|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Cingular cell phone service > October 2007 > Re: Onstar = MVNO
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| marx404 2007-10-19, 7:33 am |
| First of all, an unexpected thanks to Elmo and others for setting the record
straight on my Onstar mis-information that GM -and- Onstar have been giving
out. (albeit your corrections were Navas overtoned, they were correct)
Second of all, yep, I do need to get out more, all work and no play...well,
you know :-)
The other day I called Onstar dealer services and asked if they they were an
MVNO, the guy had no clue what an MVNO was and firmly stood on that Onstar
owns thier own cellular towers and sattelites and provides thier own
"sattelite phone" service. When I grilled him, he put me on hold, went to go
talk to a tech and came back, told me that it WAS a cellular service and
they use Verizon (and other providers), but refused to tell me to what
extent. I asked our corporate trainer and he was all the more clueless. My
take is that OnStar doesnt want ppl to know much about it and that Verizon
is the backbone of Onstar, period, with Onstar basically an enhanced cell
phone.
Just goes to show that the more sincerely confirmed someone is, the more
they are likely to be full of sh*t or just badly mis-informed. My bad for
being the latter.
Thanx,
--
marx404
| |
| John B. Coarsey, PE 2007-10-19, 7:33 am |
|
"marx404" <404@404.com> wrote in message
news:LvKdnZsFFcvVCoX
anZ2dnUVZ_oOnnZ2d@ad
elphia.com...
> First of all, an unexpected thanks to Elmo and others for setting the
> record straight on my Onstar mis-information that GM -and- Onstar have
> been giving out. (albeit your corrections were Navas overtoned, they were
> correct) Second of all, yep, I do need to get out more, all work and no
> play...well, you know :-)
>
> The other day I called Onstar dealer services and asked if they they were
> an MVNO, the guy had no clue what an MVNO was and firmly stood on that
> Onstar owns thier own cellular towers and sattelites and provides thier
> own "sattelite phone" service. When I grilled him, he put me on hold, went
> to go talk to a tech and came back, told me that it WAS a cellular service
> and they use Verizon (and other providers), but refused to tell me to what
> extent. I asked our corporate trainer and he was all the more clueless. My
> take is that OnStar doesnt want ppl to know much about it and that Verizon
> is the backbone of Onstar, period, with Onstar basically an enhanced cell
> phone.
>
> Just goes to show that the more sincerely confirmed someone is, the more
> they are likely to be full of sh*t or just badly mis-informed. My bad for
> being the latter.
>
> Thanx,
>
> --
> marx404
When I got mine I thought it was Sattelite based too. Turns out only the GPS
is. All communiccation is by cell, but at higher power. I was suprised to
find out there are actually areas that it will not work, but I have not
found any yet.
| |
| Roger Buttsnort 2007-10-19, 12:33 pm |
|
"John B. Coarsey, PE @yahoo.com>" <jcoarsey<nospam> wrote in message
news:5nrle0Fjog1cU1@
mid.individual.net...
>
> "marx404" <404@404.com> wrote in message
> news:LvKdnZsFFcvVCoX
anZ2dnUVZ_oOnnZ2d@ad
elphia.com...
> When I got mine I thought it was Sattelite based too. Turns out only the
> GPS is. All communiccation is by cell, but at higher power. I was suprised
> to find out there are actually areas that it will not work, but I have not
> found any yet.
"Higher Power" BULLSHIT! the early ones were 3 watt AMPS phones, the new
ones are basic CDMA units.The RF section is nothing "Special" at all.
"BlondeStar" will tell you anything that comes to mind to "Dazzle" you with
fake but cool sounding buzz-words and fluff....
| |
| John B. Coarsey, PE 2007-10-19, 12:33 pm |
|
"Roger Buttsnort" <rbuttsnort@aol.com> wrote in message
news:KF4Si.5922$y21.2749@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
>
> "John B. Coarsey, PE @yahoo.com>" <jcoarsey<nospam> wrote in message
> news:5nrle0Fjog1cU1@
mid.individual.net...
