Re: Consumer Reports: iPhone 4 - Not recommended - Article 349 - go-pugleaf

Article View: alt.cellular.attws

Article #349

Back to alt.cellular.attws Previous Next

Re: Consumer Reports: iPhone 4 - Not recommended

#349

From: nospam
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2010 23:21

28 lines
2543 bytes

In article <a99646p2u3qfbi9jgtq45qk65a4ucnihpl@4ax.com>, Jeff
Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:

> >> 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. 
> 
> I don't recall any 1.2w limit on bag phones. 

i do, but i can't find a link about it and don't have time to dig.

> The typical Motorola
> AMPS bag phone was exactly the same radio as the Motorola mobile
> phone.  I had both and they were both 3 watts.  

i had a bag phone too and i'm positive it was 1.2w, but it's in storage
(not sure why because it's worthless) and i have no way to test it.

> >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.

nor do i.

> There would have been considerable advertising value to offering the
> most "powerful" phone.  There were plenty of MTS and IMTS phones,

i have one of those too.

Technical Details

Message-ID: <180720101921500295%nospam@nospam.invalid>

Path:

arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!85.214.198.2.MISMATCH!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> <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!news4.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!85.214.198.2.MISMATCH!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 19:21:50 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <180720101921500295%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> <180720100149520637%nospam@nospam.invalid> <i1u8ij$7h1$3@speranza.aioe.org> <a99646p2u3qfbi9jgtq45qk65a4ucnihpl@4ax.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2010 23:21:50 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="sdwj3r/sAkX/JwCAxkeUMA";
 logging-data="4538"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+LzSxrVpz7A52m32aDaM0S"
User-Agent: Thoth/1.8.3 (Carbon/OS X)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:8YC7XKO2rmYqUS1geoW0t9LF590=

Reply to Parent Message