MiFi purchase and contract options?

On 01/07/10 5:19 PM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article<[email protected]>,
> JC Dill<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I'm in the SF Bay Area, home of Apple and noted for inadequate AT&T.
>
> NAVAS ALERT! NAVAS ALERT! NAVAS ALERT!!

LOL. He's busy being clueless and spreading misinformation in other
newsgroups right now, I don't think he'll see this thread.

I think the strangest instance of those noting AT&T's bay area problems
was at a Cupertino city council meeting. The technology and
telecommunications commission was explaining, totally incorrectly, the
reasons for the problems with AT&T, T-Mobile, and Sprint. There were
residents and one council member complaining that they could not use the
iPhone, and pontificating on how bad it was that they could not use
phones from the city's largest private employer. In the end, the city
council approved allowing cell phone towers in city parks in an effort
to solve the coverage issues of the carriers other than Verizon.

I thought it amusing that the members of the telecommunications and
technology commission were so absolutely clueless as to the technical
reasons for the cellular coverage situation, but they succeeded in
getting their way which is what their goal was. Ironically, T-Mobile nee
Cingular, and Sprint, had been at previous council meetings and had
cleary explained why they had coverage issues compared to Verizon and
(at the time) AT&T TDMA (the shorter range of 1900 MHz, and in the case
of T-Mobile nee Cingular, the lack of AMPS).

---

› See More: MiFi purchase and contract options?

On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 17:33:20 -0700, in
<[email protected]>, SMS
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 01/07/10 5:19 PM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>> In article<[email protected]>,
>> JC Dill<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm in the SF Bay Area, home of Apple and noted for inadequate AT&T.
>>
>> NAVAS ALERT! NAVAS ALERT! NAVAS ALERT!!
>
>LOL. He's busy being clueless and spreading misinformation in other
>newsgroups right now,

Translation: Exposing more of your usual nonsense.

>I don't think he'll see this thread.

Wrong on this too.

>I think the strangest instance of those noting AT&T's bay area problems
>was at a Cupertino city council meeting. [SNIP usual fantasy]

AT&T is in fact very good in the Bay Area.
On the other hand:

"Letter from Apple Regarding iPhone 4"
<http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2010/07/02appleletter.html>

Upon investigation, we were stunned to find that the formula we use
to calculate how many bars of signal strength to display is totally
wrong. Our formula, in many instances, mistakenly displays 2 more
bars than it should for a given signal strength. For example, we
sometimes display 4 bars when we should be displaying as few as 2
bars. Users observing a drop of several bars when they grip their
iPhone in a certain way are most likely in an area with very weak
signal strength, but they don’t know it because we are erroneously
displaying 4 or 5 bars. Their big drop in bars is because their high
bars were never real in the first place.

To fix this, we are adopting AT&T’s recently recommended formula for
calculating how many bars to display for a given signal strength. The
real signal strength remains the same, but the iPhone’s bars will
report it far more accurately, providing users a much better
indication of the reception they will get in a given area. We are
also making bars 1, 2 and 3 a bit taller so they will be easier to
see.

We will issue a free software update within a few weeks that
incorporates the corrected formula. Since this mistake has been
present since the original iPhone, this software update will also be
available for the iPhone 3GS and iPhone 3G.

"More suits filed in iPhone 4 antenna fracas"
<http://news.cnet.com/8301-31021_3-20009625-260.html>

--
Best regards,
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

"More suits filed in iPhone 4 antenna fracas"
<http://news.cnet.com/8301-31021_3-20009625-260.html>

In article <[email protected]>, John Navas
<[email protected]> wrote:

> "More suits filed in iPhone 4 antenna fracas"

big deal. people sue for all sorts of reasons. sometimes they're valid,
sometimes they're not.

google is in trouble for wifi data breaches, violating patents and
privacy policies, but you don't hear much about that do you.

In article <020720101804473661%[email protected]>,
nospam <[email protected]> wrote:

> google is in trouble for wifi data breaches, violating patents and
> privacy policies, but you don't hear much about that do you.

Yes.
--
Very old woody beets will never cook tender.
-- Fannie Farmer

nospam wrote on [Fri, 02 Jul 2010 18:04:47 -0700]:
> In article <[email protected]>, John Navas
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "More suits filed in iPhone 4 antenna fracas"
>
> big deal. people sue for all sorts of reasons. sometimes they're valid,
> sometimes they're not.
>
> google is in trouble for wifi data breaches, violating patents and
> privacy policies, but you don't hear much about that do you.

Are you kidding? It was all over the tech news a month ago.

