Reception On Those New Internal Antenna Phones SUCKS....

The reson telephone received signals vary is due primarily to the receiver in the phone, with all the bells and whistles that is being stuffed into cell phones today everything is becoming a compromise, the transmitters are weak and sound terrible as a general rule this is because the space avalable for a decent transmitter and audio circuits been reduced to only a tiny fraction of the space that was once avalable, the receivers suffer from the same space restrictions, they are being stuffed into a tiny space and they just dont have the room to build nice sensitivie and selective receivers that will do a decent job of receiving a signal. As more and more cameras, bluetooth, digital zoom, MP3 players, FM radios and who knows what else is being crammed into smaller and smaller packages the overall quality of everything within any given cell phone will be degraded, but, this is what you, the consumer, want so smaller more feature packed cell phones are what they are giving you, fancier telephones with associated poorer performance, the antenna being outside or inside has little or no effect on the received signal.

Ben

If I were given the option of eliminating certain features from phones, the camera would be the first to go from the phone. I don't know about mp3 if I really need it. I wish phones didn't have a camera built into the phone as a standard feature. But at the same time I don't want a basic phone either. If I want a basic phone, I would stay with my Samsung a650. I already have a digital camera that takes great pictures, and don't need one built into the phone. If there was an option to custom make a phone, I would go that route. I only wish Samsung made a CDMA version of the Cingular Samsung SGH-D307, which doesn't have a camera, but has bluetooth and the qwerty keypad for using the internet, if I decide to try that out.