New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino
Page 3 - New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino. Discuss New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino, on Wireless Forums.
Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino
On 11/14/2010 7:38 PM, Fred wrote:
> nospam<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in news:141120101636047820%
> nospam@nospam.invalid:
>
>> In article<82l0e6poor0fgh2o76cg04jfcj1im775l0@4ax.com >, John Navas
>> <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Nonsense. While driving my phone is playing Pandora, Internet radio, or
>>> podcasts, and giving me voice turn-by-turn directions at the same time.
>>> I also use data while hiking and sailing. Wi-Fi can only compete when
>>> I'm getting coffee at Starbucks.
>>
>> and you don't come anywhere close to 5 gig doing that daily?
>>
>
> John is always full of miracles.....(c;]
He should work for T-Mobile and/or AT&T since he has good coverage where
the carriers themselves insist there is poor or non-existent coverage.
It's a miracle!
The carriers could save a lot of money by not putting in new sites in
these areas. It's a shame that they're spending so much time designing
new sites, lobbying for approval, then building these sites, since
clearly they're not needed. These new sites cost hundreds of thousands
of dollars before they're up and running, and such wasteful spending has
got to affect the bottom line of the carriers.
Sadly, reality is quite different from what our John believes.
Actually, I think Verizon would argue that the new AT&T site is not
needed as well!
Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 03:48:33 +0000, Fred <nobody@here.net> wrote:
>Roy <aa4re@aa4re.ampr.org> wrote in news:QbWdncBbG-
>ch6H3RnZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d@posted.southvalleyinternet :
>
>> I believe the power limit on 2.4 Ghz under Part 15 is 1 watt into a
>> omnidirectional antenna and less for directional antennas
>>
>>
>4W ERP....
1 watt transmit power max, no matter what you do with the antenna.
>The FCC labels are on both the box and the device, as required by law. The
>company is in Arizona that's selling them here. Report them to the FCC and
>see if they get ticketed or you get sued.
What is the FCC ID number? What company in Arizona. I've seen a few
counterfeits and borrowed ID numbers.
Most amplifiers designs are unstable and love to oscillate at
unexpected frequencies:
<http://www.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-296094A1.html>
Incidentally, I don't believe your device can output 2 watts if
powered by USB. Each USB port can belch 5V at 0.5A maximum. That's
2.5 watts per port. Two ports in parallel will deliver 5 watts. The
typical 2.4 Ghz power amplifier is about 10% efficient, thus requiring
20 watts of DC power to power it. That's not going to happen from
anything powered by USB ports.
Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in
news:vub1e6dqi13eu0j0mmsftjhn6f3juo7he6@4ax.com:
>>There were 39 hotspots on the list tonight.
>
> I'm not impressed. I've seen hundreds. All that proves is that you
> live in an area that's infested with too many radios. Incidentally,
> I've seen access points that have as many at 10 SSID's running. Look
> for duplicated MAC addresses.
>
Without the Alfa and its antenna, I see 8 hotspots and can only marginally
connect to 2 of them at Red Roof Inn......That's a real difference.
Send their Arizona company webpage to info@fcc.gov as your civic duty.
FCC, I'm sure, will put a stop to it, immediately, and send your report
to the data-alliance company law firm, as required by law.
If you're so concerned it's all illegal for mere mortals to possess and
use, it's your DUTY to report them!
Let us know how that works out for you. They've been selling these units
for some time. They're not new. FCC approved them for use. Don't
forget to mention that to FCC in your report.
I didn't invent or manufacture the ****ing thing. I simply bought
it....It's not my fault.
Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino
On 11/14/2010 8:21 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> Incidentally, I don't believe your device can output 2 watts if
> powered by USB. Each USB port can belch 5V at 0.5A maximum. That's
> 2.5 watts per port.
