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

[treeebird]

T-Mobile operates in 1900 MHz only. Cingular operates in both 850 MHz and 1900 MHz. So I would recomment T-Mobile.

[MountaineerMan7]

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.

[kiki_y2k2000]

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.

[jahladanuts]

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.

[joec]

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

[Geshan]

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.

[Sap]

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.

[Raymond C88]

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.

[sahranghae_s2]

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.

[gf f]

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.