In article <[email protected]>, Justin
<[email protected]> wrote:

> >> "More suits filed in iPhone 4 antenna fracas"
> >
> > big deal. people sue for all sorts of reasons. sometimes they're valid,
> > sometimes they're not.
> >
> > google is in trouble for wifi data breaches, violating patents and
> > privacy policies, but you don't hear much about that do you.
>
> Are you kidding? It was all over the tech news a month ago.

nowhere near as much as the iphone antenna issue. four lawsuits already
and the phone has been out a week.

meanwhile, google tracks every search you do and indexes your email (if
you use gmail) for ad targeting. not much fuss over that.

nospam wrote on [Fri, 02 Jul 2010 22:21:54 -0700]:
> In article <[email protected]>, Justin
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> >> "More suits filed in iPhone 4 antenna fracas"
>> >
>> > big deal. people sue for all sorts of reasons. sometimes they're valid,
>> > sometimes they're not.
>> >
>> > google is in trouble for wifi data breaches, violating patents and
>> > privacy policies, but you don't hear much about that do you.
>>
>> Are you kidding? It was all over the tech news a month ago.
>
> nowhere near as much as the iphone antenna issue. four lawsuits already
> and the phone has been out a week.

Germany, Ireland and a few other countries I can't remember off the top
of my head sued google over the wifi data mining.

> meanwhile, google tracks every search you do and indexes your email (if
> you use gmail) for ad targeting. not much fuss over that.

Google tells you up front what they do with your data

Justin <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]
september.org:

> data mining.

Precisely my point about the horrors of cloud computing.....



--
Global Warming and Creationism are to science what storks are to
obstetrics...

Larry

Larry wrote on [Sat, 03 Jul 2010 14:27:22 +0000]:
> Justin <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]
> september.org:
>
>> data mining.
>
> Precisely my point about the horrors of cloud computing.....

yep, however this point had nothing to do with the cloud

On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 17:46:49 -0700, John Navas <[email protected]>
wrote:

>"More suits filed in iPhone 4 antenna fracas"
><http://news.cnet.com/8301-31021_3-20009625-260.html>
At first, Apple said this was a problem common to any phone
and suggested buying a rubber case or holding the phone
differently.
Translation: Apple doesn't have a clue about RF and is now in damage
control mode. Blaming the victim is a great start.

<http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2010/07/02appleletter.html>
To fix this, we are adopting AT&T’s recently recommended formula
for calculating how many bars to display for a given signal
strength. The real signal strength remains the same, but the
iPhone’s bars will report it far more accurately, providing
users a much better indication of the reception they will get
in a given area. We are also making bars 1, 2 and 3 a bit
taller so they will be easier to see.
Translation: AT&T recommends playing with the cosmetic bar graph.

<http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iPhone-4-Teardown/3130/2>
Apple has gone a step further and tuned the phone to utilize
whichever network band is less congested or has the least
interference for the best signal quality, regardless of the
actual signal strength. Early reports suggest this feature,
while buggy in its early stages, will greatly improve the
phone's reliability on AT&T's fragile network.
Translation: Apple uses the SNR (signal quality) and not the signal
strength (-dBM) to control the phone.

Recalculating the bars does not control xmit power or initiate a
disconnect. That's done by the calculated SNR or BER (bit error rate)
which should be visible if the internal diagnostics works on the
iPhone 4 as it does on the 3G.
<http://www.wirelessinfo.com/content/Inside-the-iPhone-field-test-mode.htm>
Playing with the RSSI to bars conversion is just a smoke screen. More
likely, there are considerably more changes included.

However, I don't think that's the problem. My guess(tm) is that the
antenna Q is too high. My ancient LG VX8100 phone has an external
antenna. I can grab the antenna, wrap my hand around it, and the
signal drops maybe one bar. Running a fast test in field test mode,
normal -79dBm 4 bars
hand on antenna -89dBm 3 bars
-10dB is a large drop, but not 2 bars or enough to cause a disconnect.
That's because the 30mm long antenna is fairly low Q, broadband, and
seperated from direct contact by about 2mm of plastic.

From various reports, the iPhone 4 drops more like 3-4 bars when the
antenna tip is touched. If that's true (I haven't played with an
iPhone 4 yet), that's a -30dB or more drop, which is far too sensitive
to survive hand contact.

My very unofficial conversion table from -dBm to bars:
Bars -dBm
1 -102 to -112
2 -94 to -101
3 -87 to -93
4 -77 to -86
5 -38 to -76
tested on my VX8100.

