A radio frequency exposure test finds an iPhone 11 Pro exceeds the FCC's limit

Re:A radio frequency exposure test finds an iPhone 11 Pro ex... by deftnerd on Friday February 14, 2020 @02:44PM (#22329629)

The "conspiracy" portion of my brain makes me wonder if it's possible that Apple phones have lower power levels if the location services determines that the phone is in a location with a known anechoic chamber. There can't be that many of them.

Such behavior has already been shown by automobile manufacturers during the "diesel-gate" incidents.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A radio frequency exposure test finds an iPhone 11 Pro ex... by swiley on Saturday February 15, 2020 @01:18PM (#22336867)

You don’t have to do that, usually you’ll run special test firmware on the device and say that this behaves appropriately (I’ve done this for other companies)

Remember that this is fundamentally a legal/social thing that involves engineering/science and not the other way around.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A radio frequency exposure test finds an iPhone 11 Pro ex... by jjoonathan on Monday February 17, 2020 @02:46PM (#22350107)

Right, you're supposed to test to the worst case and you get to define "worst case." Cheating would be as simple as defining a favorable "worst case."

Before the tin-foil crowd calls regulators stupid, I'd like to point out that in the absence of cheating this allows hardware engineers to do a better job & design a system that is robust to software shenanigans. That's a nice thing. Maybe we cannot have nice things, but if so, let's prove it rather than presuppose it.

I'd estimate the likelihood of cheating by looking to see if people are choosing phones on the basis of EIRP the way they choose cars based on MPG. I don't see that happening, so I estimate that the likelihood of cheating is low, and would vote to keep the cooperative model around.

[ Parent | on HN ]