I live and work in rural Maine, where towers may be many miles away. I
currently have an aging LG VX4400 that has an antenna port on the back
that I can use to connect to an antenna on the roof of my truck, and
there are many times when that external antenna makes the difference
between having service and not having service.
It seems most of the phones now available don't have the connector (I'm
basing that on the antenna manufacturers websites, since the phone
manufacturers won't tell me), so the option is either an inductive link
on the back of the phone or the inside antenna - outside antenna scheme.
Anyone have experience with the inductive link? How does it compare to
the direct connection?
Mine is mounted in a Union City Body stepvan, my mobile electronics shop.
I used to use the DA4000 3W linear with a Motorola V60i's external antenna
jack to a 9 db 800 Mhz mag mount antenna on the center of the roof of the
van. Now, I'm using this repeater with a Motorola Z6m. The inside antenna
hangs down from the steel roof over a file cabinet so I don't bang my head
against it.
If you turn the power off, your signal drops going inside the mostly steel
shielded van. With the power on, you can watch it go from 2 bars to 5
bars, just like inside the Verizon mall or main store where they, too, have
a "cheater repeater" so even the crap phones look great....(c;
$589 is the package price. Sometimes when sales drop, they discount it
further. I think I paid $459 for mine....a while ago.
This model works on any modulation scheme on 800 or 1900 Mhz, but not Iden
(Nextel). It's an analog device, amplifiers in both directions between
antennas with analog duplexers on both ends to feed the appropriate band to
the appropriate amps. It doesn't do anything to digital stuff. It even
works fine with EVDO in the boonies.
Obviously, the closer your phone is to the inside antenna, the more signal
it potentially has outside for greater range. It isn't rocket science to
see why....(c;
"Bill F" <nospam@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:CgCEj.8380$SF2.4445@trndny03...
>I live and work in rural Maine, where towers may be many miles away. I
>currently have an aging LG VX4400 that has an antenna port on the back that
>I can use to connect to an antenna on the roof of my truck, and there are
>many times when that external antenna makes the difference between having
>service and not having service.
>
> It seems most of the phones now available don't have the connector (I'm
> basing that on the antenna manufacturers websites, since the phone
> manufacturers won't tell me), so the option is either an inductive link on
> the back of the phone or the inside antenna - outside antenna scheme.
>
> Anyone have experience with the inductive link? How does it compare to the
> direct connection?
>
> TIA!
I agree with Pegleg that a lot of current phones do have an antenna port.
However, you pretty much have to investigate the specific phone to find out.
What phones did you have in mind? Admittedly, some phones have begun leaving
this off.
Actually, I used the Wilson listings to look for current phones with
ports. It sure looks like Motorola in particular has removed them from
newer phones.
Pegleg wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 23:17:54 GMT, Bill F <nospam@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
>
>>It seems most of the phones now available don't have the connector (I'm
>>basing that on the antenna manufacturers websites, since the phone
>>manufacturers won't tell me),
>
>
> I believe most current phones do have a port to connect an external
> antenna...my last Moto (V710) did and my current LG Env does. I think
> you just have to find out where it is since they are usually concealed
> under a button-like insert. I think Wilson carries adapters that plug
> into the phone antenna port.
I saw those options as I looked for available adapters - I just don't
want to pay that much for each company truck if I don't have to (two
now, soon three, as I struggle to build my business).
Larry wrote:
>
> http://cellantenna.com/repeater/DA4000SBR.htm
>
> Why be passive? Go active!
>
> Mine is mounted in a Union City Body stepvan, my mobile electronics shop.
> I used to use the DA4000 3W linear with a Motorola V60i's external antenna
> jack to a 9 db 800 Mhz mag mount antenna on the center of the roof of the
> van. Now, I'm using this repeater with a Motorola Z6m. The inside antenna
> hangs down from the steel roof over a file cabinet so I don't bang my head
> against it.
>
> If you turn the power off, your signal drops going inside the mostly steel
> shielded van. With the power on, you can watch it go from 2 bars to 5
> bars, just like inside the Verizon mall or main store where they, too, have
> a "cheater repeater" so even the crap phones look great....(c;
>
> $589 is the package price. Sometimes when sales drop, they discount it
> further. I think I paid $459 for mine....a while ago.
