Do you know where we can find the 3 key WiFi specs for the i

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 2 Mar 2014 08:12:31 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
<g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

In message <t4k5h9phl6lu2dhgidqrumsvgjhh2fe9j3@4ax.com
Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:
I used an iPhone 3G for about 2 years on Verizon.

No you didn't. The iPhone 3G did not work on Verizon. Neither did the
iPhone 3GS. Neither did the initial iPhone 4.

Oops. My apologies and my faulty memory (again).

Starting in about 2006, I used a XV6700 on Verizon. Not the best
audio or range, but no disconnects:
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/xv6700/XV6700.htm>
Starting in about 2009, I used an iPhone 3G on AT&T for only about a
week after which I discontinued the service due to poor coverage in my
mountain area. For the next year or so, I went through a variety of
used phones on Verizon. Since the iPhone 3G was mine, I carried it
around as a PDA for about 2 years after pulling the plug with AT&T.
After that, I retired the iPhone 3G and switched to a Droid X and
later a Droid X2. For cellular voice, I use, an old LG VX8300 phone
on Verizon.

The reduction in dropped calls on my friends AT&T iPhone 3G's was
quite real.




--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Liam O'Connor]

On Sat, 01 Mar 2014 23:45:24 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

This test won't tell you if the iPad is meeting its own
specifications, but will tell you if it's inferior to other devices or
has a serious range problem.

This is an excellent idea!
Thanks!

 

[nospam]

In article <b6q5h99nqgr34haoq199p16726bphgcjjb@4ax.com>, Jeff
Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:

The reduction in dropped calls on my friends AT&T iPhone 3G's was
quite real.

they probably added capacity, which they said they would be doing
because it was so horribly overloaded.

 

[Liam O'Connor]

On Sun, 02 Mar 2014 00:15:50 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

All of the numbers came from the data sheets which amazingly matched
the chip manufacturers numbers almost exactly.

Hi Jeff,

That's pretty interesting, because, well, um, I had assumed
that they almost always lie when it comes to specifications.

The WiFi chip found in this iPad teardown
http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iPad+Wi-Fi+Teardown/2183

Is the Broadcom BCM4329:
http://www.broadcom.com/products/Bluetooth/Bluetooth-RF-Silicon-and-Software-Solutions/BCM4329

Googling for the specs for that broadcom chip, I "think" I found
them on page 6 of this document:
http://www.lairdtech.com/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=2147486570

Do those specs look reasonable for that chip?

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 02 Mar 2014 03:24:41 -0500, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

changewave is in the business of surveys. they ask a statistically
valid sample. the majority (by a lot) didn't have a problem.

I'm in the computer repair biz
and find Apple users rarely admit they have problems unless they are
totally desperate. Instead of asking if they had "serious" problems,
I wonder how the survey would look if they asked "Have you learned to
tolerate the antenna grip problems"?

in fact, they did ask about that, and not that many said it was
serious. i need to find the actual survey though for specifics.

<http://investorplace.com/2010/08/apple-inc-iphone-4-survey-att-verizon/>
See the red bar graph showing iPhone 4 dislikes. 24% listed "antenna
issues" as what they "most dislike" about the iPhone 4. What someone
dislikes the most is a great way of reducing the incidence of lesser
complaints. For example, users were given a choice of "most dislike"
of requiring using the AT&T network, and coverage, speed, and of the
quality of the AT&T network. The result was 27% and 24% respectively.
What this did was effectively split the complaints about AT&T roughly
in half. If they had only offered AT&T complaints as a single "most
dislike" choice, the combined total of 51% would have indicated that
at least half the users were not thrilled with AT&T. Similarly, the
participants were given the choice of "dropped calls" and "antenna
issues" again effectively splitting the complaints. If I assume that
all dropped calls were precipitated by the antenna problem (not system
overload), then at least 47% were having problems. If they had asked
"Which of the following do you dislike about the iPhone and about
AT&T. Pick all that apply", it would have been a very different
survey.

Of course, there's something wrong with the numbers anyway, as the
total of the percentages adds up to 129% instead of 100%.