> "Higher Power" BULLSHIT! the early ones were 3 watt AMPS phones, the new
> ones are basic CDMA units.The RF section is nothing "Special" at all.
> "BlondeStar" will tell you anything that comes to mind to "Dazzle" you
> with fake but cool sounding buzz-words and fluff....
>
>
Bullshit to you. It is very very very much higher poer than a handheld unit.
Period.
| |
| John B. Coarsey, PE 2007-10-19, 12:33 pm |
|
"Roger Buttsnort" <rbuttsnort@aol.com> wrote in message
news:KF4Si.5922$y21.2749@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
>
> "John B. Coarsey, PE @yahoo.com>" <jcoarsey<nospam> wrote in message
> news:5nrle0Fjog1cU1@
mid.individual.net...
> "Higher Power" BULLSHIT! the early ones were 3 watt AMPS phones, the new
> ones are basic CDMA units.The RF section is nothing "Special" at all.
> "BlondeStar" will tell you anything that comes to mind to "Dazzle" you
> with fake but cool sounding buzz-words and fluff....
>
>
3 watts for Onstar, and 0.6 watts for a handheld unit. This is the fact.
| |
|
| John B. Coarsey, PE <jcoarsey wrote:
> "Roger Buttsnort" <rbuttsnort@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:KF4Si.5922$y21.2749@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
> 3 watts for Onstar, and 0.6 watts for a handheld unit. This is the fact.
>
>
You should maybe ask a ham (I'm not one) what diff the wattage would
make. My experience is not much at high Mhz. More likely is that it is
an outside antenna that makes a bigger diff than the wattage, or so I
have seen using .5, 5 watt HT's and 25 watt dash mount moto radios. It
is still line of sight.
| |
| John B. Coarsey, PE 2007-10-19, 3:33 pm |
|
"vey" <junker@ericvey.com> wrote in message
news:13hhrkbc4sg3s08
@corp.supernews.com...
> John B. Coarsey, PE <jcoarsey wrote:
>
> You should maybe ask a ham (I'm not one) what diff the wattage would make.
> My experience is not much at high Mhz. More likely is that it is an
> outside antenna that makes a bigger diff than the wattage, or so I have
> seen using .5, 5 watt HT's and 25 watt dash mount moto radios. It is still
> line of sight.
All you said is true. The ability to receive a signal from a cell tower is
not related to power transmission level of the cell unit but the ability to
reach the tower is. That is what OnStar is about. So if the vehicle can get
a message out then the GPS knows where the vehicle is so help can be
summoned. If you are in need of medical attention you can press the correct
key and help is on the way.
I had a case last summer in the Rocky Mountain National Park, Estes Park, Co
where my Verizon V3c Razr had no service but the OnStar did. The OnStar has
quite an antenna arrangement abouve the headliner.
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2007-10-19, 3:33 pm |
| In article <5ns7kmFjn248U1@mid.individual.net>,
"John B. Coarsey, PE" <jcoarsey<nospam>@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 3 watts for Onstar, and 0.6 watts for a handheld unit. This is the fact.
That was the fact, before OnStar went to digital cellular. Back when
they used analog cellular from Verizon, they indeed were 3 watt systems.
But that changed. In fact, older Onstar systems will stop working here
pretty soon, when Verizon shuts down their analog system early next
year. Onstar switched their equipment to use the digital service, and
it's not 3 watts--not by far. It's back down to the standard 0.6 watt
signal used for digital.
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2007-10-19, 3:33 pm |
| In article <5nsa87FjtbphU1@mid.individual.net>,
"John B. Coarsey, PE" <jcoarsey<nospam>@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I had a case last summer in the Rocky Mountain National Park, Estes Park, Co
> where my Verizon V3c Razr had no service but the OnStar did. The OnStar has
> quite an antenna arrangement abouve the headliner.
The V3c is a pure digital phone, whereas your older Onstar system was
using Verizon's analog system.
