If I get an iPhone 12 with its new 5G with VZW, will I be able to manually use 4G LTE and older?

[Ant]

Hello.

If I get an iPhone 12 with its new 5G with VZW, will I be able to
manually use 4G LTE and older? I live in a rural area with crappy
cellular signals. My old iPhone 6 + can lose signal and voice services,
or have a crappy Internet at 1X and 3G beside the rare 4G LTE. I read
that 5G is even worse. :(

Thank you for reading and hopefully answering soon. :)
--
Dang life and bugs (both digital and biological)! 2021 is repeating 2020. :( Please get your vaccine shot(s) if you haven't done so! :)
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 10.08.21 um 10:28 schrieb Ant:

> If I get an iPhone 12 with its new 5G with VZW, will I be able to
> manually use 4G LTE and older?

You can turn off 5G in the settings. But that makes no sense because it
switches to the next available technology in your case LTE automatically.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

[nospam]

In article <JMedndYCt51ZpY_8...@earthlink.com>, Ant

<a...@zimage.comANT> wrote:

> If I get an iPhone 12 with its new 5G with VZW, will I be able to
> manually use 4G LTE and older?

yes. it will automatically switch if needed, or you can disable 5g.

[sms]

On 8/10/2021 1:28 AM, Ant wrote:
> Hello.
>
> If I get an iPhone 12 with its new 5G with VZW, will I be able to
> manually use 4G LTE and older?

Yes. <https://9to5mac.com/2021/04/15/turn-5g-on-off-iphone-12>. In fact
it's already being recommended to do this if you want longer battery
life between charges.

[badgolferman]

Considering it’s VZW and not TMO there probably won’t be a need to disable
5G because it will never find a 5G signal anyway!

[sms]

Lots of Verizon 5G in my area, actually more 5G on Verizon than on
T-Mobile in this area (according to T-Mobile and Verizon maps). What is
rolling out slowly is 5G ultra wideband.

[nospam]

In article <setupd$v5s$1...@dont-email.me>, badgolferman

<REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> If I get an iPhone 12 with its new 5G with VZW, will I be able to
> >> manually use 4G LTE and older?
> >
> > yes. it will automatically switch if needed, or you can disable 5g.
> >
>

> Considering itıs VZW and not TMO there probably wonıt be a need to disable

> 5G because it will never find a 5G signal anyway!

very true.

[nospam]

In article <seu5en$433$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> >
> > Considering itıs VZW and not TMO there probably wonıt be a need to disable

> > 5G because it will never find a 5G signal anyway!
>
> Lots of Verizon 5G in my area, actually more 5G on Verizon than on
> T-Mobile in this area (according to T-Mobile and Verizon maps).

bullshit.

verizon 5g currently is more limited than t-mobile and at&t.

> What is
> rolling out slowly is 5G ultra wideband.

that's the point.

[nospam]

In article <cb8ahgpcmvhm44ckt...@4ax.com>, Anthony R.

Gold <not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> wrote:

> >>> Considering itıs VZW and not TMO there probably wonıt be a need to disable
> >>> 5G because it will never find a 5G signal anyway!
> >>
> >> Lots of Verizon 5G in my area, actually more 5G on Verizon than on
> >> T-Mobile in this area (according to T-Mobile and Verizon maps).
> >
> > bullshit.
>

> So you claim to have better knowledge of what is available in sms' area than
> they?

he's shilling for verizon, as he normally does.

he's using carrier maps which are known to be unreliable. he ignores
any claims that say t-mobile has better service.

[sms]

On 8/12/2021 6:29 AM, Anthony R. Gold wrote:

> On Tue, 10 Aug 2021 11:34:43 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In article <seu5en$433$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
>> <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>

>>>> Considering it¹s VZW and not TMO there probably won¹t be a need to disable

>>>> 5G because it will never find a 5G signal anyway!
>>>
>>> Lots of Verizon 5G in my area, actually more 5G on Verizon than on
>>> T-Mobile in this area (according to T-Mobile and Verizon maps).
>>
>> bullshit.
>

> So you claim to have better knowledge of what is available in sms' area than
> they?

LOL, I guess he doesn't believe T-Mobile's coverage maps!

[nospam]

In article <sf3a6q$7qc$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> >>>> Considering it1s VZW and not TMO there probably won1t be a need to

> >>>> disable
> >>>> 5G because it will never find a 5G signal anyway!
> >>>
> >>> Lots of Verizon 5G in my area, actually more 5G on Verizon than on
> >>> T-Mobile in this area (according to T-Mobile and Verizon maps).
> >>
> >> bullshit.
> >
> > So you claim to have better knowledge of what is available in sms' area than
> > they?
>
> LOL, I guess he doesn't believe T-Mobile's coverage maps!

i believe people who have actually used t-mobile, verizon and at&t, aka
real world data, something you should try sometime.

[badgolferman]

Do you believe Arlen in this case?

[sms]

LOL. nospam is wrong of course™.

I have used AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon. I currently have a line on
T-Mobile as well. I have never used Sprint.

I find the coverage maps from the carriers to be quite accurate, and
they do not claim coverage in areas where they do not have coverage.

In the San Francisco Bay Area, and to the east into the Mother Lode
area, there are urban areas as well as sparsely populated areas along
the coast and greenbelt, and into the Sierras. The differences in
coverage are significant, as the carrier's maps all show.

What happened in rural Amador, Alpine, Calaveras, Tuolumne and Mariposa
Counties is that they were served by a small CDMA carrier called Golden
State Cellular, which Verizon and Sprint roamed on, and which Verizon
purchased in 2014. AT&T didn't make much of an effort since the capital
expenditures would have been too much for the small number of
subscribers, and T-Mobile didn't even exist.

In the rural coastal areas of the Bay Area, AT&T (nee Cingular, nee
AT&T) and Verizon had a lot of coverage all the way back to the AMPS
days of analog service from the GTE Mobilnet and Cellular One networks,
which Sprint and T-Mobile made no effort to duplicate, depending on
roaming onto Verizon and AT&T respectively. But that roaming is gone now.

<https://imgur.com/a/O8WmLrs>
<https://imgur.com/CpMuMmC>

[badgolferman]

I think you purposely go look for desolate spots where no one lives.
Those people probably also don't have high speed internet or cable
service either. They probably don't care either.

[sms]

On 8/12/2021 6:29 AM, Anthony R. Gold wrote:

<snip>

>>> What is
>>> rolling out slowly is 5G ultra wideband.
>>
>> that's the point.
>

> No, that's a point.

Verizon in my area has been concentrating on 5G UW to be able to sell
home broadband service (and some residents object to those 5G cells
being placed on streetlight poles).

In some parts of the Bay Area T-Mobile has deployed more low-band 5G
than Verizon, and vice-versa. I think that Verizon figures that they
already have sufficient capacity and speed for phone data on their LTE
network.

T-Mobile's 4G LTE network has slower speeds than AT&T or Verizon's 4G
network, which is how T-Mobile ended up last in network speed in the
latest Rootmetrics study. Since most people are still using 4G phones,
and since AT&T and Verizon have much greater geographic coverage, the
advantage T-Mobile gets by having added low band 5G to more of their
existing 4G cells doesn't get them a lot.

And of course the while 5G deployment, at least for phone data, has been
about increasing capacity by increasing speeds.

"For their overall mobile networks including both 5G and LTE, Verizon
scored highest after winning in the categories of reliability,
accessibility, data and calls. But AT&T had the fastest speeds at 42Mbps
on average for both LTE and 5G, according to the report, followed by
Verizon at 36Mbps and T-Mobile at 20Mbps."

[badgolferman]

sms wrote:

>"For their overall mobile networks including both 5G and LTE, Verizon
>scored highest after winning in the categories of reliability,
>accessibility, data and calls. But AT&T had the fastest speeds at
>42Mbps on average for both LTE and 5G, according to the report,
>followed by Verizon at 36Mbps and T-Mobile at 20Mbps."

I already posted a picture of my Tmobile 5G speed before.
641Mbps Download / 19.7Mbps Upload

Does that look like 20Mbps to you?

[nospam]

In article <sf3ila$73r$1...@dont-email.me>, badgolferman
<REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> sms wrote:
> ...

>
> I think you purposely go look for desolate spots where no one lives.

that's exactly what does, and worse, he knows he can lie about coverage
in such places because nobody is going to verify it.

> Those people probably also don't have high speed internet or cable
> service either. They probably don't care either.

there aren't very many people there, if any.

[nospam]

In article <sf3ip1$724$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> Verizon in my area has been concentrating on 5G UW to be able to sell
> home broadband service (and some residents object to those 5G cells
> being placed on streetlight poles).

that's different than for phones.

>
> T-Mobile's 4G LTE network has slower speeds than AT&T or Verizon's 4G
> network, which is how T-Mobile ended up last in network speed in the
> latest Rootmetrics study.

you mea verizon ended up in last place.

from a year ago:
<https://www.fiercewireless.com/operators/at-t-t-mobile-outshine-verizon-
q2-mobile-performance-ookla>
Both AT&T and T-Mobile nabbed bragging rights in Q2 mobile
performance, according to new analysis by Ookla. AT&Tąs 4G LTE
network ranked fastest and most consistent, while T-Mobileąs 5G
coverage dwarfed that of its two competitors.

> Since most people are still using 4G phones,
> and since AT&T and Verizon have much greater geographic coverage, the
> advantage T-Mobile gets by having added low band 5G to more of their
> existing 4G cells doesn't get them a lot.

yes it does.

[sms]

Sorry, I should have made it clear that I was referring to the 3 million
tests RootMetrics performed across the country, not to your single test.