The article claims:
To gauge the impact of the antenna obstruction issue, we
asked iPhone 4 owners to tell us how big of a problem it
was for them. Nearly two-thirds reported they Haven’t
Experienced Any Problem and another 14% reported it
Wasn’t Much of a Problem. However one-in-five did report
it was Somewhat of a Problem (14%) or a Very Big Problem (7%).
So, 14+14+7 = 35% of the users were having a problem. I guess Apple
has such a large customer base, that it can afford to ignore 1/3 of
it's early adopters.

Full disclosures. I used to craft such surveys in the late 1980's but
haven't done much since then. I would be interested in seeing the
original survey. They usually charge for reports:
<http://changewaveresearch.com>

>if it isn't affecting anyone, then how is it even a problem?

For every customer that actually calls tech support with a real
problem, it can be assumed that there is a fairly large number of
users that simply didn't bother to call. I've worked on a few
products that had this problem. We didn't know that something was
wrong until one customer made considerable noise at a trade show,
followed by plenty of "me too" complaints. Kinda like priming the
pump. Unfortunately, it's quite common to run a business these days
on the basis of no complaint = no problem. The result is that some
brilliant manager decides that it's easier to discourage complainers
than it is to fix the product. I wrote this about 20 years ago in
honor of such brilliance:
<http://members.cruzio.com/~jeffl/poetry/support.htm>

More examples of products that don't work, and few or nobody
complains:
<http://www.designnews.com/archives.asp?section_id=1367&dfpPParams=bid_240&dfpLayout=siteInfo>

>interesting story, but i don't know what that has to do with anything.

It demonstrates that customer complaints and product defects are not
directly connected. It is quite possible to have a problem, and
nobody complain, as I found out. I can supply other examples of this
if you are not convinced.

apple has likely sold at least 100 million iphone 4 over the past 3+
years (they don't give specific model breakdowns).
they sold 51 million iphones last quarter *alone*.
the reality is that most users did not find it to be a problem. at all.

True. iPhones are not the only products that sell well but have
defects. I see them all the time in the computer biz. For example,
Dell was (allegedly) knowingly selling computers that had defective
electrolytic capacitors known to bulge, leak, and fail in a fairly
short time. Various laptop vendors did much the same with lousy BGA
soldering (and blamed on bad Nvidia chips). They sold quite nicely,
even during the various class action suits and settlements which
provided the only way consumers even knew that there was a problem.

Perception is everything, and the perception of Apple products is
truly impressive.

however, the number is never going to be zero. if you touch the
antenna, the signal strength will drop, just like any phone.

They drop by differing amounts, measured in dB. Did you measure the
signal levels as I suggested in my previous message? I have a mess of
phones in the office that I can measure on Monday or Tues. If you
need help getting into the test mode:
<http://www.wilsonelectronics.com/uploads/docs/FieldTestModes06142010%20wilson004.pdf>

>people like to complain.

Some people do, but most don't. They simply don't consider the effort
necessary to file a proper complaint worthwhile. Also, many companies
have no mechanism for complaints. For example, about 4(?) years ago,
I had a firmware update failure that trashed an Apple aluminum
Bluetooth keyboard. The installer would not let me go back a version,
not let me reinstall, and there was no later version. I asked for
help on various forums and to various email addresses with little
result. When I changed my questions to complaints, my postings were
deleted from the Apple forum and my account locked.

other phones have the same issue, if not more so:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zft3-Lwh2bo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4zbQ3f7H0U

I find it interesting that you picked two videos that measure signal
strength in "bars". Both phones have pages that show signal strength
in -dBm. All I want to know is how many dB does the signal level drop
when the phone is badly gripped.

i picked a couple of videos that show the effect of 'holding it wrong'.

I saw little in the way of an effect except to see 1 or 2 bars go to
zero. No dropped calls. I have several phones that will successfully
make calls with no bars showing. I want to see the change in signal
level in dBm before and after.

i have a flip phone where the instructions say how to hold it, and if i
hold it the way it says not to, the signal strength drops.

It's still not sinking in. Go to:
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/cellular/cell-test.htm>
All the ordinary cell phones lost signal when the antenna was covered.
Most lost 5 to 8 dB in signal, which is considerable, but not fatal in
moderate signal areas. The worst was 12dB. However, the iPhone 4
lost between 19.8dB and 24.6dB which is enormous, huge, monstrous, and
full able to create a dropout. When I did the tests, we didn't have
the iPhone 4 rubber protectors available, but I can test those when I
have time and add them to the table.