When Verizon's analog system shuts down, the analog Onstar systems will
stop working. Onstar announced that some time ago.
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2007-10-19, 3:33 pm |
| In article <5ns77vFjsf7pU1@mid.individual.net>,
"John B. Coarsey, PE" <jcoarsey<nospam>@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Bullshit to you. It is very very very much higher poer than a handheld unit.
> Period.
Was.
Not anymore, not now that they're on Verizon's digital service.
But then, you'd have to know something about cell phone systems to
understand that. If you don't, you'll just go around spouting
"bullshit!" all the time.
| |
|
| John B. Coarsey, PE <jcoarsey wrote:
> 3 watts for Onstar, and 0.6 watts for a handheld unit. This is the fact.
This is for older On-Star systems that used AMPS only. You got far
better coverage with AMPS than with CDMA.
The current On-Star system is digital only, and is 0.6 watts. Much of
the geographic coverage has been lost. They could have kept a tri-mode
phone for On-Star since rural AMPS will be around for many, many years,
but apparently they did not do this.
It really isn't worth paying for On-Star any more, unless you frequently
lock your keys in your car in the areas that have CDMA coverage.
| |
| marx404 2007-10-19, 10:33 pm |
| The current OnStar is digital only for sure. Many old customers aren't too
happy 'bout that as analog working areas are now left w/o service. Some dead
spots where analog only used to work can be found down certain areas of
rural I-20 in SC. (of course what in SC isn't rural) Another is anywhere
within a 10 mile radius of the Robinson Nuclear Plant in Hartsville, SC. We
can see the cell towers but no bars, yet, Onstar connects every time.
Much of rural SC and many other rural country areas will be TSOL w/o analog
I'm afraid.
--
marx404
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:4719340d$0$7985
8$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> John B. Coarsey, PE <jcoarsey wrote:
>
>
> This is for older On-Star systems that used AMPS only. You got far better
> coverage with AMPS than with CDMA.
>
> The current On-Star system is digital only, and is 0.6 watts. Much of the
> geographic coverage has been lost. They could have kept a tri-mode phone
> for On-Star since rural AMPS will be around for many, many years, but
> apparently they did not do this.
>
> It really isn't worth paying for On-Star any more, unless you frequently
> lock your keys in your car in the areas that have CDMA coverage.
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2007-10-19, 10:33 pm |
| In article < rI2dnQadhNfYzYTanZ2d
nUVZ_vihnZ2d@adelphi
a.com>,
"marx404" <404@404.com> wrote:
> The current OnStar is digital only for sure. Many old customers aren't too
> happy 'bout that as analog working areas are now left w/o service.
Not only that, analog-only Onstar customers are left with
non-functioning equipment.
Let that be a lesson learned. Don't but into this crap, and don't
design your life around it. Either that, or Onstar can come out with
upgrade modules for your existing car.
| |
|
| John B. Coarsey, PE <jcoarsey wrote:
> 3 watts for Onstar, and 0.6 watts for a handheld unit. This is the fact.
You would be describing the older 3 watts analog phone technology. CDMA is
optimized for fractional watt handsets. Phones closer to a tower are
instructed to go to a lower power setting, so even it was a 3 watts CDMA
phone...it would be constantly running in a low power mode.
| |
| Roger Buttsnort 2007-10-20, 12:33 pm |
|
"John B. Coarsey, PE @yahoo.com>" <jcoarsey<nospam> wrote in message
news:5ns77vFjsf7pU1@
mid.individual.net...
>
> "Roger Buttsnort" <rbuttsnort@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:KF4Si.5922$y21.2749@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
> Bullshit to you. It is very very very much higher poer than a handheld
> unit. Period.
John...John...John.....
If you took the time to research this out (maybe go to the FCC's website)
and actually look up the type acceptance of this equipment you will find the
*REAL* ratings of it. You can't believe a shill from BlondeStar as to what
is really going on.They have been instructed to tell you what YOU want to
hear.
