Re: Consumer Reports: iPhone 4 - Not recommended - Article 270 - go-pugleaf

Article View: alt.cellular.attws

Article #270

Back to alt.cellular.attws Previous Next

Re: Consumer Reports: iPhone 4 - Not recommended

#270

From: Todd Allcock
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 04:22

26 lines
2451 bytes

At 18 Jul 2010 09:39:42 -0700 Jeff Liebermann wrote:

> >You recall wrong.  Circa 1992-1994 you could buy a 3 watt bag phone. 
> >I'm told that circa 1990 you could buy a 5 watt bag phone.
> 
> My memory isn't perfect, but I don't recall any 5 watt bag phones.
> There would have been considerable advertising value to offering the
> most "powerful" phone.  There were plenty of MTS and IMTS phones,
> belching 25 watts, but that was much earlier:
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improved_Mobile_Telephone_Service>
> In the late 1980's, I was selling $2,000 OKI mobile cellular
> telephones on the side.  3 watts maximum.

My memory is hazy as well going back to the late 80's when I was selling
them.  IIRC, there were "5 watt" phones initially, but I believe "5 watt"
 and "3 watt" phones were the same- IIRC, there was change in the way the
power output spec was defined- maybe a change from "peak" to "average" or
something?  Again, it was quite a long time ago! 

I certainly don't recall any special FCC rules or requirements on "bag
phones," like nospam is talking about.  Bag phones were simply car-
mounted phones converted to portable use, and had the same limits as car-
mounted phones- 3W.

Technical Details

Message-ID: <wwQ0o.11844$KT3.10119@newsfe13.iad>

Path:

arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!post02.iad.highwinds-media.com!newsfe13.iad.POSTED!f09e3bc5!not-for-mail

References:

<180720100001450673%nospam@nospam.invalid> <dbw0o.19896$lS1.7928@newsfe12.iad> <180720100149520637%nospam@nospam.invalid> <i1u8ij$7h1$3@speranza.aioe.org> <a99646p2u3qfbi9jgtq45qk65a4ucnihpl@4ax.com>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

X-Google-Thread: 110038,d8a6e883f28322e7
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Thread: fa874,d8a6e883f28322e7
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gidd668eef4dc,gidaa617e85ca,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!post02.iad.highwinds-media.com!newsfe13.iad.POSTED!f09e3bc5!not-for-mail
From: Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com>
In-Reply-To: <a99646p2u3qfbi9jgtq45qk65a4ucnihpl@4ax.com>
References: <180720100001450673%nospam@nospam.invalid>
 <dbw0o.19896$lS1.7928@newsfe12.iad>
 <180720100149520637%nospam@nospam.invalid>
 <i1u8ij$7h1$3@speranza.aioe.org>
 <a99646p2u3qfbi9jgtq45qk65a4ucnihpl@4ax.com>
Subject: Re: Consumer Reports: iPhone 4 - Not recommended
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Newsgroups: alt.cellular.attws,ba.internet
X-Mailer: QMAIL 3.0.7.4336 / Windows CE 5.02 / ARM
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <wwQ0o.11844$KT3.10119@newsfe13.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@WWWSpace.NET
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 04:29:16 UTC
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2010 22:22:10 -0600

Reply to Parent Message