To put the numbers in perspective 5 to 8dB is about 3.2 to 6.3 times.
The iPhone 4 19.8dB to 24.6dB is 95.5 to 288 times drop in signal.
That's like trying to operate with 1/100 to 1/200 of the normal signal
level.

Now do you understand the problem?

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 02 Mar 2014 03:47:51 -0500, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

In article <b6q5h99nqgr34haoq199p16726bphgcjjb@4ax.com>, Jeff
Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:

The reduction in dropped calls on my friends AT&T iPhone 3G's was
quite real.

they probably added capacity, which they said they would be doing
because it was so horribly overloaded.

I used to track cell sites in the Santa Cruz county area. This is a
really old (2003). I have some spreadsheets and maps with current
cell site locations and capabilities:
<http://802.11junk.com/cellular/index.html>
The plan was to make an overlay of the coverage areas by vendor, but
that ended when I landed in the hospital for some major surgery. This
is the only map that I managed to do at the time:
<http://802.11junk.com/cellular/jeffl/SVLY-PGE/index.html>
See map at bottom of page. Since then, the coverage maps produced by
Radio-Mobile have been considerably better:
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/coverage/VZW-water-plant/850Mhz-2watts-39dBu.jpg>
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/coverage/Boulder-Creek-Cellular/850Mhz-1watt-16dbi-15meters-3D.jpg>

At the time (about 2010) there had been some growth in the AT&T system
in the downtown areas and along the major highways. It was not
spectacular. In the mountains, where I live, there has been no
changes in the AT&T system since about 2001. The biggest build was
the shared DAS system at the local university (UCSC). The sites are
at the telco CO's, on a few local hills, 2 small sites, and nothing
more. I can't find my spreadsheet with the locations or I would be
more specific. I think (not sure) that all 3 of my iPhone using
friends were in moderate signal areas, where they would not be
significantly affected by additional cell sites, but would be affected
by additional users.

2AM. Enough for tonite...

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 2 Mar 2014 00:51:03 -0800, Liam O'Connor
<liamoconnor@example.com> wrote:

The WiFi chip found in this iPad teardown
http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iPad+Wi-Fi+Teardown/2183

Is the Broadcom BCM4329:
http://www.broadcom.com/products/Bluetooth/Bluetooth-RF-Silicon-and-Software-Solutions/BCM4329

Googling for the specs for that broadcom chip, I "think" I found
them on page 6 of this document:
http://www.lairdtech.com/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=2147486570

Do those specs look reasonable for that chip?

No. The problem is that the module is using an XM2400LT for a 2.4Ghz
receiver preamp, and a SKY65404 rx preamp, and an RTC6651 tx power amp
on 5.7GHz. See Pg 5, Fig 1, in the Lairdtech document. Because the
iPad is NOT using any of these additional chips, all the numbers will
be different.

WHICH MODEL IPAD DO YOU HAVE? FCC ID or APPLE MODEL NUMBER.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[nospam]

In article <f0s5h9lnmbdbspdeg9pu5p0nj1f9rslfv9@4ax.com>, Jeff
Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:

The article claims:
To gauge the impact of the antenna obstruction issue, we
asked iPhone 4 owners to tell us how big of a problem it
was for them. Nearly two-thirds reported they Haven’t
Experienced Any Problem and another 14% reported it
Wasn’t Much of a Problem. However one-in-five did report
it was Somewhat of a Problem (14%) or a Very Big Problem (7%).
So, 14+14+7 = 35% of the users were having a problem. I guess Apple
has such a large customer base, that it can afford to ignore 1/3 of
it's early adopters.

only 7% had a major problem. that's very low, just as i said.

'nearly two-thirds reported they haven't experienced any problem'.
that's a lot.

it also means the entire thing was overblown. most people did not find
it to be a problem *at all*.

add in the 14% who said it wasn't much of a problem and you have almost
80% who are either not impacted at all or only slightly. almost 80% !!!

apple has likely sold at least 100 million iphone 4 over the past 3+
years (they don't give specific model breakdowns).
they sold 51 million iphones last quarter *alone*.
the reality is that most users did not find it to be a problem. at all.