>
> This model works on any modulation scheme on 800 or 1900 Mhz, but not Iden
> (Nextel). It's an analog device, amplifiers in both directions between
> antennas with analog duplexers on both ends to feed the appropriate band to
> the appropriate amps. It doesn't do anything to digital stuff. It even
> works fine with EVDO in the boonies.
>
> Obviously, the closer your phone is to the inside antenna, the more signal
> it potentially has outside for greater range. It isn't rocket science to
> see why....(c;
>
My motorola Q indeed has 2 antenna conctors on the back, but they are
disabled by verizon. This is bullshit. Verizon may have an excellent
network, but any company that would cripple their products,and then
not repsond to inquiries about that practice is lame.
On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 23:17:54 GMT, Bill F <nospam@nowhere.net> wrote:
>I live and work in rural Maine, where towers may be many miles away. I
>currently have an aging LG VX4400 that has an antenna port on the back
>that I can use to connect to an antenna on the roof of my truck, and
>there are many times when that external antenna makes the difference
>between having service and not having service.
>
>It seems most of the phones now available don't have the connector (I'm
>basing that on the antenna manufacturers websites, since the phone
>manufacturers won't tell me), so the option is either an inductive link
>on the back of the phone or the inside antenna - outside antenna scheme.
>
>Anyone have experience with the inductive link? How does it compare to
>the direct connection?
>
>TIA!
How do you know the external connector is disabled?
Also, having two makes no sense. Why two? I think you have misidentified one
(or both).
-Frank
"cpm" <dontspamcmalikat@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:q7qcu3dgv03r2ocmi7e07p26hvkppqv2au@4ax.com...
> My motorola Q indeed has 2 antenna conctors on the back, but they are
> disabled by verizon. This is bullshit. Verizon may have an excellent
> network, but any company that would cripple their products,and then
> not repsond to inquiries about that practice is lame.
>
> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 23:17:54 GMT, Bill F <nospam@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
>>I live and work in rural Maine, where towers may be many miles away. I
>>currently have an aging LG VX4400 that has an antenna port on the back
>>that I can use to connect to an antenna on the roof of my truck, and
>>there are many times when that external antenna makes the difference
>>between having service and not having service.
>>
>>It seems most of the phones now available don't have the connector (I'm
>>basing that on the antenna manufacturers websites, since the phone
>>manufacturers won't tell me), so the option is either an inductive link
>>on the back of the phone or the inside antenna - outside antenna scheme.
>>
>>Anyone have experience with the inductive link? How does it compare to
>>the direct connection?
>>
>>TIA!
>
cpm wrote:
> My motorola Q indeed has 2 antenna conctors on the back, but they are
> disabled by verizon. This is bullshit. Verizon may have an excellent
> network, but any company that would cripple their products,and then
> not repsond to inquiries about that practice is lame.
>
> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 23:17:54 GMT, Bill F <nospam@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
>
>>I live and work in rural Maine, where towers may be many miles away. I
Did anyone outside of VZW ever maintain that VZW is NOT lame????
Frankster wrote:
> How do you know the external connector is disabled?
>
> Also, having two makes no sense. Why two? I think you have misidentified
> one (or both).
>
> -Frank
>
> "cpm" <dontspamcmalikat@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
I think that one of those "connectors" is probably only a physical
support for an antenna.
Frank,
I have read at Howard Forums that Verizon disables their antenna
connectors on the Q. VZW support would not respond to my email
inquiries and the voice support didnt know the answer.
To test this I connected a Wilson 12" antenna to the left and right
connectors on the Q and got absolutely no gain where I had a VZW
signal that receivable but weak. I compared the same setup with
comparable signal to a comparable Cingular phone and got dramatic
improvements.
You (amd Pegleg) should get your facts straight or not bother
responding. Why would you want to spread false information?
I haven't misidentified anything. There are two antenna connectors on
the back of the Q. You're right that doesn't make sense. I believe
the Motorola Q identifies the left one as live. Apparently VZW
disables this. Nobody would tell me why.
On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 09:15:37 -0600, "Frankster" <Frank@SPAM2TRASH.com>
wrote:
>How do you know the external connector is disabled?
>
>Also, having two makes no sense. Why two? I think you have misidentified one
>(or both).
>
>-Frank
>
>"cpm" <dontspamcmalikat@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>news:q7qcu3dgv03r2ocmi7e07p26hvkppqv2au@4ax.com.. .