Not quite. The USB port on a laptop or desktop can "belch 5V" at 0.5A
_minimum_ not maximum (and not typical). 500mA is guaranteed, but in
reality, on most systems, the over-current protection on the USB ports
does not kick in until a much higher level, it's rare for the
over-current protector to kick in at less than 750mA, and many ports can
supply 800 to 1000mA. That's why so many devices that come with a dual
USB plug for more current will usually work just fine from a single port.
I.e. as a commonly used over-current protection device's data sheet
states "The current limit circuit is designed to protect the system
supply, the MOSFET switches and the load from damage caused by excessive
currents. The current limit threshold is set internally to allow a
_minimum_ of 500 mA through the MOSFET but limits the output current to
approximately 1.0A _typical_."
If you ever want to test the USB port's limit, hook up a 5 ohm 5 watt
resistor in series with an 8 ohm 5 watt potentiometer and adjust the pot
until the over-current triggers, then measure the resistance. It's
resettable so there's no permanent damage with the over-current kicks in.
Some smaller devices with host USB ports can't supply even 500mA (i.e.
some PDAs could set their USB port to host mode) but you won't see a
laptop or desktop with that limit.
Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in
news:vub1e6dqi13eu0j0mmsftjhn6f3juo7he6@4ax.com:
> What characterizes all of them
> is that none of the owners have bothered to even try using their
> system with the transmitters set at lower power. After a suitable
> demonstration that it works equally well at 100 milliwatts as at 10
> watts, the amplifier usually disappears.
>
Too funny. The transmitter power is set to AUTO, by default. I doubt
it's running 2 watts 5 feet from my wifi at home.
Do you go around reporting all the hams in Santa Cruz you don't like?
I've heard crazy stories out of Californicate about 2 meter repeater wars
and other nonsense ******** that are very hard to believe. I bet FCC
loves you.
I put your ham call into Google and got 21,000+ hits! Are you the big
controller type in the local ham club?
Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 04:58:45 +0000, Fred <nobody@here.net> wrote:
>Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in
>news:vub1e6dqi13eu0j0mmsftjhn6f3juo7he6@4ax.com :
>
>>>There were 39 hotspots on the list tonight.
>>
>> I'm not impressed. I've seen hundreds. All that proves is that you
>> live in an area that's infested with too many radios. Incidentally,
>> I've seen access points that have as many at 10 SSID's running. Look
>> for duplicated MAC addresses.
>>
>
>Without the Alfa and its antenna, I see 8 hotspots and can only marginally
>connect to 2 of them at Red Roof Inn......That's a real difference.
Nice job ignoring all the important points and concentrating on the
trivia.
Take your unspecified model netbook. Open the door to the wi-fi card
on the bottom of the netbook. Attach a Hirose U.FL to RP-SMA pigtail
directly to the Main port of the wireless card. The other end goes to
your 5.5dBi omni antenna. Now, try sniffing for AP's. Unless your
unspecified Netbook wi-fi card is comatose, you should see 39 access
points.
Well, you'll probably see a few less than 39 because the PROBE REQ
packets belched by your unspecified active sniffer might not be heard
by the outlying AP's.
Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino
On 11/14/2010 9:04 PM, SMS wrote:
> On 11/14/2010 8:21 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
>> Incidentally, I don't believe your device can output 2 watts if
>> powered by USB. Each USB port can belch 5V at 0.5A maximum. That's
>> 2.5 watts per port.
>
> Not quite. The USB port on a laptop or desktop can "belch 5V" at 0.5A
> _minimum_ not maximum (and not typical). 500mA is guaranteed, but in
> reality, on most systems, the over-current protection on the USB ports
> does not kick in until a much higher level, it's rare for the
> over-current protector to kick in at less than 750mA, and many ports can
> supply 800 to 1000mA. That's why so many devices that come with a dual
> USB plug for more current will usually work just fine from a single port.
>
> I.e. as a commonly used over-current protection device's data sheet
> states "The current limit circuit is designed to protect the system
> supply, the MOSFET switches and the load from damage caused by excessive
> currents. The current limit threshold is set internally to allow a
> _minimum_ of 500 mA through the MOSFET but limits the output current to
> approximately 1.0A _typical_."