True. iPhones are not the only products that sell well but have
defects. I see them all the time in the computer biz. For example,
Dell was (allegedly) knowingly selling computers that had defective
electrolytic capacitors known to bulge, leak, and fail in a fairly
short time. Various laptop vendors did much the same with lousy BGA
soldering (and blamed on bad Nvidia chips). They sold quite nicely,
even during the various class action suits and settlements which
provided the only way consumers even knew that there was a problem.

the capacitors were not dell's fault. dell bought what they thought
were good capacitors, as did many other companies, and they turned out
to be defective. a lot of companies were affected, including apple.

the nvidia chip delamination issue also affected many companies,
including apple, who issued an extended repair program because of it.

and users found out the hard way, because their products ceased to
function.

Perception is everything, and the perception of Apple products is
truly impressive.

not really.

however, the number is never going to be zero. if you touch the
antenna, the signal strength will drop, just like any phone.

They drop by differing amounts, measured in dB. Did you measure the
signal levels as I suggested in my previous message? I have a mess of
phones in the office that I can measure on Monday or Tues. If you
need help getting into the test mode:

http://www.wilsonelectronics.com/uploads/docs/FieldTestModes06142010%20wilson
004.pdf

what matters is does the phone work in normal day to day operation and
can the user make and receive calls without dropping and do whatever
tasks they want to do.

it does, and they can.

people like to complain.

Some people do, but most don't. They simply don't consider the effort
necessary to file a proper complaint worthwhile.

that's a formal complaint.

you said there were a lot of hits on google. that's *not* a formal
complaint.

it takes almost no effort to post on a forum that a product isn't
working properly or there's some other problem with it (even if it's
minor), the user hates the product etc. type up a rant, and a few
clicks later it's posted for all to see.

it's very rare to see people post that they like something. it happens,
but not as much as complaints.

and this isn't just tech. people complain about everything more than
they do praise. it's human nature.

Also, many companies
have no mechanism for complaints. For example, about 4(?) years ago,
I had a firmware update failure that trashed an Apple aluminum
Bluetooth keyboard. The installer would not let me go back a version,
not let me reinstall, and there was no later version. I asked for
help on various forums and to various email addresses with little
result. When I changed my questions to complaints, my postings were
deleted from the Apple forum and my account locked.

apple has mechanisms for complaints. did you avail yourself of it?

if you took the bluetooth keyboard to an apple store, they would have
fixed it or replaced it.

i have a flip phone where the instructions say how to hold it, and if i
hold it the way it says not to, the signal strength drops.

It's still not sinking in. Go to:
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/cellular/cell-test.htm
All the ordinary cell phones lost signal when the antenna was covered.

exactly my point. all phones are affected.

that includes the iphone 4. it's no different.

physics is physics.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

nospam wrote:

In article <f0s5h9lnmbdbspdeg9pu5p0nj1f9rslfv9@4ax.com>, Jeff
Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:


The article claims:
To gauge the impact of the antenna obstruction issue, we
asked iPhone 4 owners to tell us how big of a problem it
was for them. Nearly two-thirds reported they Haven’t
Experienced Any Problem and another 14% reported it
Wasn’t Much of a Problem. However one-in-five did report
it was Somewhat of a Problem (14%) or a Very Big Problem (7%).
So, 14+14+7 = 35% of the users were having a problem. I guess Apple
has such a large customer base, that it can afford to ignore 1/3 of
it's early adopters.

only 7% had a major problem. that's very low, just as i said.

7% is totally unacceptable. .7% is ridiculous and .07% is still too
high. On the other hand, some people would defend a burning bag of dog
shit as top quality and flawless.

How would you feel if the brakes on your car only worked 93% of the
time? The electricity to your home?


I own a couple Apple computers. I use them for doorstops. They can't
even do that rigt. most of the time.

--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

 

[Liam O'Connor]

On Sun, 02 Mar 2014 02:15:13 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Because the
iPad is NOT using any of these additional chips, all the numbers will
be different.

WHICH MODEL IPAD DO YOU HAVE? FCC ID or APPLE MODEL NUMBER.

Hi Jeff,
Thanks for that advice.
I always appreciate your help.