>> My motorola Q indeed has 2 antenna conctors on the back, but they are
>> disabled by verizon. This is bullshit. Verizon may have an excellent
>> network, but any company that would cripple their products,and then
>> not repsond to inquiries about that practice is lame.
>>
>> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 23:17:54 GMT, Bill F <nospam@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>
>>>I live and work in rural Maine, where towers may be many miles away. I
>>>currently have an aging LG VX4400 that has an antenna port on the back
>>>that I can use to connect to an antenna on the roof of my truck, and
>>>there are many times when that external antenna makes the difference
>>>between having service and not having service.
>>>
>>>It seems most of the phones now available don't have the connector (I'm
>>>basing that on the antenna manufacturers websites, since the phone
>>>manufacturers won't tell me), so the option is either an inductive link
>>>on the back of the phone or the inside antenna - outside antenna scheme.
>>>
>>>Anyone have experience with the inductive link? How does it compare to
>>>the direct connection?
>>>
>>>TIA!
>>
I have used four VZW phones of various manufactures with external antennas
for years. Every one resulted in stronger signals than without the external
antenna.
I have now gradutated to a wireless repeaeter.
-Frank
"cpm" <dontspamcmalik@sbcglobal.netdontspam> wrote in message
news:b52du3hbicb33jtbdqf1pvehi9lmfmk3t0@4ax.com...
> Frank,
> I have read at Howard Forums that Verizon disables their antenna
> connectors on the Q. VZW support would not respond to my email
> inquiries and the voice support didnt know the answer.
>
> To test this I connected a Wilson 12" antenna to the left and right
> connectors on the Q and got absolutely no gain where I had a VZW
> signal that receivable but weak. I compared the same setup with
> comparable signal to a comparable Cingular phone and got dramatic
> improvements.
>
> You (amd Pegleg) should get your facts straight or not bother
> responding. Why would you want to spread false information?
>
> I haven't misidentified anything. There are two antenna connectors on
> the back of the Q. You're right that doesn't make sense. I believe
> the Motorola Q identifies the left one as live. Apparently VZW
> disables this. Nobody would tell me why.
>
> On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 09:15:37 -0600, "Frankster" <Frank@SPAM2TRASH.com>
> wrote:
>
>>How do you know the external connector is disabled?
>>
>>Also, having two makes no sense. Why two? I think you have misidentified
>>one
>>(or both).
>>
>>-Frank
>>
>>"cpm" <dontspamcmalikat@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>news:q7qcu3dgv03r2ocmi7e07p26hvkppqv2au@4ax.com. ..
>>> My motorola Q indeed has 2 antenna conctors on the back, but they are
>>> disabled by verizon. This is bullshit. Verizon may have an excellent
>>> network, but any company that would cripple their products,and then
>>> not repsond to inquiries about that practice is lame.
>>>
>>> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 23:17:54 GMT, Bill F <nospam@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I live and work in rural Maine, where towers may be many miles away. I
>>>>currently have an aging LG VX4400 that has an antenna port on the back
>>>>that I can use to connect to an antenna on the roof of my truck, and
>>>>there are many times when that external antenna makes the difference
>>>>between having service and not having service.
>>>>
>>>>It seems most of the phones now available don't have the connector (I'm
>>>>basing that on the antenna manufacturers websites, since the phone
>>>>manufacturers won't tell me), so the option is either an inductive link
>>>>on the back of the phone or the inside antenna - outside antenna scheme.
>>>>
>>>>Anyone have experience with the inductive link? How does it compare to
>>>>the direct connection?
>>>>
>>>>TIA!
>>>
>
cpm <dontspamcmalikat@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:q7qcu3dgv03r2ocmi7e07p26hvkppqv2au@4ax.com:
> Verizon may have an excellent
> network, but any company that would cripple their products,and then
> not repsond to inquiries about that practice is lame.
>
How does disabling an external antenna connector satisfy Verizon's greed?
--
nadie
"Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:47E678B9.4090203@comcast.net...
> cpm wrote:
>> My motorola Q indeed has 2 antenna conctors on the back, but they are
>> disabled by verizon. This is bullshit. Verizon may have an excellent
>> network, but any company that would cripple their products,and then
>> not repsond to inquiries about that practice is lame.
>>
>> On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 23:17:54 GMT, Bill F <nospam@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I live and work in rural Maine, where towers may be many miles away. I
>
> Did anyone outside of VZW ever maintain that VZW is NOT lame????
