Brother, this list is based on the SAR value only (Specific Absorption Rate). It just helps us to say that which device is safer for our body. They don't consider the signal strength or reception while making the list.
As far I understand, ..."The performance test results you want, if you can get them, are the Total Isotropic Sensitivity (TIS) value for reception and the Total Radiated Power (TRP) for transmission."...
..."Either way, I don’t think phone manufacturers are likely to use TIS in their marketing. There are too many variables for it to be a reliable guide to real-world reception. For example, studies have found significant differences between holding a phone in the left hand and holding it in the right hand, which I assume is connected with the way manufacturers position their antenna(s). The size of your hands and the angle at which you hold the phone also make a difference"...
..."I couldn’t find much public research into mobile phone reception with commercial phones, presumably because of some of the problems mentioned above"...
..."However, Ofcom did point out that the non-smartphones outperformed the smartphones, and that “some of the smartphones tested required over 10x (10dB) more power than the best performing non-smartphone”.
You could always buy a cheap Nokia for making voice calls"...
Different mobile network consumers often blamed telecommunication companies for their weak signals and internet speed. But it is true that not only telecommunication companies are guilty of this, but weak antennas in mobile phones are also the reason for weak signals. In today’s article, we will tell you about the best mobile phones for poor reception areas.