<https://rootmetrics.com/en-US/content/us-state-of-the-mobile-union-1h-2021>

[sms]

On 8/12/2021 9:35 AM, badgolferman wrote:
>

<snip>

> I think you purposely go look for desolate spots where no one lives.
> Those people probably also don't have high speed internet or cable
> service either. They probably don't care either.

All the carriers do reasonably well at covering urban areas. We like to
go to place like State and National Parks, as well as through the rural
areas necessary to get there.

Yes, definitely not a lot of people live in those areas, but on the
other hand it's not true that no one lives in those areas. For many
people, including myself, I like having coverage in these kinds of
places for multiple reasons. First, in case of a need to call for help,
like emergency road service (though calling 911 on other carriers is
still possible). Second, we often travel with other families and want to
coordinate thing while on the road.

I understand that some people never travel outside urban areas, either
their own or to locations that they fly to. For those people, probably
not a lot of upside of paying extra money for a carrier with better
coverage.

It's fair enough that a smaller carrier decides that there's no upside
in making the capital investments necessary to provide coverage in
sparsely populated areas.

There's also no upside in misstating the coverage differences between
carriers. When this happens it's almost like someone is desperately
defending their buying decision because they don't want to appear to
have made a bad choice. When presented with the evidence, either with
carrier maps or with crowd-sourced coverage reports, all they can
respond with is "bullshit" or some other such content-free response.

The best option for those that want the value of T-Mobile pricing is to
carry a second phone (or use a dual-SIM phone) and have a cheap account
on an MVNO that uses AT&T or Verizon. For AT&T you can actually do this
with zero monthly cost, and pay by the voice minute, number of SMS, and
MB of data. Since you'd only need it when you're on the road in places
with no Wi-Fi and no T-Mobile coverage, and only use it in urgent
situations, the cost would be minimal.

[nospam]

In article <sf3l6h$oi5$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

yawn.

<https://www.fiercewireless.com/operators/at-t-t-mobile-outshine-verizon-
q2-mobile-performance-ookla>
Both AT&T and T-Mobile nabbed bragging rights in Q2 mobile
performance, according to new analysis by Ookla. AT&Tąs 4G LTE
network ranked fastest and most consistent, while T-Mobileąs 5G
coverage dwarfed that of its two competitors.

<https://www.whistleout.com/CellPhones/Guides/fastest-wireless-speeeds>
T-Mobile takes the prize for the fastest download and upload speeds.
Out of the 114,260 folks that we sampled, T-Mobile averaged these
download and upload speeds:
€ Download speed: 34.0 Mbps 
€ Upload speed: 12.42 Mbps
You can expect T-Mobile to give you the best experience streaming,
gaming, and using social media apps. 
...
T-Mobile leads the pack with both download and upload speeds,
making it a very strong contender for the best carrier out there in
terms of network performance.

beware of the very ugly font:
<https://speedsmart.net/blog/post/2003/Fastest-Mobile-Network-Q1-2021>
Who has the fastest mobile network in the United States? For Q1 2021
T-Mobile had the fastest 5G network in the United States followed
closely by Verizon. AT&T had the fastest 4G LTE network in the United
States followed by T-Mobile. Both Verizon and T-Mobile showed
impressive 5G network download speed for the country as a whole.
Looking at individual cities below many locations show an average
download speed of well over 100 Mbps on 5G. When it comes to
latency AT&T is the clear winner beating both T-Mobile and Verizon.

<https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/fastest-4g-lte-network-in-the-us-at-t-
leads-according-to-ookla/>
In its latest report chronicling US wireless network performance
during the first half of 2019, Ookla found that AT&T's 4G LTE
network -- err, "5GE" -- was the fastest 4G network in the US,
though all four networks showed marked improvements during
the period. T-Mobile was second, followed by Sprint and Verizon. 

<https://www.fiercewireless.com/operators/at-t-overtakes-rivals-for-fast
est-download-speeds-opensignal>
AT&T has climbed to the top spot for fastest average 3G and 4G LTE
download speeds, overtaking T-Mobile and Verizon, according to new
data from Opensignal.

[nospam]

In article <sf3lvf$v8t$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> > I think you purposely go look for desolate spots where no one lives.
> > Those people probably also don't have high speed internet or cable
> > service either. They probably don't care either.
>
> All the carriers do reasonably well at covering urban areas.

that's the whole point.

> We like to
> go to place like State and National Parks, as well as through the rural
> areas necessary to get there.

many people do, which is why all carriers have coverage there.

every carrier has dead spots *somewhere*.

> There's also no upside in misstating the coverage differences between
> carriers. When this happens it's almost like someone is desperately
> defending their buying decision because they don't want to appear to
> have made a bad choice. When presented with the evidence, either with
> carrier maps or with crowd-sourced coverage reports, all they can
> respond with is "bullshit" or some other such content-free response.

projection.

> The best option for those that want the value of T-Mobile pricing is to
> carry a second phone (or use a dual-SIM phone) and have a cheap account
> on an MVNO that uses AT&T or Verizon.

no, that very definitely isn't 'the best option', regardless of carrier.

> For AT&T you can actually do this
> with zero monthly cost, and pay by the voice minute, number of SMS, and
> MB of data.

really? so if i call at&t and say 'i want the zero monthly cost plan',
they'll hook me up?

you're so full of shit.

[badgolferman]

nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <sf3l6h$oi5$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
> <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> "For their overall mobile networks including both 5G and LTE, Verizon
>>>> scored highest after winning in the categories of reliability,
>>>> accessibility, data and calls. But AT&T had the fastest speeds at
>>>> 42Mbps on average for both LTE and 5G, according to the report,
>>>> followed by Verizon at 36Mbps and T-Mobile at 20Mbps."
>>>
>>>
>>> I already posted a picture of my Tmobile 5G speed before.
>>> 641Mbps Download / 19.7Mbps Upload
>>>
>>> Does that look like 20Mbps to you?
>>
>> Sorry, I should have made it clear that I was referring to the 3 million
>> tests RootMetrics performed across the country, not to your single test.
>>
>> <https://rootmetrics.com/en-US/content/us-state-of-the-mobile-union-1h-2021>
>
> yawn.
>
> <https://www.fiercewireless.com/operators/at-t-t-mobile-outshine-verizon-
> q2-mobile-performance-ookla>
> Both AT&T and T-Mobile nabbed bragging rights in Q2 mobile

> performance, according to new analysis by Ookla. AT&T¹s 4G LTE
> network ranked fastest and most consistent, while T-Mobile¹s 5G

sms reminds me of the kid who plugs his ears and goes “nah nah nah” so he
won’t hear anything he doesn’t like. Do you think he will bother looking at
those reports?

[nospam]

In article <sf4ad0$ime$1...@dont-email.me>, badgolferman

<REMOVETHISb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>> I already posted a picture of my Tmobile 5G speed before.
> >>> 641Mbps Download / 19.7Mbps Upload
> >>>
> >>> Does that look like 20Mbps to you?
> >>
> >> Sorry, I should have made it clear that I was referring to the 3 million
> >> tests RootMetrics performed across the country, not to your single test.
> >>
> >>
> >> <https://rootmetrics.com/en-US/content/us-state-of-the-mobile-union-1h-2021>
> >>
> >
> > yawn.
> >
> > <https://www.fiercewireless.com/operators/at-t-t-mobile-outshine-verizon-
> > q2-mobile-performance-ookla>
> > Both AT&T and T-Mobile nabbed bragging rights in Q2 mobile

> > performance, according to new analysis by Ookla. AT&T1s 4G LTE
> > network ranked fastest and most consistent, while T-Mobile1s 5G

> > coverage dwarfed that of its two competitors.
> >
> > <https://www.whistleout.com/CellPhones/Guides/fastest-wireless-speeeds>
> > T-Mobile takes the prize for the fastest download and upload speeds.
> > Out of the 114,260 folks that we sampled, T-Mobile averaged these
> > download and upload speeds:

> > ? Download speed: 34.0 Mbps 
> > ? Upload speed: 12.42 Mbps

he might, but only to find something about it that's wrong so he can
claim it's worthless and push his surveys.

the reality is that each carrier has dead spots as well as well covered
areas.

pick the carrier that has the best coverage in the places you frequent.

[badgolferman]

I carry two phones:
— personal TMO iPhone 12
— work VZW iPhone 8

You know that I can very easily compare the coverage and speeds of both
carriers simultaneously? I’m sure whatever I reported wouldn’t change your
mind whatsoever.

[sms]

On 8/12/2021 6:47 PM, badgolferman wrote:

> You know that I can very easily compare the coverage and speeds of both
> carriers simultaneously? I’m sure whatever I reported wouldn’t change your
> mind whatsoever.

Sadly, you're correct. One person's tests versus 3 million independent
tests won't change my mind.

BTW, I have a phone on Verizon's network and a phone on T-Mobile's
network too. But even though the coverage differences I experience are
significant, I will defer to entities that do millions of tests, and
I'll defer to what the carriers themselves state their coverage is.

[nospam]

In article <sf4jkb$a77$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> On 8/12/2021 6:47 PM, badgolferman wrote:
> > You know that I can very easily compare the coverage and speeds of both

> > carriers simultaneously? Iım sure whatever I reported wouldnıt change your

> > mind whatsoever.
>
> Sadly, you're correct. One person's tests versus 3 million independent
> tests won't change my mind.

the only tests that matter are the ones he does in the places where he
goes.

> BTW, I have a phone on Verizon's network and a phone on T-Mobile's
> network too. But even though the coverage differences I experience are
> significant,

your experience does not match everyone else, certainly not where you
live.

> I will defer to entities that do millions of tests, and
> I'll defer to what the carriers themselves state their coverage is.

they don't say what you think they do.

