Re: "Safe" cell phone WiFi capabilities?

On 5/21/2024 2:58 AM, Martin Brown wrote:

On 20/05/2024 19:39, Don Y wrote:

On 5/20/2024 10:03 AM, Dan Purgert wrote:

It's almost like "the base" isn't what you want then.
[...]
Which is why you toss in an 802.11ax AP (or 802.11ac, if the ax units
are prohibitively expensive for your house/office/whatever), and leave
it up to the client device to negotiate for the best common option.

>
And, when you want to pass a gigabit of data to the phone each second,
how does that AP help the phone GET the data when the pipe TO THE HANDSET
is considerably narrower?!

 That sort of continuous datarate would probably overheat many (most?) mobile phones. Some of them can get quite hot when worked hard.

The point of saying "... each second" was to rule out the "100Mb for 10
seconds" equivalence.  Note that rate also affects latency.  An interface
that can deliver at Gb rates -- even if in short bursts -- appears
better performing (because the data can be "used sooner")
But, you (I) still have to evaluate the horsepower available IN the phone
as it may be doing multiple tasks, concurrently (though most seem to be
prioritized by the focus)

Etc.  But, I don't want to FORCE you to buy capabilities that you
don't ALREADY HAVE -- hence the question as to the prevalence of
a particular "minimum" WiFi standard in current phones.

 

I WANT TO KNOW WHAT SET OF WiFi CAPABILITIES I CAN EXPECT FROM
PHONES CURRENTLY IN USE.  What's so vague about that?

 It varies depending on who is using them. There are a lot of people glued to their less than year old super phone 24/7 who have the latest of everything and OLED screens. Then there are the people (typically parents or grandparents of the above) who have the hand me down phones.

But, you don't see phones advertised for their WiFi capabilities.
Laptops, by contrast, want to tout the latest WiFi standards as
that's increasingly the only way they can talk to the outside
world (wired enet being obsolescent on many models).  So,
you would likely be interested in that item when making
a purchase.
OTOH, would you even be aware of it when SELECTING a phone for
purchase?
This is important because it goes to the mindset of the designer/manufacturer.
If they think you don't care about WiFi capabilities, then they'll put in
whatever they can get away with.
If, OTOH, they think you DO care (because you want to avoid impacting your
data plan), then they will opt to design in more capable interfaces.

And a bunch of Luddites still on completely dumb phones for their extended battery life or other elderly friendly features like large buttons. I reckon

SWMBO carries a dumb "flip style" phone as it is *tiny* in folded form.
So, when she's out hiking it takes up very little space in her pocket.
I leave my phone in the car, when "out".  The idea of CARRYING a phone
around is anathema to me.  (if I want to make a call, I can go back to the
car and fetch it; if someone wants to call *me*, sorry!)
[I am amazed at the Pavlovian aspect of cell phones and how quickly
people JUMP to see who's calling, texting, etc.  And, the PANIC among
callers when the called party doesn't answer -- ON THE SECOND RING!!]

there are still a fair proportion of totally dumb phones in the older generation and a bunch of people in the UK who are going to be very surprised when the 3G signals are finally switched off.

I *think* they are off, here.  I had a 3G "Virgin" phone that I used to carry
in lieu of a wristwatch (so I would know when to pick up SWMBO when we were
both away from home).  It was delightfully small, I could store lots of
music on it (as a PMP).  Battery would easily tolerate the 8 hours I'd be
"away"...  Now, it doesn't even tell the correct time (as it has no way
of manually setting the time, whatever the last network time fix just degrades
with the quality of the local oscillator).
I don't have to worry about folks with NO wifi -- or, folks with no phone!  :>
But, it would be annoying to discover phones had less wireless capabilities
than I had planned, after-the-fact!

I have a feeling that 2.5G will outlive 3G since some remote areas have nothing else. 5G is now common in cities and 4G elsewhere.
 

Find every phone currently in use.  Determine its WiFi capabilities
based on its published specifications.  Tabulate these results.
Identify any patterns observed.

 You could probably make a fairly safe assumption that any phone in regular use for more than 5 years will be on its last legs now (and/or slowed down from as new performance by battery saver tricks).
 Just look back to see what network capabilities were most common in popular models 5 years ago. Secondhand smart phones from a few years back sell for quite low prices these days unless they are iToys.

But, those 5yo phones will be headed for the tip, soon.  I'd, instead,
want a mix of 5/4/3/2/1/0-yo phones to get a better feel for the actual
population.

I could similarly ask for the nominal WEIGHT of phones currently in
use.  Or, size.  Or, color.  Or, ...   The approach would be the same.
Would it MATTER how I was using this information?  Or, why?  Would
the data CHANGE??

 The annoying thing for me is that with each new generation the mobile phone gets larger which is good from the point of view of the handset being more nearly compatible with the distance form ear to mouth but bad from the point of view of it falling out of a shirt pocket!

I dislike the touchscreens as holding them too close to your face (while
perspiring) seems to end up "pushing unwanted buttons".  I frequently discover
that I have accidentally muted my speech because of the location of that
button surface wrt my cheek, etc.

All of my smart phones eventually end up with chips in their upper top edge of the supposedly "unbreakable" Gorilla glass...