[geeks] a cell phone that doesn't suck

[Shannon Hendrix]

On Nov 24, 2007, at 12:58 PM, Lionel Peterson wrote:

>>
>> Why would I assume my cell phone is any different.
>
> Because your cell phone runs on a battery - I suspect most of your  
> other devices runn off wall current...

How is that a factor?

My cell phone, when "off", will discharge in about 3 days, which is  
about twice as fast as the battery will discharge outside of the phone.

>> Really?  What logic did  you apply to determine that cell phones are
>> fully powered off, and can't be abused in their on and off states?
>>
>> It should be interesting.
>
> I was bemoaning the inability to even attempt to use logic, the  
> requirement that I produce scientific proof.

I wasn't requiring anything of you, I was merely stating the obvious:  
unless someone actually tests it, everything is guessing.

> In theory, if I turn off the phone remove the battery and measure  
> the charge, then replace the battery, wait an extended period, then  
> test the current remaining in the battery and compare any loss to  
> the expected drain on a similar battery not installed in the device  
> I can assume the unit was off,

Then by your logic, since every cell phone I've ever owned drains the  
battery faster than when the battery is alone, the phones must be on  
and active when I turn them "off".

>> We already know the opposite is true anyway.

> We do?

Yes.

> How would you know the difference between the phone company altering  
> the phone while it is turned off vs. the phone company disabling  
> features on the phone once it turns on and access their network  
> (kill on connection, for instance)? Or a time limited activation,  
> that kills a feature/phone once a point in time is exceeded (like a  
> DHCP lease)?

You probably can't, but since cell phone reps have told me they can do  
this, I'm not inclined to question it.

Also, there are companies selling use of this as a service, if your  
cell phone is one that doesn't fully power off.

Most Nokia phones are like this.  It's how their alarm functions work,  
for example.

It would be trivial for a cell phone carrier to send you an update  
which activated a feature like that without telling you.

To the user, it would look like a bog standard update.

>> Most cell phones can be remotely activated, turned off, or
>> reprogrammed, even if you have them "off".
>>
>> The only question is whether or not this is being abused or maybe how
>> much is it being abused.
>
> So the theory is that the phone company can reach out, activate an  
> otherwise powered down device, activate it, and do so in a manner  
> that doesn't alert the wearer/user? For this to be true, the phone  
> needs to be on when off (soft off you refer to), have a silent/ 
> invisible power-on sequence, and not drain the battery in a manner  
> to alert the user that the phone has a problem with the battery?

Only my original Nokia 6185 and my ancient Motorola AMP phone powered  
all the way off.

My V60V drained the battery when off.  Not as fast as when on in  
standby mode, but it was easy to see.

I have no idea what it was doing, but clearly it wasn't totally  
inactive.

Either that or it had a very broken charging/electrical system.


-- 
Shannon Hendrix
shannon at widomaker.com