>
> If you ever want to test the USB port's limit, hook up a 5 ohm 5 watt
> resistor in series with an 8 ohm 5 watt potentiometer and adjust the pot
> until the over-current triggers, then measure the resistance. It's
> resettable so there's no permanent damage with the over-current kicks in.
Oh, and this may still not trigger it since you won't be able to go over
1 amp. Maybe a 2 ohm resistor instead, or a 16 ohm pot by itself.
Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino
On 14/11/10 9:19 PM, Fred wrote:
> Jeff Liebermann<jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in
> news:hpf1e69cob3js19vpdr1t393td6qrtutvk@4ax.com:
>
>> Jeff Liebermann
>
> Enough ********....plonk. **** off Jeff..
Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino
On 11/14/2010 8:58 PM, Fred wrote:
> Jeff Liebermann<jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in
> news:vub1e6dqi13eu0j0mmsftjhn6f3juo7he6@4ax.com:
>
>>> There were 39 hotspots on the list tonight.
>>
>> I'm not impressed. I've seen hundreds. All that proves is that you
>> live in an area that's infested with too many radios. Incidentally,
>> I've seen access points that have as many at 10 SSID's running. Look
>> for duplicated MAC addresses.
>>
>
> Without the Alfa and its antenna, I see 8 hotspots and can only marginally
> connect to 2 of them at Red Roof Inn......That's a real difference.
With a "regular power" USB adapter and the antenna you would probably do
about as well. Most of the improvement is because of the better antenna,
not because of the higher power.
I've used my Buffalo high power card with and without the external
antenna. The connectivity does improve with the higher power, but it
improves even more when you plug in the external directional antenna.
Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino
On 11/14/2010 9:03 PM, Fred wrote:
> Jeff Liebermann<jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in
> news:vub1e6dqi13eu0j0mmsftjhn6f3juo7he6@4ax.com:
>
>> Your 2 watt
>> transmitter is not legal no matter what antenna is used.
>>
>
> Report them:
>
> <http://www.data-alliance.net/-strse-...S036NH-2000mW-
> 1000mW/Detail.bok>
>
> Send their Arizona company webpage to info@fcc.gov as your civic duty.
>
> FCC, I'm sure, will put a stop to it, immediately, and send your report
> to the data-alliance company law firm, as required by law.
>
> If you're so concerned it's all illegal for mere mortals to possess and
> use, it's your DUTY to report them!
>
> Let us know how that works out for you. They've been selling these units
> for some time. They're not new. FCC approved them for use. Don't
> forget to mention that to FCC in your report.
>
> I didn't invent or manufacture the ****ing thing. I simply bought
> it....It's not my fault.
>
> Holy **** you all are a brainwashed bunch!
I went to the manufacturer web site. As I read it, the unit is 2W ERP
(33 dbm). Subtract out the 5 DB antenna and you get 28 dbm or around
650 mw transmit power and thus legal.
Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino
On 11/14/2010 10:51 PM, Roy wrote:
> ...
>
> I went to the manufacturer web site. As I read it, the unit is 2W ERP
> (33 dbm). Subtract out the 5 DB antenna and you get 28 dbm or around 650
> mw transmit power and thus legal.
Further data. The manufacturer reports that it uses the RT3070 chipset.
From the datasheet
Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino
On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 21:04:39 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:
>On 11/14/2010 8:21 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>
>> Incidentally, I don't believe your device can output 2 watts if
>> powered by USB. Each USB port can belch 5V at 0.5A maximum. That's
>> 2.5 watts per port.
>
>Not quite. The USB port on a laptop or desktop can "belch 5V" at 0.5A
>_minimum_ not maximum (and not typical). 500mA is guaranteed, but in
>reality, on most systems, the over-current protection on the USB ports
>does not kick in until a much higher level, it's rare for the
>over-current protector to kick in at less than 750mA, and many ports can
>supply 800 to 1000mA. That's why so many devices that come with a dual
>USB plug for more current will usually work just fine from a single port.
