Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: "Safe" cell phone WiFi capabilities?
Date: Fri, 17 May 2024 03:28:02 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 55
Message-ID: <v27bfr$2559i$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v26sfc$222ek$1@dont-email.me> <v273vl$23gel$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 17 May 2024 12:28:12 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8a8551ece1cb0c10a1b606592a2a5e58";
	logging-data="2266418"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/Uw6ziDmq3twutbrb/37cf"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:rvPFcCV1m2MY9efay54+3BlXbjE=
In-Reply-To: <v273vl$23gel$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3576

On 5/17/2024 1:20 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 17/05/2024 07:11, 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?
> 
> Probably n now in most places with modern chipsets. Cell phones have a 
> lifecycle of about 5 years before the battery swells and dies.

I'd have thought a more "current" WiFi generation.  I have iPhones
dating back to 2015/2017 that all tout ac.  Android phones from
the same era are n or ac.  Current iPhones are ax.

Does apple tend to design to a higher performance level than
(e.g.) android?  I.e., should I be looking at phones OTHER than
iPhones for a true feel?

>> If you extend that to include *all* phones currently in service
>> (e.g., 4G onwards), where would you put the cutoff?  n?  g?
>>
>> [US market]
> 
> Probably around n for the Wifi link but you can still find places in rural 
> areas where the cell phones are on 2.5G mobile connections. Only in the cities 
> can you safely assume 5G and adequate backhaul.

I think 3G is gone, here.  I know none of my 3G phones will even display
the correct time of day!

> 4G mobile broadband service tends to saturate when large crowds all try to do 
> the same thing at once (eg at football matches).

I don't see a phone maker touting their WiFi capability as a selling
point -- but, I don't shop for cell phones so can't speak to the mindset
of folks who do.

The other question is whether or not the phones can saturate such a pipe
or if their capabilities are more "bursty"... lower *average* data rates.
It seems like most phone uses (excepting streaming video) tend to be
more interactive/bursty.  The processors used SHOULD be able to do a fair
bit of work.  This, assuming their OSs are slick enough and power management
doesn't too aggressively meter the CPUs abilities.

It seems like multitasking, in phones, is driven heavily by which app
has the focus.  So, any other ACTIVE apps likely don't place much demand
on resources (?)

File transfers could pose a longer-term load on the connection.  But, they
inherently have very little *processing* involved.

The iPhone "garden" makes it hard for me to deploy a benchmark to
test their capabilities.  But, I should be able to do something
on android.