More, borrowed from one of my previous rants on the subject:

Deja Vu. When the Motorola RAZR antenna landed on the bottom of the
phone, instead of the top, there was considerable debate about how to
handle the problem of how to hold the phone. I'll spare you the
arguments and details, but it was decided to do nothing. Eventually,
through trial and error, the customers were expected to understand how
it works and optimize how they hold the phone. Most did, but a few
had to be told by the dealer what was happening.

However, the RAZR was different because covering the antenna area
reduced the signal levels, but didn't shut down the phone. With the
iPhone 4, there appears to be a much more drastic reduction in signal
level. My guess(tm) is either the PA might be shutting down from
excessive VSWR, or the antenna Q is so high, that touching it near the
tip has a drastic effect on the tuning. It looks about the right size
for a PIFA antenna at 800 MHz, but I'm not sure. Touching the end of
the PIFA antenna is a bad idea. Apple could have reduced the effect
by burying the last inch or more of the antenna under some cosmetic
plastic, but apparently decided that styling is more important than
function.

Note that projecting external antennas have been on cell phones since
the stone age. Internal antenna are a recent development. Touching
the antenna on an old external antenna cell phone had little effect,
so it's there's no reason an external antenna shouldn't work on the
iPhone 4. Something else is going on, but without an iPhone 4 to play
with, I'm guessing.

--
Jeff Liebermann [email protected]
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Justin wrote:
> Larry wrote on [Sat, 03 Jul 2010 14:27:22 +0000]:
>> Justin <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]
>> september.org:
>>
>>> data mining.
>> Precisely my point about the horrors of cloud computing.....
>
> yep, however this point had nothing to do with the cloud

Who is responsible for the integrity and security of data stored "in the
cloud"? Why should I, or anyone, be willing to entrust his data to it?

Richard B. Gilbert wrote on [Sat, 03 Jul 2010 14:40:59 -0400]:
> Justin wrote:
>> Larry wrote on [Sat, 03 Jul 2010 14:27:22 +0000]:
>>> Justin <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]
>>> september.org:
>>>
>>>> data mining.
>>> Precisely my point about the horrors of cloud computing.....
>>
>> yep, however this point had nothing to do with the cloud
>
> Who is responsible for the integrity and security of data stored "in the
> cloud"? Why should I, or anyone, be willing to entrust his data to it?

That's why I encrypt the data I sent to my cloud backup service. My email
already travels unencrypted across less trustworthy servers than google
between the end user hitting send and me receiving it. I trust comcast
a whole bunch less than google. AT&T even less than Comcast, yet how
many people use one of those as their ISP?

The cloud is not a single entity, it's Amazon, it's Google, it's Microsoft,
it's facebook, it's Yahoo, etc.
You need to pick who you want to trust and for what service. It's no different
than trusting your doctor with your medical records. Or perhaps which pharmacy
you trust when you fill your prescription.

On 03/07/10 9:50 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

> Note that projecting external antennas have been on cell phones since
> the stone age. Internal antenna are a recent development. Touching
> the antenna on an old external antenna cell phone had little effect,
> so it's there's no reason an external antenna shouldn't work on the
> iPhone 4. Something else is going on, but without an iPhone 4 to play
> with, I'm guessing.

The Sharpie solution might work for them as well,
"http://nordicgroup.us/cingular/cingular.wmv"

Justin wrote:
> Richard B. Gilbert wrote on [Sat, 03 Jul 2010 14:40:59 -0400]:
>> Justin wrote:
>>> Larry wrote on [Sat, 03 Jul 2010 14:27:22 +0000]:
>>>> Justin <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]
>>>> september.org:
>>>>
>>>>> data mining.
>>>> Precisely my point about the horrors of cloud computing.....
>>> yep, however this point had nothing to do with the cloud
>> Who is responsible for the integrity and security of data stored "in the
>> cloud"? Why should I, or anyone, be willing to entrust his data to it?
>
> That's why I encrypt the data I sent to my cloud backup service. My email
> already travels unencrypted across less trustworthy servers than google
> between the end user hitting send and me receiving it. I trust comcast
> a whole bunch less than google. AT&T even less than Comcast, yet how
> many people use one of those as their ISP?
>
> The cloud is not a single entity, it's Amazon, it's Google, it's Microsoft,
> it's facebook, it's Yahoo, etc.
> You need to pick who you want to trust and for what service. It's no different
> than trusting your doctor with your medical records. Or perhaps which pharmacy
> you trust when you fill your prescription.
>

Thanks!

I think I will continue to backup my phone to my computer. I also have
very similar data on my PDA if I should happen to need it. If all three
sources are somehow destroyed I probably won't be in any condition to
care!