If I go to my settings in the iPad Air, I find the following:
Settings->General->Software Update = iOS 7.0.6
Settings->General->About->Version = 7.0.6 (11B651)
Settings->General->About->Carrier = T-Mobile 15.5
Settings->General->About->Model = MF534LL/A

Hmmmmmm..... I was expecting a different model number.

Getting out a (real) magnifying glass, I see on the back bottom:
Model A1475 FCC ID: BCGA1475 IC: 579C-A1475

 

[nospam]

In article <xdKdnTT8deMDAY7OnZ2dnUVZ_r-dnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Michael A.
Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

only 7% had a major problem. that's very low, just as i said.

7% is totally unacceptable. .7% is ridiculous and .07% is still too
high. On the other hand, some people would defend a burning bag of dog
shit as top quality and flawless.

troll.

first of all, no product has a 0.07% failure rate. that's just not
realistic.

second of all, the proper comparison is with other similar phones, not
zero, and you'll see it's not significantly different.

all cellphones have the same problem to a certain extent, and in some
cases, it's worse with others than it is for an iphone.

How would you feel if the brakes on your car only worked 93% of the
time? The electricity to your home?

i've had to repair the brakes twice in the past 4 years, once on each
of two cars.

the power goes out a few times a year typically, and was flickering a
couple of weeks ago but didn't go off completely. a couple of years ago
after a big storm, it was off for 2 days.

it sucks when it happens but nothing is perfect.

not that either one is relevant. if the signal strength drops a little,
it's not a big deal.

I own a couple Apple computers. I use them for doorstops. They can't
even do that rigt. most of the time.

then computers are far too complicated for you.

 

[Liam O'Connor]

On Sun, 02 Mar 2014 19:33:57 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

Model A1475 FCC ID: BCGA1475 IC: 579C-A1475
That would be an iPad Air with both Wi-Fi and Cellular:
That would be the 64GB model on T-Mobile:
Plug the FCC ID number into:
http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/ea/fccid/

Hi Jeff,

As per your suggestion, I plugged the FCC ID into:
http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/ea/fccid/

As Grantee Code (First three or five characters of FCCID):
BCG
And as Product Code (Remaining characters of FCCID):
A1475

With the result being the cryptic error:
Date and time of error: Sun Mar 02 23:00:54 EST 2014
Requester's address: 192.168.199.13
Requester's browser type: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:27.0)
Gecko/20100101 Firefox/27.0
Called from: http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/ea/fccid/
Parameters specified: RequestTimeout=500
Diagnostic information: Error Executing Database Query.
weblogic.common.resourcepool.ResourceDisabledException: Pool OETDataSource
is Suspended, cannot allocate resources to applications..
The error occurred on line 26.

 

[Liam O'Connor]

On Sun, 02 Mar 2014 20:05:07 -0800, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

As per your suggestion,

That makes it my fault.

Ooops. I'm sorry if it came off that way.
I know you had already said it often doesn't work.
I'll wait for them to fix it and try again tomorrow.

It's NOT your fault!
You gave good advice!

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 2 Mar 2014 13:51:09 -0800, Liam O'Connor
<liamoconnor@example.com> wrote:

Getting out a (real) magnifying glass, I see on the back bottom:
Model A1475 FCC ID: BCGA1475 IC: 579C-A1475

That would be an iPad Air with both Wi-Fi and Cellular:
<http://everymac.com/ultimate-mac-lookup/?search_keywords=A1475>

>Model = MF534LL/A

That would be the 64GB model on T-Mobile:
<http://everymac.com/systems/apple/ipad/specs/apple-ipad-air-1st-gen-a1475-wi-fi-cellular-lte-specs.html>


--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 2 Mar 2014 19:56:07 -0800, Liam O'Connor
<liamoconnor@example.com> wrote:

>As per your suggestion,

That makes it my fault.

I plugged the FCC ID into:
http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/ea/fccid/

As Grantee Code (First three or five characters of FCCID):
BCG
And as Product Code (Remaining characters of FCCID):
A1475
(...)
The error occurred on line 26.

