Article View: alt.cellular.attws
Article #284Re: Consumer Reports: iPhone 4 - Not recommended
From: Todd Allcock
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 06:32
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 06:32
35 lines
2579 bytes
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-mailReferences:
<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