Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: "Safe" cell phone WiFi capabilities?
Date: Fri, 17 May 2024 12:55:02 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <slrnv4ekt6.nch.dan@djph.net>
References: <v26sfc$222ek$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Fri, 17 May 2024 14:55:02 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b7b988a33863d085f3179ed3bd43aba8";
	logging-data="2319877"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19v1pRvmnsD+J1B+jb/ZzEMU5TWLl3yWZY="
User-Agent: slrn/1.0.3 (Linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:q2wleWChEalUHPCCdvqwrkFXQkA=
Bytes: 1353

On 2024-05-17, Don Y wrote:
> For "nominal" cell phones (i.e., taking into consideration
> that not ever subscriber buys The Latest and Greatest),
> what's the "base" WiFi capability one would feel comfortable
> assuming?  ac?  ax?

Assuming you're limiting the question to the set of cellphones that
actually implement wifi, 802.11b ... but what are you *REALLY* trying to
ask for?

-- 
|_|O|_| 
|_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert
|O|O|O| PGP: DDAB 23FB 19FA 7D85 1CC1  E067 6D65 70E5 4CE7 2860