The older AMPS mobiles and bagphones were indeed 3 watt units.The newer
stuff was 600Mw in power. You will find a lot of it running less than
1/4watt (250Mw).
On 880Mhz/1950Mhz *ANTENNA IS EVERYTHING*. ALL new handhelds have E-911
chipset in them, so a handheld CAN get the same help as a BlondeStar. The
BlondeStar user interface is for the helpless/brain-dead that lack
commonsense in emergency incidents, most others can deal with it.
Personally speaking *I* don't need my car calling Chevy and reporting it
needs a oil change, I don't require a nanny to help me get my keys back and
I don't welcome a "Checklist" sent to me from GM on non-required "service"
that they want to push on me.....
"BlondeStar" is useless fluff for a HIGH price. If you are married to a
person that cant find their XXX with both hands and a detailed instruction
book, GET THEM BLONDESTAR!!!
| |
| Tinman 2007-10-20, 3:33 pm |
| SMS wrote:
>
> It really isn't worth paying for On-Star any more, unless you
> frequently lock your keys in your car in the areas that have CDMA
> coverage.
I loved the On-Star ad where the family locked their keys out of their car
in some kind of camping location. They act as if On-Star saved their lives.
I mean, would they have starved or would they have realized the only thing
between them and civilization was a piece of glass, with rocks all around.
I always thought Ford should have parodied that ad, but in their case the
family just entered their PIN on the door-pad and they are in (while the
other family are hoping for a cell signal).
--
Mike
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2007-10-20, 10:33 pm |
| In article <N6qSi.61613$YL5.4299@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
"Roger Buttsnort" <rbuttsnort@aol.com> wrote:
> "BlondeStar" is useless fluff for a HIGH price. If you are married to a
> person that cant find their XXX with both hands and a detailed instruction
> book, GET THEM BLONDESTAR!!!
(hint: maybe John B. Coarsey, PE isn't married to such a person; maybe
he IS such a person)
| |
|
| Tinman wrote:
> I always thought Ford should have parodied that ad, but in their case the
> family just entered their PIN on the door-pad and they are in (while the
> other family are hoping for a cell signal).
There was a parody of a women locked INSIDE her car and the "On-Star" rep
asked what that beeping noise was...her keys were in the ignition and she
was in the front seat.
| |
| John B. Coarsey, PE 2007-10-22, 10:33 am |
|
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-374836. 15350619102007@nntp1
.usenetserver.com...
> In article <5ns77vFjsf7pU1@mid.individual.net>,
> "John B. Coarsey, PE" <jcoarsey<nospam>@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Was.
>
> Not anymore, not now that they're on Verizon's digital service.
>
> But then, you'd have to know something about cell phone systems to
> understand that. If you don't, you'll just go around spouting
> "bullshit!" all the time.
You are the misinformed one Elmo. Check your facts buddy. Onstar outputy is
3 watts period. A handheld is 0.6 watts, Period. 3 watts is much more power
than 0.6 watts. Now how much difference that actually makes in the field is
a whole other discussion. But that isn't the beef now is it?
| |
| John B. Coarsey, PE 2007-10-22, 10:33 am |
|
"Roger Buttsnort" <rbuttsnort@aol.com> wrote in message
news:N6qSi.61613$YL5.4299@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>
> "John B. Coarsey, PE @yahoo.com>" <jcoarsey<nospam> wrote in message
> news:5ns77vFjsf7pU1@
mid.individual.net...
> John...John...John.....
> If you took the time to research this out (maybe go to the FCC's website)
> and actually look up the type acceptance of this equipment you will find
> the *REAL* ratings of it. You can't believe a shill from BlondeStar as to
> what is really going on.They have been instructed to tell you what YOU
> want to hear.
> The older AMPS mobiles and bagphones were indeed 3 watt units.The newer
> stuff was 600Mw in power. You will find a lot of it running less than
> 1/4watt (250Mw).