What little tinkering I've done on this found that the controller chip
will declare an overload at about 1000ma, and shut off. You can get
away with sourcing more than 500ma, but if you go over, such as
charging an electrolytic filter cap, it will turn off the port.
>I.e. as a commonly used over-current protection device's data sheet
>states "The current limit circuit is designed to protect the system
>supply, the MOSFET switches and the load from damage caused by excessive
>currents. The current limit threshold is set internally to allow a
>_minimum_ of 500 mA through the MOSFET but limits the output current to
>approximately 1.0A _typical_."
That's not what I found, but it's easy enough to retest. I have a USB
test cable butchered to insert an ammeter to measure current. As I
recall, there's also a limit per chip for multiport devices.
Digging through the USB 2.0 spec from:
<http://www.usb.org/developers/docs/usb_20_081810.zip>
7.2.1.2.1 Over-current Protection
The preset value cannot exceed 5.0 A and must be
sufficiently above the maximum allowable port current
such that transient currents (e.g., during power up or
dynamic attach or reconfiguration) do not trip the
over-current protector.
7.3.2 Bus Timing/Electrical Characteristics
Table 7-7
High-power Hub Port (out) 500 ma minimum.
Y'er right. 500 ma is the minimum, with the only maximum specified is
the 5A protection, leaving the overload point totally to the chip
manufacturer. That leaves room for quite a bit of variation and
creativity by the chip designers.
However, it doesn't matter. I'm fairly sure about the 10% efficiency
of the 2.4GHz power amplifier. At 2 watts output, that would require
that the USB ports source 20 watts of DC power, which isn't going to
happen.
>If you ever want to test the USB port's limit, hook up a 5 ohm 5 watt
>resistor in series with an 8 ohm 5 watt potentiometer and adjust the pot
>until the over-current triggers, then measure the resistance. It's
>resettable so there's no permanent damage with the over-current kicks in.
Crude. I have an active load I once built for testing power supplies.
Basically just a voltage regulator setup as a constant current source
and heat sink. The problem is finding it. 5 unit loads (500ma) is a
10 ohm resistor, so that's probably easier.
>Some smaller devices with host USB ports can't supply even 500mA (i.e.
>some PDAs could set their USB port to host mode) but you won't see a
>laptop or desktop with that limit.
Ummm... the USB port on a PDA or cell phone is meant to charge its
internal battery, so methinks there should not be a 5V source in the
PDA USB port.
Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 05:03:28 +0000, Fred <nobody@here.net> wrote:
>Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in
>news:vub1e6dqi13eu0j0mmsftjhn6f3juo7he6@4ax.com :
>
>> Your 2 watt
>> transmitter is not legal no matter what antenna is used.
Thanks for not bothering to supply the FCC ID. Digging through the
Grantee search page, the prefix for Alfa is UQ2. They show 17 devices
with FCC type certification, none of which are the AWUS036NH. However,
they do list the AWUS036H, which seems to be an identical package, but
with a +20dBm (100 mw) 802.11g power output and +24dBm (>200mw)
802.11b output. Perhaps someone added an extra zero, where 200mw
magically became 2000mw?
I think if you open up your device, and compare it with the FCC
photos, you'll find they're identical.
<https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/ViewExhibitReport.cfm?mode=Exhibits&RequestTimeout =500&calledFromFrame=N&application_id=735762&fcc_i d=%27UQ2AWUS036H%27>
If the above government abomination doesn't work (because it needs to
drop cookies from a previous page), then go unto:
<http://www.fcc.gov/oet/ea/fccid/>
and inscribe UQ2 in the Grantee Code box. The look for AWUS036H in
the list.
Nothing to report. If that's what you own, it's legal.
Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino
On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 23:04:33 -0800, Roy <aa4re@aa4re.ampr.org> wrote:
>13dbm is 200 mw.
Nope. 13dBm is 20 mw. 200 mw is 23dBm.
<http://www.aubraux.com/design/dbm-to-milli-watts-table.php>
<http://www.aubraux.com/design/milli-watts-to-dbm-table.php>
I have this scribbled on the shelf above my desk:
1 mw = 0 dBm
10 mw = 10 dBm
100 mw = 20 dBm
1 watt = 30 dBm
10 watts = 40 dBm
100 watts = 50 dBm
1 kw = 60 dBm
I interpolate the values in between using 3dB = twice the power. If
desperate, I'll use a calculator or web site.
Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino
On 11/14/2010 11:10 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> Ummm... the USB port on a PDA or cell phone is meant to charge its
> internal battery, so methinks there should not be a 5V source in the
> PDA USB port.
My old Toshiba E750 had a separate power connector and USB port (the USB
port was via the adapter that also had a VGA port). The USB port could
be set to host mode, one of the few PDAs with that ability. I think it
also charged via USB though, and you could buy an adapter cable that let
you charge via USB and operate in host mode at the same time. I'm
certain that it did not provide 500mA, and there is a provision in the
USB spec that allows lower current.
Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 03:41:12 +0000, in
<Xns9E30E6CF47D80nobodyherenet@74.209.131.13>, Fred <nobody@here.net>
wrote:
>alt.binaries.movies.divx
>
>alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.(your fav genre)
>
>It never ceases to amaze me how many posters to these sellphone/Apple
>groups have no idea how to use binaries off newsgroups for unlimited
>entertainment at no cost....
Many of us don't stoop to thievery. Do you shoplift too, or only steal
media on the Internet because you don't think you'll get caught?
--
John
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford
Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino
On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 20:19:52 -0800, in
<4ce0b4de$0$22149$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>On 11/14/2010 7:38 PM, Fred wrote:
>> nospam<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in news:141120101636047820%
>> nospam@nospam.invalid:
>>
>>> In article<82l0e6poor0fgh2o76cg04jfcj1im775l0@4ax.com >, John Navas
>>> <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nonsense. While driving my phone is playing Pandora, Internet radio, or
>>>> podcasts, and giving me voice turn-by-turn directions at the same time.
>>>> I also use data while hiking and sailing. Wi-Fi can only compete when
>>>> I'm getting coffee at Starbucks.
>>>
>>> and you don't come anywhere close to 5 gig doing that daily?
>>
>> John is always full of miracles.....(c;]
>
>He should work for T-Mobile and/or AT&T since he has good coverage where
>the carriers themselves insist there is poor or non-existent coverage.
>It's a miracle!
>[SNIP]
It's actually fact.
I post hard performance data, including GPS coordinates.
You just make things up.
--
John
"It is better to sit in silence and appear ignorant,
than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." -Mark Twain
"A little learning is a dangerous thing." -Alexander Pope
"Being ignorant is not so much a shame,
as being unwilling to learn." -Benjamin Franklin
Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 05:19:23 +0000, in
<Xns9E31350B5EEDnobodyherenet@74.209.131.13>, Fred <nobody@here.net>
wrote:
>Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in
>news:hpf1e69cob3js19vpdr1t393td6qrtutvk@4ax.com :
>
>> Jeff Liebermann
>
>Enough ********....plonk. **** off Jeff..
I guess it's "********" because you don't like hard facts that
contradict your wishful thinking. Jeff is a real radio engineer with
real credentials who knows what he's talking about with the hard data to
back it up. He's also one of the most polite people here. No
disrespect intended, but you've just branded yourself an idiot.
--
John
"Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level
and then beat you with experience." -Dr. Alan Zimmerman
Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino
In article <ntm2e61lrukvtemugur2ap8kjtuns02g0i@4ax.com>, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 05:19:23 +0000, in
> <Xns9E31350B5EEDnobodyherenet@74.209.131.13>, Fred <nobody@here.net>
> wrote:
> >Enough ********....plonk. **** off Jeff..