[K S Mathoda]

My son has an iPhone Pro Plus -- he just took the LTE SIM from his iPhone 6 Plus and moved it as he did not want to waste time trying to activate with the new SIM. I gave my iPhone12 mini to my daughter and she did the same thing. Both phones are working without any problems. I have a 12 Pro - I activated the eSIM which is built into the phone as I wanted to put in a second SIM for travel.

You do NOT have to do anything to deactivate 5G - it is the SIM that delivers 5G (of course the phone also has electronics to support 5G).

On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 4:28:59 AM UTC-4, Ant wrote:
> Hello.

>
> If I get an iPhone 12 with its new 5G with VZW, will I be able to

> manually use 4G LTE and older? I live in a rural area with crappy
> cellular signals. My old iPhone 6 + can lose signal and voice services,
> or have a crappy Internet at 1X and 3G beside the rare 4G LTE. I read
> that 5G is even worse. :(
>
> Thank you for reading and hopefully answering soon. :)
> --
> Dang life and bugs (both digital and biological)! 2021 is repeating 2020. :( Please get your vaccine shot(s) if you haven't done so! :)
> Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
> /\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
> / /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
> | |o o| |
> \ _ /
> ( )

[sms]

I did one better today. Concerned that speed differences between
networks would occur when tested on different phones, I did tests
between two networks on the same phone with dual-SIM capability.

On my new iPhone I installed the “T-Mobile Test Drive” using the eSIM
"slot" (after using an rSIM to unlock the phone). So both Verizon (on
Total Wireless), and T-Mobile, were tested on the same phone in the same
location in my dining room, a minute apart.

T-Mobile Test Drive
Ping: 82ms
Jitter: 680ms
Download: 1.86 Mb/s
Upload: 0.04 Mb/s

Verizon (Total Wireless)
Ping: 77ms
Jitter: 3ms
Download: 82.4 Mb/s
Upload: 16.2 Mb/s

Are these poor LTE data speeds typical for T-Mobile? Of course not. It
highlights the danger of depending on one person doing a single test, in
one place, and then proclaiming that that “proves” anything.

I’ve had poor coverage on T-Mobile at my house ever since Pacific Bell
first started the service that eventually became Cingular GSM and then
became T-Mobile (when Cingular bought AT&T and sold their 1900 MHz GSM
network to T-Mobile then renamed Cingular to AT&T). What’s odd is that
since that time T-Mobile has installed multiple new sites that are close
to my house, but I guess there's some kind of a dead spot.

[nospam]

In article <sf6l1p$a8b$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> On my new iPhone I installed the łT-Mobile Test Drive˛ using the eSIM

> "slot" (after using an rSIM to unlock the phone).

unless you financed it, it ships unlocked.

> So both Verizon (on
> Total Wireless), and T-Mobile, were tested on the same phone in the same
> location in my dining room, a minute apart.
>
> T-Mobile Test Drive
> Ping: 82ms
> Jitter: 680ms
> Download: 1.86 Mb/s
> Upload: 0.04 Mb/s
>
> Verizon (Total Wireless)
> Ping: 77ms
> Jitter: 3ms
> Download: 82.4 Mb/s
> Upload: 16.2 Mb/s
>
> Are these poor LTE data speeds typical for T-Mobile? Of course not. It
> highlights the danger of depending on one person doing a single test, in

> one place, and then proclaiming that that łproves˛ anything.

exactly why people disregard your claims about verizon.

> Iąve had poor coverage on T-Mobile at my house ever since Pacific Bell

> first started the service that eventually became Cingular GSM and then
> became T-Mobile (when Cingular bought AT&T and sold their 1900 MHz GSM

> network to T-Mobile then renamed Cingular to AT&T). Whatąs odd is that

> since that time T-Mobile has installed multiple new sites that are close
> to my house, but I guess there's some kind of a dead spot.

that just means you live in a t-mobile dead spot, assuming the story is
even true.

other people live in a verizon dead spot. there are several of those
near me.

[badgolferman]

And what were your 5G speeds?

[sms]

0 Mb/s. Which is the same as the 86% of U.S. mobile phone users in the
U.S. that don't have 5G phones.

You're obsessed with ignoring the realities of speed and coverage in the
U.S..

[Ant]

So, I got a 12 mini. Wow, its VZW service is worse than my former iPhones since
they could use 3G and even 1X. This new one can't even do basic cellular phone
calls and textings. I went to the local VZW store (reactivated and tested) and
other areas, and they were fine. I can get weak 5G and 4G LTE if I go outside
down the giant hills facing the city and pacific ocean. I also found out iPhone
12 mini can do old CMDA, but VZW doesn't want that in their newer smartphones.
:(

In alt.cellular.verizon Ant <a...@zimage.comant> wrote:
> Hello.

> If I get an iPhone 12 with its new 5G with VZW, will I be able to
> manually use 4G LTE and older? I live in a rural area with crappy
> cellular signals. My old iPhone 6 + can lose signal and voice services,
> or have a crappy Internet at 1X and 3G beside the rare 4G LTE. I read
> that 5G is even worse. :(

> Thank you for reading and hopefully answering soon. :)
--

Slammy times! 2021 is repeating 2020. :( Please get your vaccine shot(s) if you haven't done so! :)

[nospam]

In article <apWdncnM7_jopIr8...@earthlink.com>, Ant

<a...@zimage.comANT> wrote:


> I also found out
> iPhone
> 12 mini can do old CMDA, but VZW doesn't want that in their newer
> smartphones.

nobody does. it's obsolete. verizon will turn off cdma next year and
sprint will do the same in about 5 months.

[Ant]

Oh boy, my rural area is going to have fun when they lose CDMA services. :O

[Ant]

Interesting. Comparing an almost two years old iPhone 11 Pro Max and my new
iPhone 12 mini, with the same VZW plan, show completely different results even
side by side. When iPhone 12 mini has no service, iPhone 11 Pro Max has 3-4
bars (4G LTE / 3G). :/

In misc.phone.mobile.iphone Ant <a...@zimage.comant> wrote:
> So, I got a 12 mini. Wow, its VZW service is worse than my former iPhones since
> they could use 3G and even 1X. This new one can't even do basic cellular phone
> calls and textings. I went to the local VZW store (reactivated and tested) and
> other areas, and they were fine. I can get weak 5G and 4G LTE if I go outside
> down the giant hills facing the city and pacific ocean. I also found out iPhone
> 12 mini can do old CMDA, but VZW doesn't want that in their newer smartphones.
> :(

...

[nospam]

In article <HIWdnTgB0ori04r8...@earthlink.com>, Ant

<a...@zimage.comANT> wrote:

> Interesting. Comparing an almost two years old iPhone 11 Pro Max and my new
> iPhone 12 mini, with the same VZW plan, show completely different results
> even
> side by side. When iPhone 12 mini has no service, iPhone 11 Pro Max has 3-4
> bars (4G LTE / 3G). :/

check the 5g settings.

it may also be defective.

take both to an apple store (not a verizon store) for a full diagnostic.

[nospam]

In article <HIWdnTkB0ooW0Ir8...@earthlink.com>, Ant

<a...@zimage.comANT> wrote:

> > > I also found out
> > > iPhone
> > > 12 mini can do old CMDA, but VZW doesn't want that in their newer
> > > smartphones.
>
> > nobody does. it's obsolete. verizon will turn off cdma next year and
> > sprint will do the same in about 5 months.
>
> Oh boy, my rural area is going to have fun when they lose CDMA services. :O

they've had ample warning.

it was supposed to have been shut off 2 years ago but was extended.

[sms]

On 8/13/2021 8:33 PM, Ant wrote:
> So, I got a 12 mini. Wow, its VZW service is worse than my former iPhones since
> they could use 3G and even 1X. This new one can't even do basic cellular phone
> calls and textings. I went to the local VZW store (reactivated and tested) and
> other areas, and they were fine. I can get weak 5G and 4G LTE if I go outside
> down the giant hills facing the city and pacific ocean. I also found out iPhone
> 12 mini can do old CMDA, but VZW doesn't want that in their newer smartphones.

Hmm, the 12 Mini has a 4x4 MIMO antenna system, so that's odd that
reception is worse.

My new Xr has the lower-end 2x2 MIMO (Apple even faced a class action
lawsuit about that, though they never claimed that the Xr had a 4x4 MIMO
antenna system
<https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/05/06/apple-facing-second-lawsuit-over-iphone-xrs-inferior-2x2-mimo-antennas>).

The 12 Mini is certainly capable of CDMA2000 for both voice and data,
but it looks like the newer iPhones with a Verizon SIM don't allow you
to manually turn off VoLTE and turning off LTE data doesn't stop VoLTE
calls, so even if you turned off data it would not help; you'll only get
CDMA when there's no LTE signal at all.

I'm pretty sure that my old 6s Plus allowed VoLTE to be turned off, but
I can't remember and it's a hassle to swap SIM cards to check. I guess
it's understandable why Verizon did this, but it's annoying. My Samsung
Note 9 allows VoLTE to be turned off, but I keep it on. There have been
a couple of times in the past year where I automatically dropped back to
CDMA, once north of Fort Bragg California, and once in Zion National
Park. In Fort Bragg I was roaming onto U.S. Cellular.

It's a similar situation to what Sprint users ran into back when Sprint
was able to roam on Verizon. Sprint only roamed on Verizon if there was
absolutely no detectable Sprint signal, but often there was a Sprint
signal that was strong enough to prevent roaming, but too weak to make
or receive calls. There was even an Android App (for HTC and Samsung
phones) that forced roaming by turning off the 1900 MHz radio, though
this didn't work in the areas where Verizon was 1900 MHz only (Florida
and parts of Texas) <https://sites.google.com/site/roamcontrol/home>. A
few Sprint users went even further and modified their PRLs to roam on
Verizon. Sprint put the kibosh on all this by limiting the percentage of
off-network roaming that users could do until their accounts were
terminated.

