between the antennas won't be more than 10 to 15
feet or thereabouts, so I won't expect the signal to drop more than a
couple of decibels. Is my hunch correct, that it would give the cell
phone signals an artifical path to follow, and thus improve the signal
strength locally? Has anyone of you tried something like this?

/Teo.

[Terry]

Post by Teodor Väänänen
And since we're on the subject of cell phones, I have a question on an
idea I have on resolving a signal strength issue of a friend of mine,
whose flat apparently is located right in a "dead spot",
cell-phone-wise. My idea is to direct a yagi antenna (with 15dB or so of
amplification) towards a base station, but instead of connecting it to
the phone, I'd like to connect it to a good quarter or half-wave
antenna, located centrally in her flat. I'm not expecting miracles, only
to have a spot within a handful of yards of the 1/2 or 1/4 wave antenna
where reception is good.
The length of the cable between the antennas won't be more than 10 to 15
feet or thereabouts, so I won't expect the signal to drop more than a
couple of decibels. Is my hunch correct, that it would give the cell
phone signals an artifical path to follow, and thus improve the signal
strength locally? Has anyone of you tried something like this?
/Teo.

There are commercial passive antennas made (in a normal signal strength
area) that feed into a building that stops the signal. Just the other day
saw a powered one that a customer uses to get signal into/out of their sheet
metal building.

TerryS

[Teodor Väänänen]

Post by Terry

Post by Teodor Väänänen
And since we're on the subject of cell phones, I have a question on an
idea I have on resolving a signal strength issue of a friend of mine,
whose flat apparently is located right in a "dead spot",
cell-phone-wise. My idea is to direct a yagi antenna (with 15dB or so of
amplification) towards a base station, but instead of connecting it to
the phone, I'd like to connect it to a good quarter or half-wave
antenna, located centrally in her flat. I'm not expecting miracles, only
to have a spot within a handful of yards of the 1/2 or 1/4 wave antenna
where reception is good.
The length of the cable between the antennas won't be more than 10 to 15
feet or thereabouts, so I won't expect the signal to drop more than a
couple of decibels. Is my hunch correct, that it would give the cell
phone signals an artifical path to follow, and thus improve the signal
strength locally? Has anyone of you tried something like this?
/Teo.

There are commercial passive antennas made (in a normal signal strength
area) that feed into a building that stops the signal. Just the other day
saw a powered one that a customer uses to get signal into/out of their sheet
metal building.

It's the passive approach I'm thinking of. Thanks for letting me know
that my hunch was right. I think you can do it yourself with a good Yagi
(10 dB+) on one end and a good 1/2- to 1/4-wave with enough
amplification to cancel out the loss in a low-loss cable. The only
problem I see now is to direct the Yagi properly and get the connectors
right, and depending on if I can "sell" the solution to my friend (she
was doubtful if the numbers would add up properly), I might report back
on the results (I think there has to be someone else on this newsgroup
that has the same problem).

Thanks again,

/Teo.

[Steven Lichter]

Post by Grant Edwards

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
Hmm, I wonder if I set my new phone to analog only if it will
sound better.

It might, but the battery will die pretty quickly.

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
So far I wish I hadn't switched, but the batteries on my old
analog phone were shot. I used it mostly in the car off the
adapter, which was my original intent all along. But there
were times I wanted to have a phone with me.

Most of the carriers are forcing analog customers onto digital
plans whether they want to go or not. The carriers are going
to pull the plug on analog service one of these years (I don't
remember when, exactly).

Years ago the same was said when the IMTS phone, you know the large tube
type phone in the trunk. Years ago GTE put one of their old systems
back on the air for company use having found that even the Analog phones
did not work right in the mountains. Don't know if it is still working
as I have long since retired.

[Steven Lichter]

Post by Grant Edwards

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
I just replaced my old Motorola analog flip phone (#550) with
a new digital phone.
I'm disappointed in the sound quality.