Yep, that's exactly what I got on 2 machines and one tablet. I
mentioned the problem in one of my rants yesterday. It seems that
almost every weekend, the FCC ID lookup site goes down with some kind
of database error. Oddly, it's not always the same error. It only
seems to happen on weekends, when there is probably nobody looking at
error messages and log files. It will be back sometime on Monday.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

nospam wrote:

In article <xdKdnTT8deMDAY7OnZ2dnUVZ_r-dnZ2d@earthlink.com>, Michael A.
Terrell <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

only 7% had a major problem. that's very low, just as i said.

7% is totally unacceptable. .7% is ridiculous and .07% is still too
high. On the other hand, some people would defend a burning bag of dog
shit as top quality and flawless.

troll.

Moron.

first of all, no product has a 0.07% failure rate. that's just not
realistic.

Disprove it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Sigma


--
Anyone wanting to run for any political office in the US should have to
have a DD214, and a honorable discharge.

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Sun, 2 Mar 2014 21:30:29 -0800, Liam O'Connor
<liamoconnor@example.com> wrote:

>It's NOT your fault!

It must be someone's fault. The first step to solving a problem is to
blame someone. In other words, it's not going to get fixed without
first assigning the blame. It's generally considered a bad idea
blaming anyone involved in fixing the problem and blaming yourself is
equally counterproductive. It's considered traditional to blame the
person who notices the problem, but that won't work here. Therefore,
I suggest you find suitable culprit, scapegoat, sacrificial victim,
innocent bistander, or consultant to blame.

In the past, when I complained about the non-availability of the site
on weekends, I received the usual "site is down for upgrades" excuse.
I just noticed that it's now fairly close to the official policy of
crashing the site Saturday at 10PM thru Sunday at 6AM EST.
<http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/fcc-website-availability>

As of:
Mon Mar 03 11:41:50 EST 2014
the FCC ID web pile is still down. Hmmm.... 3 hrs late so far.
Perhaps nobody complained and the (outsourced) admins didn't notice?
<http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/ea/fccid/>
Enter BCG A1475, search, and click on the "Please report this error to
FCC OET Systems Support" link to send eashelp a reminder. It
automagically includes the error message making it quite easy to
complain.

"Pool OETDataSource is Suspended, cannot allocate..."
I was wondering the meaning of that SQL error message. I think I
found the "suspended pool".
<http://www.businessinsider.com/the-suspended-pool-at-a-shanghai-holiday-inn-looks-pretty-freaky-2012-8>
Hmmm...

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 03 Mar 2014 08:49:26 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

As of:
Mon Mar 03 11:41:50 EST 2014
the FCC ID web pile is still down. Hmmm.... 3 hrs late so far.
Perhaps nobody complained and the (outsourced) admins didn't notice?
http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/ea/fccid/
Enter BCG A1475, search, and click on the "Please report this error to
FCC OET Systems Support" link to send eashelp a reminder. It
automagically includes the error message making it quite easy to
complain.

Well, that didn't work. I just got this back from the site:

eashelp@fcc.gov<mailto:eashelp@fcc.gov> is no longer an active or
monitored mailbox.

For help resolving issues associated with using the Equipment
Authorization System (EAS), please go to http://www.fcc.gov/labhelp
and select submit an Inquiry. In the First Category Field, Select
"Administrative Requirements", and include in the subject field
"EAS Help". Please clearly describe your issue in the "enter
inquiry field". After you select submit, you will be permitted
to add attachments. For a faster response please provide PDF
or JPEG of screen images of the error message and the web page
preceding the error message showing all content including the URLs.

Like I said, complaining takes too much effort to be worthwhile.
FCC ID lookup is still dead. Yawn...
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

 

[alexd]

Jeff Liebermann (for it is he) wrote:

> innocent bistander

Is a 'bistander' one who, er, prefers to watch?

--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpEaTm@ale.cx)
21:22:26 up 61 days, 1 min, 7 users, load average: 0.52, 0.46, 0.43
"If being trapped in a tropical swamp with Anthony Worral-Thompson and
Christine Hamilton is reality then I say, pass the mind-altering drugs"
-- Humphrey Lyttleton

 

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Mon, 03 Mar 2014 21:23:01 +0000, alexd <troffasky@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Jeff Liebermann (for it is he) wrote:
innocent bistander

Is a 'bistander' one who, er, prefers to watch?

It would probably help if I had spelled it correctly. That's the
correct US definition, but I had the spelling wrong:
<http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bystander>



--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558