[sms]

On 8/13/2021 9:58 PM, Ant wrote:
> In misc.phone.mobile.iphone nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> In article <apWdncnM7_jopIr8...@earthlink.com>, Ant
>> <a...@zimage.comANT> wrote:
>
>
>>> I also found out
>>> iPhone
>>> 12 mini can do old CMDA, but VZW doesn't want that in their newer
>>> smartphones.
>
>> nobody does. it's obsolete. verizon will turn off cdma next year and
>> sprint will do the same in about 5 months.
>
> Oh boy, my rural area is going to have fun when they lose CDMA services. :O

This is odd. Unless they have LTE and CDMA cell sites in different areas
or with differently aimed antennas, LTE should work just as well.

It's not like GSM which struggled in rural areas because of the distance
limit of 35km, LTE has a 100km distance limit. A lot of rural carriers
went with CDMA instead of GSM because of this advantage of CDMA since
they could get by with fewer cell sites to cover a given area, even
though it was a little more expensive to buy the CDMA equipment. This is
one reason that even now Verizon has better rural coverage than AT&T,
the CDMA carriers invested in a lot more infrastructure in those areas.

Verizon keeps pushing out the CDMA sunset date, not because there are
still many, if any, phones that are not VoLTE capable, they're pushing
it out because there are so many IOT devices on CDMA, including a lot of
OnStar-equipped vehicles, not all of which are upgradable to different
cellular radios. I wonder if Verizon had some sort of an agreement with
GM to support OnStar CDMA for a certain number of years.

[sms]

On 8/13/2021 10:02 PM, Ant wrote:
> Interesting. Comparing an almost two years old iPhone 11 Pro Max and my new
> iPhone 12 mini, with the same VZW plan, show completely different results even
> side by side. When iPhone 12 mini has no service, iPhone 11 Pro Max has 3-4
> bars (4G LTE / 3G). :/

What happens when you turn off the 5G radio in the 12 Mini?

[nospam]

In article <sf8qqn$qj7$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> It's a similar situation to what Sprint users ran into back when Sprint
> was able to roam on Verizon. Sprint only roamed on Verizon if there was
> absolutely no detectable Sprint signal, but often there was a Sprint
> signal that was strong enough to prevent roaming, but too weak to make
> or receive calls.

as someone who has used sprint rather extensively, that is absolutely
false.

> Sprint put the kibosh on all this by limiting the percentage of
> off-network roaming that users could do until their accounts were
> terminated.

that's always been in sprint's terms of service because long ago,
sprint offered different prices in different areas.

what they did not want was someone getting service in a location where
service was cheap and then using the phone most of the time or perhaps
all of the time in a location where service was more expensive.

it also was also something that was not enforced unless it was clear
that the customer was fraudulently obtaining service versus just
roaming a lot.

[%%]

sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote

Yes, by 6S does.

[Ant]

I noticed it depends on locations. There are tons of giant hills, slopes, small
mountains, trees, etc. If I face the pacific ocean from a high side, then I can
get decent connections.

[Ant]

In misc.phone.mobile.iphone nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

Even when iPhone 12 mini's work well outside like down the hills away from my
home, stores (not Apple's), etc.?

[Ant]

In misc.phone.mobile.iphone sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

If you mean iOS v14.7.1's Voice & Data option to LTE, then still very weak
signals and "No Service" in my rural home area.

[nospam]

In article <yJKdnXymdYeaioX8...@earthlink.com>, Ant

<a...@zimage.comANT> wrote:

> > > Interesting. Comparing an almost two years old iPhone 11 Pro Max and my
> > > new
> > > iPhone 12 mini, with the same VZW plan, show completely different results
> > > even
> > > side by side. When iPhone 12 mini has no service, iPhone 11 Pro Max has
> > > 3-4
> > > bars (4G LTE / 3G). :/
>
> > check the 5g settings.
>
> > it may also be defective.
>
> > take both to an apple store (not a verizon store) for a full diagnostic.
>
> Even when iPhone 12 mini's work well outside like down the hills away from my
> home, stores (not Apple's), etc.?

what you describe is not normal.

it might be a setting that needs to be changed, or it might be
defective hardware.

[Lewis]

In message <140820211406237060%nos...@nospam.invalid> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <sf8qqn$qj7$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
> <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

>> It's a similar situation to what Sprint users ran into back when Sprint
>> was able to roam on Verizon. Sprint only roamed on Verizon if there was
>> absolutely no detectable Sprint signal, but often there was a Sprint
>> signal that was strong enough to prevent roaming, but too weak to make
>> or receive calls.

> as someone who has used sprint rather extensively, that is absolutely
> false.

Everything sms has ever said about mobile carriers in the US is at BEST
ignorant faff and at worst outright lies.

--
'Life's like a beach. And then you die.' --Small Gods

[sms]

On 8/14/2021 12:22 PM, Ant wrote:
> In misc.phone.mobile.iphone sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> On 8/13/2021 10:02 PM, Ant wrote:
>>> Interesting. Comparing an almost two years old iPhone 11 Pro Max and my new
>>> iPhone 12 mini, with the same VZW plan, show completely different results even
>>> side by side. When iPhone 12 mini has no service, iPhone 11 Pro Max has 3-4
>>> bars (4G LTE / 3G). :/
>
>> What happens when you turn off the 5G radio in the 12 Mini?
>
> If you mean iOS v14.7.1's Voice & Data option to LTE, then still very weak
> signals and "No Service" in my rural home area.

You might need to switch to a Samsung Galaxy device if you're in a weak
signal area since they have antennas that work better in areas with weak
signals. See
<https://smartphonesrevealed.com/phones-with-best-antenna/>. I don't see
the 12 Mini in the list, but you can see how much poorer the iPhones did
than the Samsung Galaxy phones.

The Samsung Galaxy Note 20 Ultra 5G was at 95/100. The Apple iPhone 12
Pro Max 5G was at 84/100. You can also see how poorly the iPhones with
the 2x2 MIMO antenna did, the Apple iPhone SE 2020 was at 59/100.

[Ant]

In misc.phone.mobile.iphone sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

...

> You might need to switch to a Samsung Galaxy device if you're in a weak
> signal area since they have antennas that work better in areas with weak
> signals. See
> <https://smartphonesrevealed.com/phones-with-best-antenna/>. I don't see
> the 12 Mini in the list, but you can see how much poorer the iPhones did
> than the Samsung Galaxy phones.

> The Samsung Galaxy Note 20 Ultra 5G was at 95/100. The Apple iPhone 12
> Pro Max 5G was at 84/100. You can also see how poorly the iPhones with
> the 2x2 MIMO antenna did, the Apple iPhone SE 2020 was at 59/100.

Interesting. 11 (no Pro Max?) and 12 (not Mini) did better. Too bad no listed
older models like 6 +.

[nospam]

In article <KPidnTQdg71Fg4X8...@earthlink.com>, Ant

<a...@zimage.comANT> wrote:

> In misc.phone.mobile.iphone sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> > You might need to switch to a Samsung Galaxy device if you're in a weak
> > signal area since they have antennas that work better in areas with weak
> > signals. See
> > <https://smartphonesrevealed.com/phones-with-best-antenna/>. I don't see
> > the 12 Mini in the list, but you can see how much poorer the iPhones did
> > than the Samsung Galaxy phones.
>
> > The Samsung Galaxy Note 20 Ultra 5G was at 95/100. The Apple iPhone 12
> > Pro Max 5G was at 84/100. You can also see how poorly the iPhones with
> > the 2x2 MIMO antenna did, the Apple iPhone SE 2020 was at 59/100.
>
> Interesting. 11 (no Pro Max?) and 12 (not Mini) did better. Too bad no listed
> older models like 6 +.

ignore it. it's another one of his bogus links.

[nospam]

In article <sf96d9$q8v$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> You might need to switch to a Samsung Galaxy device if you're in a weak
> signal area since they have antennas that work better in areas with weak
> signals.

no need, and another one of your trolls.

> See
> <https://smartphonesrevealed.com/phones-with-best-antenna/>. I don't see
> the 12 Mini in the list, but you can see how much poorer the iPhones did
> than the Samsung Galaxy phones.

that's a list of phones sorted by the reciprocal of the sar value,
which has absolutely nothing to do with reception or sensitivity.

you might want to learn about what sar means before citing something
based on it, not that it will stop you from trolling.

[sms]

On 8/14/2021 12:51 PM, Ant wrote:
> In misc.phone.mobile.iphone sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> ...
>> You might need to switch to a Samsung Galaxy device if you're in a weak
>> signal area since they have antennas that work better in areas with weak
>> signals. See
>> <https://smartphonesrevealed.com/phones-with-best-antenna/>. I don't see
>> the 12 Mini in the list, but you can see how much poorer the iPhones did
>> than the Samsung Galaxy phones.
>
>> The Samsung Galaxy Note 20 Ultra 5G was at 95/100. The Apple iPhone 12
>> Pro Max 5G was at 84/100. You can also see how poorly the iPhones with
>> the 2x2 MIMO antenna did, the Apple iPhone SE 2020 was at 59/100.
>
> Interesting. 11 (no Pro Max?) and 12 (not Mini) did better. Too bad no listed
> older models like 6 +.

Since prior to Xs there were no iPhones with 4x4 MIMO, so I would expect
the 6+ to have done poorer in that regard. But you never can tell. The
antenna design and placement was different and it supported fewer bands.
Every time more bands, at new frequencies, are added there are more
compromises in the antenna design. There has been some interest in
"frequency reconfigurable antennas" but I don't think any mobile phone
maker is using them yet.

