Thinking of N93: would it be fine without GSM850 in S.F.?

A

askinggirrl

New member
Ok, here's the deal. It's either Cingular or T-Mobile, but I still cannot decide. I'm switching off from Verizon (Horrible plans/monthly charges). Service was OK. So now I'm stuck with Cingular or T-Mobile... Now comes the N93..I'm digging the phone and is still considering to buy it when it goes down alittle...but, with what carrier should I go for? Knowing that T-Mobile is 1900mhz and cingular is both U.S. freq's and the N93 only would support the 1900 side....which carrier is still the better choice.

T-Mobile: Cheaper plans but only on 1900mhz (Shared Cingular towers...etc.)
Cingular: Both U.S. freq's. Alittle bit more pricey on monthly bill, BUT/ N93 doesn't support 800/850. But will that make such a difference?
OR
There's better phones out there comparing to the N93 that even hold Quad-Band...don't get the N93......

What would you choose? Any input would be lovely. Thanks!!
 
Both T-Mobile and Cingular coverage in the Bay Area is full of holes, together they offer pretty decent coverage (Cingular users can roam on T-Mobile for now). But if you're dead set on getting a phone that lacks 850MHz band, T-Mobile is your only option -- once the roaming is shut down, Cingular's own (former AWS) 1900MHz only coverage would be awful.
 
I would recomend T-Mobile if your getting that phone because of the lack of 850. but I would also recomend getting a friend with TMO to go to your house/appartment and make sure TMO works there first. My cousin has tmo and hates it because the 1 spot on the top of the hill where he lives he doesn't get reception inside his house. I always tell people before getting new service check it out at home and at work. also any other areas you frequent boy/girl friends house.
 
It's disappointing that the N93 doesn't have quadband, given that the N93 ("it") is Nokia's top of the line phone features-wise, its more than premium price, and the fact that its little brother the N73 has quadband.
 
Go to t-mobile's website. They have pretty decent street level coverage maps. ( which doesn't help you wrt. how it would work inside a building in that area, but it's better than nothing.) Also, based on what can be found on t-mobile's website, it seems pretty clear that if you ever plan to go to a place with more trees than people, you'll want 850 band roaming.

If you don't really need VGA video @ 30fps, you may want to consider an N73. ( the N73 is VGA at only 15fps )

What will work best for you largely depends on your video and travel requirements. An E50 with a separate imaging device might make more sense for you. ( if I hadn't run out of pockets, that what I'd be doing )

There's a nokia experience center at stonestown galleria in SF, or so I've been told - you may want to see if they have the an N93 you could hold to see if the heft of it is acceptable.
 
I vote on T-Mobile for N93, although like some said, T-Mobile in Bay Area is full of holes. Meanwhile, Cingular is adding more 850 MHz GSM tower in Bay Area, so you don't really wanna be stuck with non-850 MHz GSM phone with Cingular.
 
I live in a hole in SF.

Where I am, the nearest tower is up around 25-26th and Geary. As you travel north, past Lake St, the elevation rolls down towards the Pacific Ocean... and therefore RF goes bye-bye for me.

I have to get up on the 4th floor to grab any Cingular signal. It does not matter if I'm using an 850MHz enabled phone (Nokia 6230b, 6010) or 1900-only (Nokia 5500 Sport, 6310i, 8890, Motorola V60gi, Samsung X820...) It's equally stinky.

In fact, I've been flirting with the idea of jumping over to Verizon. Not having coverage stinks big time. But I don't know how reception is where I am.

If anyone is passing along El Camino Del Mar towards the Legion of Honor on a tourist run, can you pause at 26th and El Camino Del Mar and report back your Verizon coverage? Ha!
 
Hehe I'm actually thinking of the same thing as you, switching to T-mobile and getting the N93, but I'm balking at the price ($800!) and worry that it'll come out soon in the US market and the price will drop drastically. Just curious tho, why don't you try the Samsung a990? That's by verizon tho... The SE K800 is cheaper than the N93...but triband too.
 
HunterHawk: I don't want to be a 850 whiner, and in fact I am familiar with T-mobile's 1900 coverage; at least in NYC where it is pretty good. I actually never considered buying a N93, but as a matter of principle phones that companies should not try to cut cost on its top-end phone through omitting such handy features - despite its limited utility when the whole world is considered, it's certainly comes in very useful to a bunch of people.
 
Well, to keep the secret to myself, on New Montgomery and Market, near Mens Warehouse, they're selling the n93 for $635 (After $50 rebate) w/TMO 2 Yr contract. Other then that, they could just order the phone for you for retail $875. I'm trying to wait cause I know the retail price will go down in a couple of weeks like what Nokia does all the time... But, it's pretty stupid for a highly anticipated phone with many features, not hold a quad support. (Retarded in my opinion..) So, I'm thinking of just buying a phone from my work with TMO 2 yr service with a RAZR or the Samsung, both with 850 and RAZR with Quad support, and just buying the N93 when the retail is lower..but! as always...i'm still on a debate upon the idea...

Have fun.
 
850 is mainly used in the usa ... the rest of the world supports 900, i know the 900 is reserved for pagers and phones but still that makes the difference. 3g was supposed to be a standard that the world agrees on and they agreed on 2100 mhz and now US has its own version of 3g 1900mhz , basically nokia isnt to blame . they make handsets for a biggers market which is the rest of the world where people are willing to pay premiums for their phones . here in the US ppl jst want wat ever comes free and those who do want to pay are jst a handfull, so why do u think nokia would want to invest in quadband when it doesnt effect them ? to them its more or less a useless frequency
 
ozzi's: Don't get me wrong. I dislike the American use of different systems myself, both on their different UMTS band and GSM bands, and other things, like their use of the Imperial system. Nokia isn't to blame for all this.

But I make an exception for their top of the line phone. I can understand why on less expensive phones why they only have triband, but when the N73 has quadband, the N93 just looks bad not having it.
 
ok, sure. In an ideal world perhaps my new n73's umts would be useable too. Better yet, how about 850/1900/2100 hspda? I've pretty much reconciled myself to the us cellular system and handset options lagging behind the rest of the world for a while longer. I'll just make due.

The point I was trying to make was that perhaps the thread originator might want to think about his/her requirements a bit more. Switching to t-mobile isn't a very good option if the poster plans to leave SF often. Maybe a quad band N73 makes more sense - or even an A990 on verizon -it's impossible to say without more info. If the only goal is to have an N93 in one's pocket, then t-mobile is really the only option that will begin to make things work for a user in SF.
 
Keep in mind that Nokia is out of Finland and Motorola is out the US (Shaumburg, IL, actually). The only business they have with 850 is on the phones specifically for the US. We're lucky we can use ANY of the European and Asian phones they build for those countries at all, since quite literally, we're using the phones on a roaming feature.
 
That doesn't prevent them from making a ton of tri-band phones, clearly they want some roaming in their phones... why not make them roaming fully? Quite a few of their tri-band phones have two models with almost identical specs, except which band is omitted.
 
Then the same question goes for Motorola and Samsung. Why do they leave out the 900 or 1800 for Europe? The same reason Nokia leaves out 850 for they're European and Asian phones: it's only for roaming.
 
Back
Top