>
> I guess it's "********" because you don't like hard facts that
> contradict your wishful thinking. Jeff is a real radio engineer with
> real credentials who knows what he's talking about with the hard data to
> back it up. He's also one of the most polite people here. No
> disrespect intended, but you've just branded yourself an idiot.
he's done that many times over and will no doubt continue to do so.
Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino
On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 17:06:56 -0800, in
<4ce087a9$0$22148$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>On 11/14/2010 1:17 PM, Fred wrote:
>
>> Maybe this is true in Californicate, but not in Charleston. That WAS
>> true when I had the ****** little 20mw wifi radio into its embedded
>> crappy antenna behind the LCD panel in all that radio noise the netbook
>> makes....
>
>Even with my netbook's built-in wi-fi, it's pretty rare for me to be
>somewhere stationary without Wi-Fi. I was at the ARM Tech conference
>last week and while inside the exhibit hall it was pay Wi-Fi, they had
>an area with free Wi-Fi upstairs. Every coffee house, most non-fancy
>restaurants, libraries, parks, airports, and businesses all have Wi-Fi
>available. When I'm at a customer site they will always have a guest
>network available.
You have narrow horizons, because most Wi-Fi these days is secured or
private, at least here in the San Francisco Bay Area. Yes, there is
free Wi-Fi, but there are lots of places without free Wi-Fi.
>For the times there is no Wi-Fi there is 3G or 4G data, but for most
>people there is no need to be using multiple GB of wireless data, they
>just do it because it's less trouble than bothering with Wi-Fi. I use 3G
>data, but not a tremendous amount because I only use it when there is no
>Wi-Fi and when I have a real need to check e-mail or do something. I'm
>not streaming Pandora or downloading movies. It's just being frugal.
Again, you have narrow horizons, because many (most?) people like to use
data when moving (e.g., Pandora streaming while walking, running, or
hiking).
>I've been at hotels in areas where there is no 2G or 3G service, but
>they still have Wi-Fi though it's often not all that fast because it's
>satellite based.
I can't remember the last time I was at a hotel without 3G coverage, and
my 3G service is often faster than the Internet service at the hotel.
--
John
"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern’s Law of Suspended Judgement]
Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 03:51:11 +0000, in
<Xns9E30E880776ECnobodyherenet@74.209.131.13>, Fred <nobody@here.net>
wrote:
>Thad Floryan <thad@thadlabs.com> wrote in news:4CE05E4C.6090601
>@thadlabs.com:
>
>> My Internet connection is via Comcast DOCSIS 3.0
>
>My heartfelt condolences go out to you on your 250GB/month hobbled up ****
>Comcrap internet service.
>
>.....a former Comcrap slave.
It actually works very well indeed, and 250 GB is more than enough for
all but the very worst (ab)users.
--
John
If the iPhone and iPad are really so impressive,
then why do iFans keep making excuses for them?
Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino
On 11/14/2010 11:10 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> Y'er right. 500 ma is the minimum, with the only maximum specified is
> the 5A protection, leaving the overload point totally to the chip
> manufacturer. That leaves room for quite a bit of variation and
> creativity by the chip designers.
As well as by the system designers. Compaq put a high-current USB port
on some models specifically to power external devices. They added a hole
next to the USB connector, and the external high-current devices they
sold had a pin that went into that hole. The port provided 1.5A
continuous, 2.25A peak. I don't recall the chip they used for the power
control on that design.
The 5A limit is a UL/CSA/TUV/etc limit. They worry about a short in a
cable heating up the cable to the point of it igniting. That's also why
they put pico-fuses on PS/2 ports that have to meet safety standards. I
was amused to see motherboards with zero ohm resistors instead of a
picofuse being sold at retail while the same board sold to PC makers had
the fuses installed. That saved about 4 cents per board.