[nospam]

In article <sf97av$d1i$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> > In misc.phone.mobile.iphone sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> >> You might need to switch to a Samsung Galaxy device if you're in a weak
> >> signal area since they have antennas that work better in areas with weak
> >> signals. See
> >> <https://sm

>

> Since prior to Xs there were no iPhones with 4x4 MIMO, so I would expect
> the 6+ to have done poorer in that regard. But you never can tell.

you certainly can't, since the link above has nothing to do with 4x4
mimo.

> The
> antenna design and placement was different and it supported fewer bands.

actually the 6s had bands for all carriers whereas later models split
it.

> Every time more bands, at new frequencies, are added there are more
> compromises in the antenna design.

nope, since the bands are within the full range of the antenna.

[sms]

On 8/14/2021 12:51 PM, Ant wrote:

> In misc.phone.mobile.iphone sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> ...
>> You might need to switch to a Samsung Galaxy device if you're in a weak
>> signal area since they have antennas that work better in areas with weak
>> signals. See
>> <https://smartphonesrevealed.com/phones-with-best-antenna/>. I don't see
>> the 12 Mini in the list, but you can see how much poorer the iPhones did
>> than the Samsung Galaxy phones.
>
>> The Samsung Galaxy Note 20 Ultra 5G was at 95/100. The Apple iPhone 12
>> Pro Max 5G was at 84/100. You can also see how poorly the iPhones with
>> the 2x2 MIMO antenna did, the Apple iPhone SE 2020 was at 59/100.
>
> Interesting. 11 (no Pro Max?) and 12 (not Mini) did better. Too bad no listed
> older models like 6 +.

The radios and antennas in iPhones have been an issue ever since the
early iPhones.

Companies like Samsung and Motorola had a lot more technical expertise
in radios and antennas, while Apple excelled at the UI.

The iPhone 4 antenna debacle was the most publicized, but the radios and
antennas in the iPhones have always lagged the competition. See:
<https://web.archive.org/web/20080912043828/http://discussions.apple.com:80/thread.jspa?threadID=1602608>.

This mattered more before the density of cell sites increased, but in
more rural areas, like yours, it's still an issue.

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 14.08.21 um 21:25 schrieb Lewis:

No worries! Everybody knows that sms is spreading fake news and lies. To
suggest the purchase of a Samsung device in a iPhone-group is braindead
trolling and disqualifies him.


--
De gustibus non est disputandum

[nospam]

In article <sfa4qr$76e$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> The radios and antennas in iPhones have been an issue ever since the
> early iPhones.

trolling.

> Companies like Samsung and Motorola had a lot more technical expertise
> in radios and antennas, while Apple excelled at the UI.

bullshit. apple could easily afford to hire the best people with
technical expertise in radios and antennas, and did exactly that.

apple also built some of the most advanced antenna design labs anywhere.

> The iPhone 4 antenna debacle was the most publicized, but the radios and
> antennas in the iPhones have always lagged the competition.

more bullshit. the iphone 4 antenna was a major advancement in antenna
design. call drop rates, for example, were less than with other phones.


many other phones were worse, some with specific instructions how to
hold their phones so to avoid reception problems.

samsung galaxy s iii:
<https://www.droid-life.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/tumblr-m5fql0ybHB
1qcigboo1-1280.png>
Ensure that you are not blocking the device's internal antenna.
..
Do not touch the device's internal antenna. Doing so may result in
reduced call quality or cause the device to emit unintended levels
of radio frequency (RF) energy.

htc evo, where they describe it as both a reception issue *and* a safety
issue:
<https://web.archive.org/web/20130515013842/http://digitaldaily.allthing
sd.com/files/2010/06/evo.jpg>
As with other mobile radio transmitting equipment, users are advised
that for satisfactory operation of the equipment and for the safety of
personnel, it is recommended that no part of the human body be allowed
to come too close to the antenna during operation of the equipment.
...
...always use your device only in its normal-use position. Contact
with the antenna area may impair call quality and cause your device
to operate at a higher power level than needed. Avoiding contact with
the antenna area when the phone is IN USE optimizes the antenna
performance and the battery life.

motorola razr v3m flip phone, with a distance requirement (p. 65, 96):
<https://ss7.vzw.com/is/content/VerizonWireless/Devices/Motorola/Usergui
des/motorola-razr-v3m-um.pdf>
Do not cover the antenna area with your fingers.
...
DO NOT hold the external antenna when the mobile device is IN USE.
Holding the external antenna affects call quality and may cause the
mobile device to operate at a higher power level than needed.

...keep the mobile device and its antenna at least 2.5 centimeters (1
inch) from your body when transmitting.

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deCkjeHYT-g>
This short clip shows how the Nexus One drops from a 3G
connection down to Edge when picked up and held in your hand

so much for your claim that other companies had 'a lot more technical
experience'.

the iphone 4 'issue' was entirely fabricated because gizmodo, who was
caught buying stolen property, sought revenge and somehow managed to be
successful, despite the effect of 'holding it wrong' affecting *every*
device with an antenna.

after a couple of months, people forgot all about it, with the iphone 4
becoming one of the best selling iphones at that time.

mysteriously, the imaginary problem solved itself, without any change
to the phone or its antenna.

<https://appleinsider.com/articles/10/07/29/norways_largest_paper_iphone
_4_antennagate_is_a_us_problem.html>
After testing Apple's iPhone 4 against competing HTC and Nokia
models in a remote area on the edge of Norwegian carrier Telenor's
mobile coverage, the county's largest paper has concluded that its
antenna design is "just as good and bad as competitors," rather than
suffering any defect.
...
The paper compared iPhone 4 against the HTC Wildfire, Nokia E71,
and Apple's previous iPhone 3GS. It stated that all of the phones
reacted similarly when gripped tightly (losing signal bars due to
attenuation), but that all of the phones were able to sustain a
conversation.

nokia and htc throw shade about 'holding it wrong', oblivious to the
fact that they say the same thing about their own phones:

Both Nokia and HTC have responded to Antennagate with bold claims
that signal drops experienced when a phone is held in a particular
way are a problem unique to Apple, while at the same time warning
users not to hold their own Nokia or HTC phones in such a way as to
cause signal attenuation.

the iphone 4 was the only phone that had a stable connection. note that
this was in a remote area, i.e., weak signal.

VG reported that the sound quality on the two iPhone models was
not as good, but that all the calls 'went smoothly.' However, when
using the phones' data service to pull up a web page, the reporters
said only the iPhone 4 'was close to having a stable connection,'
successfully pulling up a page while the other models reported no
service.

<https://macdailynews.com/2010/07/30/daily_telegraph_reviews_iphone_4_a_
massive_jump/>
On the occasion on the iPhone 4 launch in Australia, Stephen Fenech
reports for The Daily Telegraph, łI knew it would be impossible to
review Appleąs new iPhone 4 without first discussing the antenna
Śissue.ą Iąve been using the iPhone 4 for nearly a week to make
calls, send and receive emails and surf the web from various places
around the city and suburbs.˛

łIs the antenna an issue? No itąs not,˛ Fenech reports. łHave I
dropped calls? No, I have not. Have I noticed an impact on the
deviceąs performance? No.˛

<https://www.fastcompany.com/1707227/iphone-style-antennagate-hits-hypoc
ritical-htc>
The handset maker defends signal drop-out problems with its HD7
phone, notes that the effect is łinevitable.˛ Conveniently it seems
to have forgotten it said the opposite when calling out Apple over
the iPhone łantennagate˛ affair.

HTCąs HD7 handset is a sweet piece of hardware. It boasts a
monstrously big screen, the hot-ticket Windows Phone 7 OS, 720p
video recording, a handy little kickstandŠ and a signal attenuation
problem when you hold the phone in a certain way. Thatąs according to
numerous users who are aggravated at their new phonesą dropped calls.

> See:
>
> <https://web.archive.org/web/20080912043828/http:/

big deal. one thread means absolutely nothing.

there are many threads that show how good iphone reception is, but more
importantly, there are controlled tests that also show that.

> This mattered more before the density of cell sites increased, but in
> more rural areas, like yours, it's still an issue.

iphone reception is not in any way an issue.

you are as usual, full of shit and trolling.

[Lewis]

In message <sfa4qr$76e$1...@dont-email.me> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 8/14/2021 12:51 PM, Ant wrote:
>> In misc.phone.mobile.iphone sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> ...
>>> You might need to switch to a Samsung Galaxy device if you're in a weak
>>> signal area since they have antennas that work better in areas with weak
>>> signals. See
>>> <https://smartphonesrevealed.com/phones-with-best-antenna/>. I don't see
>>> the 12 Mini in the list, but you can see how much poorer the iPhones did
>>> than the Samsung Galaxy phones.
>>
>>> The Samsung Galaxy Note 20 Ultra 5G was at 95/100. The Apple iPhone 12
>>> Pro Max 5G was at 84/100. You can also see how poorly the iPhones with
>>> the 2x2 MIMO antenna did, the Apple iPhone SE 2020 was at 59/100.
>>
>> Interesting. 11 (no Pro Max?) and 12 (not Mini) did better. Too bad no listed
>> older models like 6 +.

> The radios and antennas in iPhones have been an issue ever since the
> early iPhones.

More bullshit lies from the bullshit liar.

The iPhone 12 mini is physically smaller, so it is possible it's antenna
is also shorter.

--
"Are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
"I think so, Brain, but if we get Sam Spade, we'll never have any
puppies."

[nospam]

In article <slrnshhpah....@m1mini.local>, Lewis

<g.k...@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote:

> In message <sfa4qr$76e$1...@dont-email.me> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> > The radios and antennas in iPhones have been an issue ever since the
> > early iPhones.
>
> More bullshit lies from the bullshit liar.

yep.