> On 880Mhz/1950Mhz *ANTENNA IS EVERYTHING*. ALL new handhelds have E-911
> chipset in them, so a handheld CAN get the same help as a BlondeStar. The
> BlondeStar user interface is for the helpless/brain-dead that lack
> commonsense in emergency incidents, most others can deal with it.
> Personally speaking *I* don't need my car calling Chevy and reporting it
> needs a oil change, I don't require a nanny to help me get my keys back
> and I don't welcome a "Checklist" sent to me from GM on non-required
> "service" that they want to push on me.....
> "BlondeStar" is useless fluff for a HIGH price. If you are married to a
> person that cant find their XXX with both hands and a detailed instruction
> book, GET THEM BLONDESTAR!!!
Roger, I ain't got a dog in that fight. Onstar uses 3 watts of power a
handheld 0.6. That is what I said. This is true. As far as whether it makes
a big difference or whether Onstar is any good was never my point. I am not
arguing that.
Thanks
| |
| John B. Coarsey, PE 2007-10-22, 10:33 am |
|
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-898BF3. 17382720102007@nntp1
.usenetserver.com...
> In article <N6qSi.61613$YL5.4299@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
> "Roger Buttsnort" <rbuttsnort@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> (hint: maybe John B. Coarsey, PE isn't married to such a person; maybe
> he IS such a person)
Maybe, Elmo, but I get my facts correct before I post. You on the other hand
do not. Please make sure of the facts before you spout off.
| |
| John B. Coarsey, PE 2007-10-22, 10:33 am |
|
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-534C29. 15341719102007@nntp1
.usenetserver.com...
> In article <5nsa87FjtbphU1@mid.individual.net>,
> "John B. Coarsey, PE" <jcoarsey<nospam>@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> The V3c is a pure digital phone, whereas your older Onstar system was
> using Verizon's analog system.
>
> When Verizon's analog system shuts down, the analog Onstar systems will
> stop working. Onstar announced that some time ago.
>
No it is pure digital.
| |
| John B. Coarsey, PE 2007-10-22, 10:33 am |
|
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-4CA4F8. 15325319102007@nntp1
.usenetserver.com...
> In article <5ns7kmFjn248U1@mid.individual.net>,
> "John B. Coarsey, PE" <jcoarsey<nospam>@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> That was the fact, before OnStar went to digital cellular. Back when
> they used analog cellular from Verizon, they indeed were 3 watt systems.
>
> But that changed. In fact, older Onstar systems will stop working here
> pretty soon, when Verizon shuts down their analog system early next
> year. Onstar switched their equipment to use the digital service, and
> it's not 3 watts--not by far. It's back down to the standard 0.6 watt
> signal used for digital.
>
Well, I beg to disagree with you, its still 3 watts for digital as well. An
upgrade is avialable for the analog system but we aren't discussing that.
| |
| Tinman 2007-10-22, 10:33 am |
| > "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
> news:elmop-898BF3. 17382720102007@nntp1
.usenetserver.com...
>
> Maybe, Elmo, but I get my facts correct before I post. You on the
> other hand do not. Please make sure of the facts before you spout off.
Instead of making an even bigger fool of yourself, by insulting people, how
about proving your assertion? You made the claim, you back it up.
--
Mike
| |
| John B. Coarsey, PE 2007-10-22, 10:33 am |
|
"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:4719340d$0$7985
8$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> John B. Coarsey, PE <jcoarsey wrote:
>
>
> This is for older On-Star systems that used AMPS only. You got far better
> coverage with AMPS than with CDMA.
>
> The current On-Star system is digital only, and is 0.6 watts. Much of the
> geographic coverage has been lost. They could have kept a tri-mode phone
> for On-Star since rural AMPS will be around for many, many years, but
> apparently they did not do this.
>
> It really isn't worth paying for On-Star any more, unless you frequently
> lock your keys in your car in the areas that have CDMA coverage.
I have posted numerous times that it is 3 watts. I have been handed printed
technical documentation from GM stating this. hearing this from you makes me
wonder if I have my facts correct. To Roger and Elmo please accept my
apologies since I may in fact be wrong.