Welcome to digital: low quality sound, dropouts, and latencies
so high it's hard to carry on a normal conversation. Sure it
sucks, but it's cheap. It's impossible to underestimate the
desire of the American public to sacrifice quality in return
for quantity. I think television has pretty much proven that
beyond doubt.

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
The analog phone had reasonable sound quality and some
crosstalk. The new Motorola digital phone sound is "choppy",
as if someone has sliced off bits of the signal.

That's because they did. The more simultaneous calls they cram
into their allotted bandwidth, the lower the costs are and the
higher the profits are. As you increase calls/MHz, you decrease
sound quality. So they go to lower and lower bit-rate codecs
and allow more and more simultaneous calls. As a result,
digital cellular sounds like crap compared to a quality analog
phone.
It'll keep getting worse until it gets to the point where it's
hurting sales and causing customer to flee to providers with
higher quality connections (if there were any). I have little
hope that things will change since there doesn't appear to be
any significant market pressure on the providers to provided
decent connection quality.

I agree, my old Panasonic Bag phone being 3 watts worked just about
everywhere, my Analog hand held being 1 watt also worked most of the
time, my new Digital works almost the same, but I agree the sound does
not seem to be as good and it a lot of areas when it goes roaming it is
in Analog. But the batteries work longer and last longer then the old ones.

[John L]

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com
I'm disappointed in the sound quality. The analog phone had
reasonable sound quality and some crosstalk. The new Motorola digital
phone sound is "choppy", as if someone has sliced off bits of the
signal. (figuratively and literally).

Is it CDMA (Verizon or Sprint), GSM (Cingular/ATT or T-Mobile), or
iDen (Nextel)?

It is my impression that GSM sounds slightly less awful because the
channnels are of fixed size, as opposed to CDMA which can be adjusted
dynamically to squeeze in as many as the signal conditions will
support.

Re the battery, I agree, don't worry about it. I haven't observed
much memory effect in recent phones, since the batteries are not
nicads.

[Aaron Leonard]

On 2 May 2007 07:15:38 -0700, ***@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

~ I just replaced my old Motorola analog flip phone (#550) with a new
~ digital phone.
~
~ I'm disappointed in the sound quality. The analog phone had
~ reasonable sound quality and some crosstalk. The new Motorola digital
~ phone sound is "choppy", as if someone has sliced off bits of the
~ signal. (figuratively and literally). If the other party isn't
~ speaking clearly directly into his phone, it becomes garbled. There
~ is no cross talk at all, and often in the conversation I wondered if
~ we were still connected.

I think you meant to say "sidetone" (you hearing yourself talking)
not "crosstalk" (you hearing sounds from OTHER calls in your channel.)
I don't think crosstalk is something you would seek out.

Aaron

[h***@bbs.cpcn.com]

Post by Aaron Leonard
I think you meant to say "sidetone" (you hearing yourself talking)
not "crosstalk" (you hearing sounds from OTHER calls in your channel.)
I don't think crosstalk is something you would seek out.

Yep, I meant to say sidetone. Crosstalk is bad, we don't want that.

Anyway, the new phone has no sidetone. However, there is a slight bit
of crosstalk.

On the old analog phone, if the call was dropped, I'd know from loss
of sidetone.

[Telephoneman]

Post by h***@bbs.cpcn.com

Post by Aaron Leonard
I think you meant to say "sidetone" (you hearing yourself talking)
not "crosstalk" (you hearing sounds from OTHER calls in your channel.)
I don't think crosstalk is something you would seek out.

Yep, I meant to say sidetone. Crosstalk is bad, we don't want that.
Anyway, the new phone has no sidetone. However, there is a slight bit
of crosstalk.
On the old analog phone, if the call was dropped, I'd know from loss
of sidetone.

Yep, the lack of sidetone in Cellphones is definitely a step backwards and
no doubt responsible for people shouting into their phones in public places.
With cheap (mostly Chinese) VOIP phones also lacking sidetone it's a
phenomenon that's likely to spread to the home/office. Somehow, not hearing
yourself back through the receiver is even more disconcerting on a
"landline".


Liam