Re: Consumer Reports: iPhone 4 - Not recommended - Article 317 - go-pugleaf

Article View: alt.cellular.attws

Article #317

Back to alt.cellular.attws Previous Next

Re: Consumer Reports: iPhone 4 - Not recommended

#317

From: nospam
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2010 05:49

28 lines
2664 bytes

In article <dbw0o.19896$lS1.7928@newsfe12.iad>, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:

> > > I used to carry my bagphone to the food court just outside the
> > > store and "make a call".  The powerful 3 watt AMPS monster swamped
> > > out of the store's cheater repeater....(c;]
> > 
> > nope. bag phones were limited to 1.2 watts and handhelds to 0.6 watts.
> > only carphones could do 3 watts.
> 
> Huh?  Bagphones, from manufacturers like Motorola and Nokia, were
> literally "bag phones"- a car phone shoveled into a bag with a big-ass
> 12V lead-acid battery to power it.

yep, i have one somewhere. i can't believe people carried those things.

> Most car/bag phones had a "power saving" mode that could kick the 3-watt
> transmitter down to a smaller output (0.6 to 1.5W depending on the
> make/model, IIRC- my Nokia switched between 1W and 3W.)  That worked on
> both bag and car phones, (to save car battery reserves when the car
> wasn't running.)

as i recall, the fcc limited output power to 0.6w on a handheld, 1.2w
on a bagphone and 3w on a car phone. 

but it doesn't matter, if someone is close enough to a cell tower,
especially one inside a shopping mall, the transmit power isn't going
to be anywhere close to 0.6w, let alone 1.2 or 3w.

Technical Details

Message-ID: <180720100149520637%nospam@nospam.invalid>

Path:

arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail

References:

<Xns9DB610031F9CCnoonehomecom@74.209.131.13> <i1m8iq$q7u$1@news.eternal-september.org> <2gd246h1dm904pbp9mm4a6hse2hk6hqfmp@4ax.com> <Xns9DB8EB62D8FF7noonehomecom@74.209.131.13> <180720100001450673%nospam@nospam.invalid> <dbw0o.19896$lS1.7928@newsfe12.iad>

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!news2.google.com!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
Newsgroups: alt.cellular.attws,ba.internet
Subject: Re: Consumer Reports: iPhone 4 - Not recommended
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2010 01:49:52 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <180720100149520637%nospam@nospam.invalid>
References: <Xns9DB610031F9CCnoonehomecom@74.209.131.13> <i1m8iq$q7u$1@news.eternal-september.org> <2gd246h1dm904pbp9mm4a6hse2hk6hqfmp@4ax.com> <Xns9DB8EB62D8FF7noonehomecom@74.209.131.13> <180720100001450673%nospam@nospam.invalid> <dbw0o.19896$lS1.7928@newsfe12.iad>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2010 05:49:53 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="sdwj3r/sAkX/JwCAxkeUMA";
 logging-data="28617"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+8mjnywTO1ibpRKhZ8ed+8"
User-Agent: Thoth/1.8.3 (Carbon/OS X)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:eUbQcYqGUZaoQ2JsEYAWNlE6D7g=

Reply to Parent Message