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2007-10-22, 10:33 am |
| In article <5o3m1qFkg6j4U1@mid.individual.net>,
"John B. Coarsey, PE" <jcoarsey<nospam>@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I have posted numerous times that it is 3 watts. I have been handed printed
> technical documentation from GM stating this.
Old documentation, for sure.
Did you ask for CURRENT documentation?
The current implementation uses CDMA, and the transmitter is 600
milliwatts--just like a handheld phone.
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2007-10-22, 10:33 am |
| In article <5o3lgmFl0574U1@mid.individual.net>,
"John B. Coarsey, PE" <jcoarsey<nospam>@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Maybe, Elmo, but I get my facts correct before I post. You on the other hand
> do not.
I absolutely do. But this thread proves that you DON'T, despite your
claims to the contrary.
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-10-22, 10:33 am |
| At 22 Oct 2007 09:05:49 -0400 wrote:
> No it is pure digital.=20
*Sigh* =20
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfact...gcellphone.html
"OnStar-equipped vehicles have one of three types of equipment: analog=
-
only, analog/digital-ready, and dual-mode (analog and digital). OnStar=
advises that analog-only equipped vehicles (generally, cars older than=
2003 models) cannot be upgraded and that OnStar service in such vehicl=
es
will not work after December 31, 2007. Analog/digital-ready equipped
vehicles must be upgraded in order to work after December 31, 2007. Du=
al-
mode equipped vehicles will continue to work after December 31, 2007. =
To
determine the type of OnStar equipment in your vehicle and whether you=
r
OnStar service will work after December 31, 2007, contact OnStar. You =
can
contact OnStar by pressing the blue OnStar button in your vehicle,
calling OnStar toll-free at 1-866-579-7726 (have your OnStar account
number or your vehicle identification number available), or visiting
OnStar=92s Web site at https://myonstar.com/adt.os. Enter your vehicle=
identification number to determine if the transition affects your
vehicle."
| |
| John B. Coarsey, PE 2007-10-22, 10:33 am |
|
"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message
news:elmop-341BC5. 09330722102007@nntp1
.usenetserver.com...
> In article <5o3m1qFkg6j4U1@mid.individual.net>,
> "John B. Coarsey, PE" <jcoarsey<nospam>@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Old documentation, for sure.
>
> Did you ask for CURRENT documentation?
>
> The current implementation uses CDMA, and the transmitter is 600
> milliwatts--just like a handheld phone.
No, I haven't. Sorry to you guys and the group. I usually have my act
together but when I get mislead by someone who should know that hurts. I've
learned a lot. I should have said "according to my source" and not put it
out as fact when I did not see the nameplate myself. Thanks for bearing with
me, and now I'm off to eat about three or four crow pies.
later,
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2007-10-22, 12:33 pm |
| In article <ffiadu$med$1@aioe.org>,
Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
> http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfact...gcellphone.html
>
> "OnStar-equipped vehicles have one of three types of equipment: analog-
> only, analog/digital-ready, and dual-mode (analog and digital). OnStar
> advises that analog-only equipped vehicles (generally, cars older than
> 2003 models) cannot be upgraded and that OnStar service in such vehicles
> will not work after December 31, 2007. Analog/digital-ready equipped
> vehicles must be upgraded in order to work after December 31, 2007. Dual-
> mode equipped vehicles will continue to work after December 31, 2007. To
> determine the type of OnStar equipment in your vehicle and whether your
> OnStar service will work after December 31, 2007, contact OnStar. You can
> contact OnStar by pressing the blue OnStar button in your vehicle,
> calling OnStar toll-free at 1-866-579-7726 (have your OnStar account
> number or your vehicle identification number available), or visiting
> OnStar’s Web site at https://myonstar.com/adt.os. Enter your vehicle
> identification number to determine if the transition affects your
> vehicle."
And the digital side operates at 600 milliwatts.
|
|
|
|
|