> The iPhone 12 mini is physically smaller, so it is possible it's antenna
> is also shorter.

it's the same across all 12 models, on the outside of the phone.

[sms]

On 8/14/2021 12:51 PM, Ant wrote:

> In misc.phone.mobile.iphone sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> ...
>> You might need to switch to a Samsung Galaxy device if you're in a weak
>> signal area since they have antennas that work better in areas with weak
>> signals. See
>> <https://smartphonesrevealed.com/phones-with-best-antenna/>. I don't see
>> the 12 Mini in the list, but you can see how much poorer the iPhones did
>> than the Samsung Galaxy phones.
>
>> The Samsung Galaxy Note 20 Ultra 5G was at 95/100. The Apple iPhone 12
>> Pro Max 5G was at 84/100. You can also see how poorly the iPhones with
>> the 2x2 MIMO antenna did, the Apple iPhone SE 2020 was at 59/100.
>
> Interesting. 11 (no Pro Max?) and 12 (not Mini) did better. Too bad no listed
> older models like 6 +.

I suppose it could be some issue with the specific production unit that
you received, but that’s unlikely.

Your options are limited; go back to the iPhone 6 or switch to an
Android model with a better radio. I think that Verizon may offer a 30
day return policy, so you could bring it back and buy a Samsung Galaxy
phone, with a better radio and antennas, which may be the only practical
solution.

If you go to the nearest Genius Bar, the 12 Mini is likely to work
wonderfully well at the store. I think that taking photos of the 12 Mini
versus the 6 Plus signal strength would be interesting, but unlikely to
convince Apple or Verizon that there’s a problem that they would be
willing to address. Verizon might offer to give you a micro-cell for
your house but that isn’t really a great solution.

You could also sign up for a pay-as-you-go plan on a Verizon MVNO and
use it on the iPhone 6+ when you need service in places where the iPhone
12 Mini doesn’t have reception. See
<https://www.pagepluscellular.com/plans/10-standard-pin/>. $10 every 120
days. I know that this option is something that some T-Mobile
subscribers do so they can have coverage in more rural areas.

[nospam]

In article <sfbuf7$pia$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

>
> Your options are limited; go back to the iPhone 6 or switch to an
> Android model with a better radio. I think that Verizon may offer a 30
> day return policy, so you could bring it back and buy a Samsung Galaxy
> phone, with a better radio and antennas, which may be the only practical
> solution.

trolling. the radios in the iphone 12 series are fine.

something is unusual about his unit.

the correct choice is go to an apple store for diagnostics.

> If you go to the nearest Genius Bar, the 12 Mini is likely to work
> wonderfully well at the store.

that doesn't matter.

they will test it and determine if it's defective, or if it's something
simple like an incorrect setting.

> I think that taking photos of the 12 Mini
> versus the 6 Plus signal strength would be interesting, but unlikely to

> convince Apple or Verizon that thereıs a problem that they would be
> willing to address.

not needed.

> Verizon might offer to give you a micro-cell for

> your house but that isnıt really a great solution.

it is at home, where he's having difficulties.

> You could also sign up for a pay-as-you-go plan on a Veriz

you just can't stop shilling, can you?

he already *is* on verizon.

he could try t-mobile, which will have 5g coverage that verizon does
not.

[Ant]

In alt.cellular.verizon nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
...

> > The iPhone 12 mini is physically smaller, so it is possible it's antenna
> > is also shorter.

> it's the same across all 12 models, on the outside of the phone.

What about inside? https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iPhone+12+mini+Teardown/138505 showed antennae.
--
Dang life, bugs (both digital and biological), issues, etc. 2021 is repeating 2020. :( Please get your vaccine shot(s) if you haven't done so! :)

[nospam]

In article <d56dnTRqReEqF4T8...@earthlink.com>, Ant

<a...@zimage.comANT> wrote:

> > > The iPhone 12 mini is physically smaller, so it is possible it's antenna
> > > is also shorter.
>
> > it's the same across all 12 models, on the outside of the phone.
>
> What about inside?

what about it?

> https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iPhone+12+mini+Teardown/138505 showed antennae.

radios have antennas. bugs have antennae.

[Ant]

In alt.cellular.verizon nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

https://discussions.apple.com/thread/251968761,
https://www.reddit.com/r/verizon/comments/jgyd82/iphone_12_pro_dropping_to_no_service_in_areas_of/,
etc.

--
Dang life, bugs (both digital and biological), issues, etc. 2021 is repeating 2020. :( Please get your vaccine shot(s) if you haven't done so! :)

[sms]

On 8/15/2021 3:53 PM, Ant wrote:

<snip>

> https://discussions.apple.com/thread/251968761,
> https://www.reddit.com/r/verizon/comments/jgyd82/iphone_12_pro_dropping_to_no_service_in_areas_of/,
> etc.

Apparently it's a well-known issue. Also see
<https://9to5mac.com/2020/12/01/iphone-12-dropping-service-unexpectedly/>.
No doubt that Apple is aware of the issue as it is affecting multiple
carriers throughout the world.

Perhaps you should return it within whatever return window you have with
Verizon and wait for the 13 Mini where they may have addressed the problem.

[Ant]

In misc.phone.mobile.iphone sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> On 8/15/2021 3:53 PM, Ant wrote:

> <snip>

> > https://discussions.apple.com/thread/251968761,
> > https://www.reddit.com/r/verizon/comments/jgyd82/iphone_12_pro_dropping_to_no_service_in_areas_of/,
> > etc.

> Apparently it's a well-known issue. Also see
> <https://9to5mac.com/2020/12/01/iphone-12-dropping-service-unexpectedly/>.
> No doubt that Apple is aware of the issue as it is affecting multiple
> carriers throughout the world.

Yeah, I didn't know it was that bad. Why hasn't Apple fixed it or do a recall?

> Perhaps you should return it within whatever return window you have with
> Verizon and wait for the 13 Mini where they may have addressed the problem.

Well, my old 6 + isn't reliable anymore. :/ Also, Verizon Wireless has a
restocking fee. Is 13 mini even confirmed?

[nospam]

In article <xJadnaF8Hvdhe4T8...@earthlink.com>, Ant

<a...@zimage.comANT> wrote:

> Also, Verizon Wireless has a
> restocking fee.

yet another reason to never use verizon.

> Is 13 mini even confirmed?

nothing is confirmed until it's officially announced, however, apple
normally keeps the same enclosure for at least two years, so it's a
very safe bet there will be a mini. whether it's called a 12s or 13 or
something else is unknown.

[Lewis]

In message <xJadnaF8Hvdhe4T8...@earthlink.com> Ant <a...@zimage.comANT> wrote:
> In misc.phone.mobile.iphone sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> On 8/15/2021 3:53 PM, Ant wrote:

>> <snip>

>> > https://discussions.apple.com/thread/251968761,
>> > https://www.reddit.com/r/verizon/comments/jgyd82/iphone_12_pro_dropping_to_no_service_in_areas_of/,
>> > etc.

>> Apparently it's a well-known issue. Also see
>> <https://9to5mac.com/2020/12/01/iphone-12-dropping-service-unexpectedly/>.
>> No doubt that Apple is aware of the issue as it is affecting multiple
>> carriers throughout the world.

> Yeah, I didn't know it was that bad. Why hasn't Apple fixed it or do a recall?

Probably because upwards of 99% of users do not live in an area where
they are effected by this?

--
Seeing, contrary to popular wisdom, isn't believing. It's where
belief stops, because it isn't needed any more. --Pyramids

[Lewis]

In message <160820210024592140%nos...@nospam.invalid> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <xJadnaF8Hvdhe4T8...@earthlink.com>, Ant
> <a...@zimage.comANT> wrote:

>> Also, Verizon Wireless has a
>> restocking fee.

> yet another reason to never use verizon.

It is the shittiest of mobile carriers, and that is really saying
something when At&T still exists.

--
Vader means father in German. Oh, you know German. Now I know why you
don't like fun things.

[sms]

On 8/15/2021 9:18 PM, Ant wrote:
> In misc.phone.mobile.iphone sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> On 8/15/2021 3:53 PM, Ant wrote:
>
>> <snip>
>
>>> https://discussions.apple.com/thread/251968761,
>>> https://www.reddit.com/r/verizon/comments/jgyd82/iphone_12_pro_dropping_to_no_service_in_areas_of/,
>>> etc.
>
>> Apparently it's a well-known issue. Also see
>> <https://9to5mac.com/2020/12/01/iphone-12-dropping-service-unexpectedly/>.
>> No doubt that Apple is aware of the issue as it is affecting multiple
>> carriers throughout the world.
>

> Yeah, I didn't know it was that bad. Why hasn't Apple fixed it or do a recall?\\\

It's not like the iPhone 4 where they gave away free bumper cases so
users would not touch the antenna in the wrong place. There is likely no
software fix. Probably some antenna design issue. They're not going to
recall millions of phones, and scrap them, for an issue that only
affects users in areas where the signal isn't strong enough to negate
any problems. They'll just state that the problem is very rare.

>> Perhaps you should return it within whatever return window you have with
>> Verizon and wait for the 13 Mini where they may have addressed the problem.
>
> Well, my old 6 + isn't reliable anymore. :/ Also, Verizon Wireless has a
> restocking fee. Is 13 mini even confirmed?

Yes, it is confirmed, well as officially as anything is confirmed
pre-launch. There's no iPhone 13 models that are "officially confirmed."

It may be worth paying the restocking fee, it's only $50. Find a used 6s
or 7 or 8 to tide you over until the 13 Mini comes out, and hope for the
best.

