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

I don't know -- to me, the purpose of a tri-band phone is unclear. I can understand dual-band and I can understand quad-band. A tri-band phone is just like a car with three regular wheels and a spare -- it works well at home (parked in the garage) and sucks on the road...
 
I was exaggerrating a bit. You can drive with a spare on the city streets and won't even notice, try getting up to a freeway speed and it'll become noticeable right away.

The purpose of the car is to drive -- on all roads available. The purpose of the phone is to connect to networks -- all that are available.
 
Well, we don't really get to connect to "all available roads" either. We're only talking about GSM. Both the US and Europe are mostly CDMA (Verizon here). A phone that connects to all 4 GSM signals, all 3G signals, iDEN towers, all CDMA towers, and all TDMA towers would really be the "lambourgini" you're talking about.

Like I said, we're lucky we can use European phones in the US at all.
 
I believe that spot for any cellular isnt great, (i used to live nearby, work a few blocks away) cept ATTWS TDMA or VZ AMPS is your only hope or else get a reapeter, its SF it isnt gonna be filled in 100% precent
 
i understand wat ur saying is , i would like to have quadband on my 8800 as well but the thing is not many ppl in the US are willing to pay the price for a 8800 or premium nokia phones, while in countires that use 900 ppl are willing to pay , so to the manufacture it makes sense in putting in a triband with 900 on it instead of putting in a bit more expensive quadband antenna when they know that most of their sales gona be in 900 area where ppl dont care abut quadband.
 
Interesting thread. Who has purchased the phone in the SF area? What are your thoughts on service/coverage? I'm considering purchasing it but I hope that I wouldn't encounter any problems with the service (TMobile).
 
Back
Top