>
> Would anyone claim that VZW is not greedy?
>
>
>
>
> How does disabling an external antenna connector satisfy Verizon's
> greed?
Richard just loves to whine about Verizon. He's unhappy that his phone
works exactly as Verizon says it will rather than as he thinks it
should and he's way too stupid to mod it, he'd rather whine.
He's probably better killfiled.
--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
XS11E wrote:
> "Xxxxx" <Not_gonna_give@all.com> wrote:
>
>
>>How does disabling an external antenna connector satisfy Verizon's
>>greed?
>
>
> Richard just loves to whine about Verizon. He's unhappy that his phone
> works exactly as Verizon says it will rather than as he thinks it
> should and he's way too stupid to mod it, he'd rather whine.
>
> He's probably better killfiled.
>
>
>
>
"Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote:
> XS11E wrote:
>> "Xxxxx" <Not_gonna_give@all.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>How does disabling an external antenna connector satisfy
>>>Verizon's greed?
>>
>>
>> Richard just loves to whine about Verizon. He's unhappy that his
>> phone works exactly as Verizon says it will rather than as he
>> thinks it should and he's way too stupid to mod it, he'd rather
>> whine.
>>
>> He's probably better killfiled.
> FANBOI!!!!
My feelings would be hurt if I didn't know you were too ignorant to
understand the term.
--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
> These days it's more like "as I struggle to KEEP my business".....
I can relate to that.
Anyway, my shop is a steel building. I built it a little over a year ago
and moved my contracting company into it. I pretty much always leave my
office line forwarded to my cell phone. It was a real issue, because at the
office I missed a lot of calls inside the shop. Yesterday we installed a
ZBoost inside the shop. Wow! Works great. I hung the main unit from a
beam central to the building, and put the other antenna outside.
Incredible. I made several calls, and received a number of calls with no
problems anywhere in the building. In the past I would often have my vouice
mail indicator ping when I walked out by an open overhead door, or if I did
receive a call inside the builiding I would have to go outside to listen to
the caller and/or be understood.
The one I use is rated for 2500 sq ft, and costs $288. Its uses a small DC
power supply. I imagine it would be no big deal to get or make an adaptor
for automotive use. You would need to drop the voltage to whatever the
pwoer supply is rated for, but it should work just fine.
In my searching I ran across some that are for "personal space" or desktop
use that were cheaper. I think they said something like 6 sq ft coverage
area. ZBoost and Call Capture both have a personal space unit. I just did
a search from one of my electronics vendors, and Call Capture has a couple
for around $130 that just plug into the 12V outlet in a car.
They have some universal (all US services except Nextel) repeaters that are
designed for automotive use. Well Call Capture has some automotive ones.
No antenna port required, and can work with multiple phones at one time. As
I mentioed in my other post I put a ZBoost unit in my shop. We did initial
tests inside with all the steel doors closed between two cell phones. It
works. This is not one of those stupid and useless passive systems. These
are powered mini cell repeaters of various coverage ranges for the actual
cell.
Then you can buy whatever phones you want for your service people. or
yourself, or simpley give them an allowance to provide their own.
"Bob La Londe" <nospam@nospam.no> wrote in message
news:fsb7fc$en$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> Investigate ZBoost or Call Capture.
>
> They have some universal (all US services except Nextel) repeaters that
> are designed for automotive use. Well Call Capture has some automotive
> ones. No antenna port required, and can work with multiple phones at one
> time. As I mentioed in my other post I put a ZBoost unit in my shop. We
> did initial tests inside with all the steel doors closed between two cell
> phones. It works. This is not one of those stupid and useless passive
> systems. These are powered mini cell repeaters of various coverage ranges
> for the actual cell.
>
> Then you can buy whatever phones you want for your service people. or
> yourself, or simpley give them an allowance to provide their own.
>
>
>
I also use a wireless repeater in my house. Love it. However, the OP
specifically stated that he did not want to spend that much for each
vehicle. After all, an antenna is around $15-$35 (including adapter) verses
a repeater which is around $250-$600.
Also, I personally am NOT convinced that VZW has disabled ANY external
antenna connection on ANY of their phones. It takes more than an assertion
of "I read somewhere" and not seeing a signal-bar indication to convince me.
Call me skeptical! LOL.
External antenna 
Linear Mode