Things get fixed even when the problem isn't officially acknowledged,
i.e. remember how Apple strengthened the frame of the 6s after
"bendgate" on the 6
<https://www.macrumors.com/2015/08/10/iphone-6s-addresses-bendgate-video/>?
Typically what happens is any problem that shows up and is reported by
the media is dismissed as being "extremely rare," then the problem is
fixed in the next generation. Sometimes it gets fixed even within the
same generation but you would not be made aware of any changes because
publicizing changes would result in demands for exchanges. That's why
it's generally a bad idea to buy a new devices (or car, or whatever) as
soon as it comes out--there are always engineering changes as problems
are found and corrected.

[nospam]

In article <sfds59$36s$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> >> Apparently it's a well-known issue. Also see
> >> <https://9to5mac.com/2020/12/01/iphone-12-dropping-service-unexpectedly/>.
> >> No doubt that Apple is aware of the issue as it is affecting multiple
> >> carriers throughout the world.
> >
> > Yeah, I didn't know it was that bad. Why hasn't Apple fixed it or do a
> > recall?\\\
>
> It's not like the iPhone 4 where they gave away free bumper cases so
> users would not touch the antenna in the wrong place. There is likely no
> software fix. Probably some antenna design issue.

speculation, based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

most of the comments in the above link point to a verizon issue. other
carriers are not immune, but it doesn't happen as much.

I wonder is this a Verizon problem. I've never had such issues on my
iPhone 12 on the T-Mobile US network (except for that malfunctioning
cellphone tower I mentioned in another message).

I'm on the T-Mobile US network and so far, no problems for me! (knock
on wood ??). I've seen as high as 350 mbps download speeds on 5G.
Makes you wonder did Verizon configure their sub-6 GHz 5G incorrectly
(aka. their hardware configuration) and 5G just doesn't work
correctly.

Went back to apple, who agreed to replace the phone. I am happy
to report that thus far (albeit only 1 day in) that I am no longer
encountering the issue! I chalked it up to a faulty antenna or
manufacturing defect (old phone would get quite hot), but who knows.
Very pleased that the folks at the apple store listened and resolved
the problem for me - kudos to them.

No problems here on T-Mobile in NYC.

> They're not going to
> recall millions of phones, and scrap them, for an issue that only
> affects users in areas where the signal isn't strong enough to negate
> any problems. They'll just state that the problem is very rare.

there's no need to recall anything.

customer satisfaction for the iphone 12 family is 97% (451 research),
which would not happen if there was a widespread problem.

> It may be worth paying the restocking fee, it's only $50. Find a used 6s
> or 7 or 8 to tide you over until the 13 Mini comes out, and hope for the
> best.

that is incredibly stupid advice.

> Things get fixed even when the problem isn't officially acknowledged,
> i.e. remember how Apple strengthened the frame of the 6s after
> "bendgate" on the 6

that's not what happened.

the iphone 6s was complete *before* the 6 was released. it was not
possible to make a last minute change, certainly not something as major
as a redesigned frame. they could have changed the colours offered, but
that's about it.

the 6s had a different frame because of 3d touch, where people would be
pressing harder, not because of any 'bendgate' issue.

it was also rather difficult to bend the iphone 6 at all. videos on
youtube show people exerting quite a bit of pressure.

meanwhile, other phones bent and snapped like a cracker, with almost no
effort needed. don't even think about putting it in a pocket.
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU6Tv-OfXk0&t=155s>
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTIaUH6PIvo&t=177s>

[sms]

On 8/15/2021 3:53 PM, Ant wrote:

<snip>

> https://discussions.apple.com/thread/251968761,
> https://www.reddit.com/r/verizon/comments/jgyd82/iphone_12_pro_dropping_to_no_service_in_areas_of/,
> etc.

Since the same issue has been reported on multiple carriers throughout
the world, including AT&T and T-Mobile, it doesn't seem like it's
anything that Verizon could fix. Since your old iPhone works fine, it's
clearly not a Verizon problem.

Pay the $50 restocking fee, before it's too late, and try a different phone.

[nospam]

In article <sfe4km$5pu$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> Since the same issue has been reported on multiple carriers throughout
> the world, including AT&T and T-Mobile, it doesn't seem like it's
> anything that Verizon could fix. Since your old iPhone works fine, it's
> clearly not a Verizon problem.

in your world, nothing is ever a verizon problem.

the link *you* provided at 9to5mac did show multiple carriers, but it
also showed more instances of problems with verizon than with the
others.

these types of problems are usually a combination of factors, not just
one cause.

it's also not widespread, since the iphone 12 has a 97% customer
satisfaction rate.

[sms]

On 8/15/2021 9:18 PM, Ant wrote:

<snip>

> Well, my old 6 + isn't reliable anymore. :/ Also, Verizon Wireless has a
> restocking fee. Is 13 mini even confirmed?

If you wait too long, you'll only be able to get a warranty replacement,
of the same model, and it will be a "reconditioned" phone that they send
you.

I wonder how strict they are about the restocking fee when you're
returning it not because it's broken, but because it has problems with
reception. They might waive it if you're a long term customer.

Clearly having a phone that doesn't work in your area is not acceptable,
and since there have been numerous reports of reception issues on the
iPhone 12, on all U.S. carriers as well as other carriers, they should
cut you some slack.

[nospam]

In article <sfeg98$ren$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> > Well, my old 6 + isn't reliable anymore. :/ Also, Verizon Wireless has a
> > restocking fee. Is 13 mini even confirmed?
>
> If you wait too long, you'll only be able to get a warranty replacement,
> of the same model, and it will be a "reconditioned" phone that they send
> you.

that's yet another reason to not buy from verizon.

apple stores would swap it with a new phone on the spot, and might even
do that despite having bought it at verizon.

> I wonder how strict they are about the restocking fee when you're
> returning it not because it's broken, but because it has problems with
> reception. They might waive it if you're a long term customer.

maybe.

> Clearly having a phone that doesn't work in your area is not acceptable,
> and since there have been numerous reports of reception issues on the
> iPhone 12, on all U.S. carriers as well as other carriers, they should
> cut you some slack.

some, but overall, not very many.

[nospam]

In article <yJKdnX-mdYdDioX8...@earthlink.com>, Ant
<a...@zimage.comANT> wrote:

>
> If you mean iOS v14.7.1's Voice & Data option to LTE, then still very weak
> signals and "No Service" in my rural home area.

this appears to be a bug in 14.7.1, which affects more than just the
iphone 12, and will almost certainly be fixed in the next update.

it also means that the absurd claims that it was an antenna issue and
to return it for a 6s wouldn't have worked. no surprise there.

<https://9to5mac.com/2021/08/17/ios-14-7-1-users-complaining-no-service-
after-updating-iphone/>

Users with an iPhone 6s, iPhone 7, iPhone 8, and iPhone 11 reported
similar complaints. One of the users wrote:
Same problem. iPhone 6S, despite doing all the ons and offs,
resetting the network settings, my phone is no longer a phone.
This is great.

On Twitter, developer Hugo Maestá said that his iPhone 8 is unable
to find service while the ³Cellular² page is totally blank.

[Ant]

Oh, nice find! I hope that is the case. Although, I do recall having
problems with activation online (home's wifi) before I even got v14.7.1.
IIRC, iPhone came with v14.3 or so. Hovever, I didn't its test cellular
services before that iOS upgrade. I wonder if iOS v15 beta has the fix.

[nospam]

In article <UsedndzjKbDit4H8...@earthlink.com>, Ant

<a...@zimage.comANT> wrote:

> > > If you mean iOS v14.7.1's Voice & Data option to LTE, then still very
> > > weak
> > > signals and "No Service" in my rural home area.
>
> > this appears to be a bug in 14.7.1, which affects more than just the
> > iphone 12, and will almost certainly be fixed in the next update.
>
> > it also means that the absurd claims that it was an antenna issue and
> > to return it for a 6s wouldn't have worked. no surprise there.
>
> > <https://9to5mac.com/2021/08/17/ios-14-7-1-users-complaining-no-service-
> > after-updating-iphone/>
>
> > Users with an iPhone 6s, iPhone 7, iPhone 8, and iPhone 11 reported
> > similar complaints. One of the users wrote:
> > Same problem. iPhone 6S, despite doing all the ons and offs,
> > resetting the network settings, my phone is no longer a phone.
> > This is great.
>
> > On Twitter, developer Hugo Maestá said that his iPhone 8 is unable
> > to find service while the ³Cellular² page is totally blank.
>
> Oh, nice find! I hope that is the case.

it's today's news.

> Although, I do recall having
> problems with activation online (home's wifi) before I even got v14.7.1.
> IIRC, iPhone came with v14.3 or so.

activation doesn't need cellular.

> Hovever, I didn't its test cellular
> services before that iOS upgrade.

that would have been an interesting data point, but you would have
ended up upgrading anyway, so it's moot.

> I wonder if iOS v15 beta has the fix.

no idea. it's on a different track so the current beta probably doesn't.

[sms]

On 8/17/2021 2:30 PM, Ant wrote:

<snip>

> Oh, nice find! I hope that is the case. Although, I do recall having
> problems with activation online (home's wifi) before I even got v14.7.1.
> IIRC, iPhone came with v14.3 or so. Hovever, I didn't its test cellular
> services before that iOS upgrade. I wonder if iOS v15 beta has the fix.

I wouldn't test iOS 15 beta because you might not be able to go back to
iOS 14.x.y. Apple said that they will continue to roll out security
updates to iOS 14.x.y even when iOS 15 is out of beta because a lot of
iOS 14 users are not going to want to move to iOS 15, for reasons that
we all are aware of.

I would not hold out a lot of hope that 14.8 is going to fix the
reception issue. Remember, this issue was reported on the iPhone 12 long
before 14.7 came out, see
<https://discussions.apple.com/thread/251968761> which is from Oct 28,
2020, when 14.1 was the latest version. None of the revisions of 14.x
ever addressed the reception issue, or at least none were ever listed as
addressing that issue.