I added something about USB power to one of my web sites after there was
a lot of confusion about it on rec.photo.digital:
> However, it doesn't matter. I'm fairly sure about the 10% efficiency
> of the 2.4GHz power amplifier. At 2 watts output, that would require
> that the USB ports source 20 watts of DC power, which isn't going to
> happen.
It's not 2W, despite was the spec or Larry says. It's 1W and then
additional gain by the antenna.
Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino
On 11/14/2010 9:19 PM, Fred wrote:
> Jeff Liebermann<jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in
> news:hpf1e69cob3js19vpdr1t393td6qrtutvk@4ax.com:
>
>> Jeff Liebermann
>
> Enough ********....plonk. **** off Jeff..
Larry/Fred, get a clue. Plonk indeed. You earned an esteemed place in my
kill-fill with that.
Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino
In article <ufn2e6dee55c9bg627e161e34m2ca0hhbo@4ax.com>, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >For the times there is no Wi-Fi there is 3G or 4G data, but for most
> >people there is no need to be using multiple GB of wireless data, they
> >just do it because it's less trouble than bothering with Wi-Fi. I use 3G
> >data, but not a tremendous amount because I only use it when there is no
> >Wi-Fi and when I have a real need to check e-mail or do something. I'm
> >not streaming Pandora or downloading movies. It's just being frugal.
>
> Again, you have narrow horizons, because many (most?) people like to use
> data when moving (e.g., Pandora streaming while walking, running, or
> hiking).
of course, but there are also a lot of people who aren't moving, such
as people who work in offices, waiting for a plane, in a doctor's
office, etc.
> >I've been at hotels in areas where there is no 2G or 3G service, but
> >they still have Wi-Fi though it's often not all that fast because it's
> >satellite based.
>
> I can't remember the last time I was at a hotel without 3G coverage, and
> my 3G service is often faster than the Internet service at the hotel.
that's a separate issue. hotel wifi networks are not always that fast.
the same problem is affecting inflight wifi on planes, especially last
year when it was effectively free.
Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino
On 11/15/2010 9:27 AM, nospam wrote:
> that's a separate issue. hotel wifi networks are not always that fast.
> the same problem is affecting inflight wifi on planes, especially last
> year when it was effectively free.
I was on a Virgin flight from FLL to SFO while my nephew was on one from
FLL to LAX, and we were both complaining about the slow Wi-Fi, but
that's all there is on an airplane. It was being heavily used because it
was free. I expect that now that it's not free it's faster. Personally I
think they're charging too much for it, and at the current price levels
it will end up like AirFone. I'd probably pay $8 for a coast to coast
flight, but $13 is a bit much. It's now $8 for hand held devices which I
suppose means that tethering would be a good idea.
The lack of 3G service is something you encounter more on vacation than
on business trips, if you go to more out of the way places. Hotels in
smaller towns where the wireless service is not one of the four major
carriers is where you run into problems. We stayed in Gardiner Montana
outside the Yellowstone northern entrance. There's no 3G on AT&T,
T-Mobile has roaming voice coverage but no native network, and no data
coverage, Verizon has both voice and 3G coverage, Sprint has roaming
voice coverage and says that there may be limited data roaming. This is
not an uncommon situation so if you expect to visit places outside major
population centers then you want to stick with Verizon because they have
far more geographic coverage than the other carriers. The "97%" and
"96%" claims of AT&T and T-Mobile are true, but they're misleading
because the remaining 3-4% represents a vast area. I always advise
people to at least carry a prepaid PagePlus (Verizon + roaming CDMA)
phone when they're going outside major areas because you get so much
coverage that doesn't exist on AT&T or T-Mobile. We did a road trip from
the Bay Area to Minneapolis this summer, and the coverage difference
between Verizon and AT&T and T-Mobile were stark. The "There's a Map for
That" ad campaign by Verizon was one indication of just how much more
native 3G coverage you get with Verizon versus AT&T (and the other
carriers).
Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 08:57:07 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:
>Compaq put a high-current USB port
>on some models specifically to power external devices. They added a hole
>next to the USB connector, and the external high-current devices they
>sold had a pin that went into that hole. The port provided 1.5A
>continuous, 2.25A peak. I don't recall the chip they used for the power
>control on that design.
Nice. I have a USB power hand vibrator that could use more power.
>The 5A limit is a UL/CSA/TUV/etc limit. They worry about a short in a
>cable heating up the cable to the point of it igniting. That's also why
>they put pico-fuses on PS/2 ports that have to meet safety standards. I
>was amused to see motherboards with zero ohm resistors instead of a
>picofuse being sold at retail while the same board sold to PC makers had
>the fuses installed. That saved about 4 cents per board.
Ugh. Cheap design.
While digging thought the USB 2.0 spec collection, I noticed an ECN
(engineering change notice) of:
Title: 5V Short Circuit Withstand Requirement Change
which added:
A USB transceiver is required to withstand a continuous short
circuit of D+ and/or D- to VBUS, GND, other data line, or the
cable shield at the connector, for a minimum of 24 hours without
degradation. It is recommended that transceivers be designed
so as to withstand such short circuits indefinitely.
I've seen a few fried USB transceivers that didn't survive a
continuous short on the power leads.
>I added something about USB power to one of my web sites after there was
>a lot of confusion about it on rec.photo.digital:
><http://nordicgroup.us/chargers/#USB_Current_Limits_>
Nice. I'll read it later tonite. I'm late for lunch.
>> However, it doesn't matter. I'm fairly sure about the 10% efficiency
>> of the 2.4GHz power amplifier. At 2 watts output, that would require
>> that the USB ports source 20 watts of DC power, which isn't going to
>> happen.
>
>It's not 2W, despite was the spec or Larry says. It's 1W and then
>additional gain by the antenna.
Nope. I found the original FCC type certification. It's 200 mw at
the radio. Someone accidentally added an extra zero and made it
2000mw.
Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino
On 11/15/2010 10:38 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> Nope. I found the original FCC type certification. It's 200 mw at
> the radio. Someone accidentally added an extra zero and made it
> 2000mw.
That's at the radio. Aren't they talking about after the antenna gain.
But you're probably right.
I think they're not really talking about ERP, they're talking about EIRP.
I.e. one such device I saw claims a 2000 mW output with a 10dBi antenna.
That would be right around 2000 mW with a 200 mW transmitter.
Despite Fred/Larry being an obnoxious twit, my experience with these
"high-power" access points is that they actually do work quite well, but
it's mostly because you've got a good antenna rather than the wones
mounted inside the laptop.
Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino
In article <4ce1774e$0$22169$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> > that's a separate issue. hotel wifi networks are not always that fast.
> > the same problem is affecting inflight wifi on planes, especially last
> > year when it was effectively free.
>
> I was on a Virgin flight from FLL to SFO while my nephew was on one from
> FLL to LAX, and we were both complaining about the slow Wi-Fi, but
> that's all there is on an airplane. It was being heavily used because it
> was free. I expect that now that it's not free it's faster. Personally I
> think they're charging too much for it, and at the current price levels
> it will end up like AirFone. I'd probably pay $8 for a coast to coast
> flight, but $13 is a bit much. It's now $8 for hand held devices which I
> suppose means that tethering would be a good idea.
when i first used inflight wifi about 18 months ago, it was pretty
good, with speeds comparable to what one might get at home. last
winter, amidst all of the promotions, it was *really* slow, as i'm sure
quite a few people were on line and streaming youtube or whatever. now
that there are very few promos, it's not so bad, but i can't justify it
on every flight, especially on shorter flights.
it would be really nice to have on a transoceanic flight, but since it
uses ground based repeaters, that isn't going to work out too well.
Re: New AT&T Cell Tower Arguments Goes Past 2:00 a.m. in Cupertino 
Linear Mode
