🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: alt.cellular.attws
Article #284

Re: Consumer Reports: iPhone 4 - Not recommended

#284
From: Todd Allcock
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 06:32
35 lines
2579 bytes
At 18 Jul 2010 21:55:40 -0700 Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 22:22:10 -0600, Todd Allcock

> 
> >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! 
> 
> No way.  All the AMPS phones were ordinary FM.  No amplitude component
> to offer creative specmanship.  Key the xmitter and the average, peak,
> and RMS RF power output are all identical.

<snip>

> See my other rant on the subject.  
>   Message-ID: <prs646t4slrkfrupjbdd62iq0p2a29hl25@4ax.com>
> The 1.2 watt limit was for hand-held and transportable half-duplex
> (i.e. PTT) cellular phones, which nobody bothered to build and sell.
> It was NOT an FCC imposed limit, which only limits the phones to 7
> watts EIRP.  However, I suspect that RF exposure limits, which
> appeared at about that time, probably were the prime motivator.
 


I'll bet it's the 7W EIRP I'm thinking of, rather than 5W.  I just
remember arguing with a customer way back when who was looking for a more
powerful cellular phone than 3W.

Thanks for the refresher course!
Technical Details
Message-ID: <1lS0o.39777$f_3.27744@newsfe17.iad>
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!npeer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!post02.iad.highwinds-media.com!newsfe17.iad.POSTED!f09e3bc5!not-for-mail
References: <180720100149520637%nospam@nospam.invalid> <i1u8ij$7h1$3@speranza.aioe.org> <a99646p2u3qfbi9jgtq45qk65a4ucnihpl@4ax.com> <wwQ0o.11844$KT3.10119@newsfe13.iad> <0dm746t9ervan4hjn71bn8i8h15js59hog@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!npeer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!post02.iad.highwinds-media.com!newsfe17.iad.POSTED!f09e3bc5!not-for-mail
From: Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com>
In-Reply-To: <0dm746t9ervan4hjn71bn8i8h15js59hog@4ax.com>
References: <180720100149520637%nospam@nospam.invalid>
 <i1u8ij$7h1$3@speranza.aioe.org>
 <a99646p2u3qfbi9jgtq45qk65a4ucnihpl@4ax.com>
 <wwQ0o.11844$KT3.10119@newsfe13.iad>
 <0dm746t9ervan4hjn71bn8i8h15js59hog@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: 38
Message-ID: <1lS0o.39777$f_3.27744@newsfe17.iad>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@WWWSpace.NET
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 06:33:33 UTC
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 00:32:37 -0600