Trying to fix hardware issues with iOS updates is dicey at best. This
has been going on for nearly a year, if there were a fix possible in
software it would probably have been done by now.

[nospam]

In article <sfhhge$cj0$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> I wouldn't test iOS 15 beta because you might not be able to go back to
> iOS 14.x.y.

wrong. it's possible to roll back.

> Apple said that they will continue to roll out security
> updates to iOS 14.x.y even when iOS 15 is out of beta because a lot of
> iOS 14 users are not going to want to move to iOS 15, for reasons that
> we all are aware of.

only stupid ones.

> I would not hold out a lot of hope that 14.8 is going to fix the
> reception issue. Remember, this issue was reported on the iPhone 12 long
> before 14.7 came out,

that's not necessarily the same issue.

> Trying to fix hardware issues with iOS updates is dicey at best.

nope. that is standard for the industry and has been forever. btdt.

> This
> has been going on for nearly a year, if there were a fix possible in
> software it would probably have been done by now.

or that it's not actually a widespread problem.

[Lewis]

In message <sfhhge$cj0$1...@dont-email.me> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 8/17/2021 2:30 PM, Ant wrote:

> <snip>

>> Oh, nice find! I hope that is the case. Although, I do recall having
>> problems with activation online (home's wifi) before I even got v14.7.1.
>> IIRC, iPhone came with v14.3 or so. Hovever, I didn't its test cellular
>> services before that iOS upgrade. I wonder if iOS v15 beta has the fix.

> I wouldn't test iOS 15 beta because you might not be able to go back to
> iOS 14.x.y.

More fucking bullshit for the bullshit spewer.

> Apple said that they will continue to roll out security
> updates to iOS 14.x.y even when iOS 15 is out of beta because a lot of
> iOS 14 users are not going to want to move to iOS 15, for reasons that
> we all are aware of.

More bullshit lies from you. Apple never said anything like your
"because" lie.

--
If you could do a sort of relief map of sinfulness, wickedness and
all-round immorality, rather like those representations of the
gravitational field around a Black Hole, then even in
Ankh-Morpork the Shades would be represented by a shaft. In fact
the Shades was remarkably like the aforesaid well-known
astrological phenomenon: it had a certain strong attraction, no
light escaped from it, and it could indeed become a gateway to
another world. The next one.

[sms]

On 8/17/2021 2:30 PM, Ant wrote:

<snip>

> Oh, nice find! I hope that is the case. Although, I do recall having
> problems with activation online (home's wifi) before I even got v14.7.1.
> IIRC, iPhone came with v14.3 or so. Hovever, I didn't its test cellular
> services before that iOS upgrade. I wonder if iOS v15 beta has the fix.

Whatever the cause of the issue with reception on the iPhone 12 is, it’s
unlikely to be resolved with a new version of iOS. This issue has been
around since the iPhone 12 was introduced, and it’s been seen on all of
the U.S. carriers as well as on carriers in other countries. If it could
be "fixed in software" don't you think that this would have already
happened? And there's nothing really to "fix" anyway, the product is
what it is, it's not broken per se.

What some non-engineers don't understand are the levels of complexity
and time that making changes to a device’s radios involves.

A device would have to be re-certified by the appropriate governmental
body (the FCC in the U.S.) if material changes were made to the radio
transmitter or the antennas, whether in software or in hardware.

It's really hard to find these kinds of issues during initial testing of
new devices. You'd have to distribute the pre-production units to users
all over the world, using multiple carriers, in multiple locations.
Reportedly the iPhone 4 antenna issue didn't surface because the pre
production units used for testing all had cases around them to hide what
they were so no one was touching the exposed antenna band in the wrong
place and attenuating the signal. Even if you did find a reception issue
in a fringe area you'd be unlikely to delay full production just because
a few users in a rural area have an issue.

The idea of “they can fix it in software” is one of the biggest jokes
among hardware engineers. Sometimes it’s possible to mitigate, at least
partially, a hardware issue by modifying software, to get a result that
you can at least tolerate, but it’s rarely going to give you the best
result.

The most likely result of all this is that they addressed the issue in
the iPhone 13, but it won't help the small number of iPhone 12 owners,
like you, that had better reception with their previous iPhones.

[nospam]

In article <sfk9ni$fpf$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> > Oh, nice find! I hope that is the case. Although, I do recall having
> > problems with activation online (home's wifi) before I even got v14.7.1.
> > IIRC, iPhone came with v14.3 or so. Hovever, I didn't its test cellular
> > services before that iOS upgrade. I wonder if iOS v15 beta has the fix.
>

> Whatever the cause of the issue with reception on the iPhone 12 is, itąs

> unlikely to be resolved with a new version of iOS.

given that there's a new problem that started with 14.7.1, it's very
likely it will be fixed in a future version of ios.

> This issue has been
> around since the iPhone 12 was introduced, and itąs been seen on all of

> the U.S. carriers as well as on carriers in other countries.

that's a different issue.

> If it could
> be "fixed in software" don't you think that this would have already
> happened?

not when the current version is the flawed version. do try to keep up.

> And there's nothing really to "fix" anyway, the product is
> what it is, it's not broken per se.

the fix is the reception issue that started with 14.7.1.

> What some non-engineers don't understand are the levels of complexity

> and time that making changes to a deviceąs radios involves.

there you go moving goalposts. nobody is making changes to the radios.

> A device would have to be re-certified by the appropriate governmental
> body (the FCC in the U.S.) if material changes were made to the radio
> transmitter or the antennas, whether in software or in hardware.

weasel words. 'material changes' is not the issue.

software updates, including baseband updates, do not need
recertification. full stop.

if for some crazy reason it did need recertification, then that can be
done before the update is pushed.

> It's really hard to find these kinds of issues during initial testing of
> new devices. You'd have to distribute the pre-production units to users
> all over the world, using multiple carriers, in multiple locations.

which is what they do.

> Reportedly the iPhone 4 antenna issue didn't surface because the pre
> production units used for testing all had cases around them to hide what
> they were so no one was touching the exposed antenna band in the wrong
> place and attenuating the signal. Even if you did find a reception issue
> in a fringe area you'd be unlikely to delay full production just because
> a few users in a rural area have an issue.

there was no iphone 4 antenna issue. see other post for lots of links.

long story short, every phone is affected by how it's held. several
other phones were worse, some of which told users how to properly hold
it in the user manuals. a few months later, it blew over and people
forgot all about it, because it wasn't actually a problem.

> The idea of łthey can fix it in software˛ is one of the biggest jokes
> among hardware engineers. Sometimes itąs possible to mitigate, at least

> partially, a hardware issue by modifying software, to get a result that

> you can at least tolerate, but itąs rarely going to give you the best
> result.

it's not a joke.

> The most likely result of all this is that they addressed the issue in
> the iPhone 13, but it won't help the small number of iPhone 12 owners,
> like you, that had better reception with their previous iPhones.

nope. the most likely result is that it will be fixed in a future
update.

[Lewis]

In message <sfk9ni$fpf$1...@dont-email.me> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> Whatever the cause of the issue with reception on the iPhone 12 is, it’s
> unlikely to be resolved with a new version of iOS.

1) you have NO IDEA what the issue is.
2) you have NO IDEA what it will take to fix it.
3) You have NO IDEA what the fuck you are talking about. As always.

--
The true prize was control. Lord Vetinari knew that. When heavy
weights were balanced on the scales, the trick was to know where
to place your thumb. --The Fifth Elephant

[Ant]

In alt.online-service.verizon Ant <a...@zimage.comant> wrote:
> In misc.phone.mobile.iphone sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> > On 8/13/2021 9:58 PM, Ant wrote:
> > > In misc.phone.mobile.iphone nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> > >> In article <apWdncnM7_jopIr8...@earthlink.com>, Ant
> > >> <a...@zimage.comANT> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>> I also found out
> > >>> iPhone
> > >>> 12 mini can do old CMDA, but VZW doesn't want that in their newer
> > >>> smartphones.
> > >
> > >> nobody does. it's obsolete. verizon will turn off cdma next year and
> > >> sprint will do the same in about 5 months.
> > >
> > > Oh boy, my rural area is going to have fun when they lose CDMA services. :O

> > This is odd. Unless they have LTE and CDMA cell sites in different areas
> > or with differently aimed antennas, LTE should work just as well.

> > It's not like GSM which struggled in rural areas because of the distance
> > limit of 35km, LTE has a 100km distance limit. A lot of rural carriers
> > went with CDMA instead of GSM because of this advantage of CDMA since
> > they could get by with fewer cell sites to cover a given area, even
> > though it was a little more expensive to buy the CDMA equipment. This is
> > one reason that even now Verizon has better rural coverage than AT&T,
> > the CDMA carriers invested in a lot more infrastructure in those areas.

> > Verizon keeps pushing out the CDMA sunset date, not because there are
> > still many, if any, phones that are not VoLTE capable, they're pushing
> > it out because there are so many IOT devices on CDMA, including a lot of
> > OnStar-equipped vehicles, not all of which are upgradable to different
> > cellular radios. I wonder if Verizon had some sort of an agreement with
> > GM to support OnStar CDMA for a certain number of years.

> I noticed it depends on locations. There are tons of giant hills, slopes, small
> mountains, trees, etc. If I face the pacific ocean from a high side, then I can
> get decent connections.

FYI. A new regular 13, with its same carrier and iOS v15.3, has the same
issues. :(
--
Beijing's Olympics are back again, but its 2022 opening ceremony wasn't good as its 2008. (L/C)NY (h2o tiger) & Black History Mo. Dang tiredness, sickness, bodies, works, times, colony, nest, tech, life, issues, etc. :(