PDA

View Full Version : Blackberry 7250: Wildly Divergent SAR Data


mdgr2000
10-23-2005, 02:25 PM
Either the RIM manual (p. 7, http://www.blackberry.com/knowledgecenterpublic/livelink.exe/fetch/2000/8067/645045/8533/788563/BlackBerry_7250_-_Safety_and_Product_Information_Booklet.pdf?nodeid=788839&vernum=0) is incorrect, showing the 7250's SAR rating at the ear as .53 (body is .84) or everybody else that is posting the SAR data on this phone (e.g., Verizon, CNET, and virtually every other source that comes up in a Google search) is incorrect in showing the SAR at the ear as 1.27 and .54 at the body. I'd tend to believe RIM's report except for the fact that everyone else disagrees with it and states they are basing their claims on the "manufacturer's" report. Prior to purchasing a phone, I would like an explanation from RIM as to how this data got so garbled and what numbers I should be relying on.

Jase88
10-23-2005, 03:37 PM
Wirelessly posted (7250: BlackBerry7250/4.0.2 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1)

Just prior to release of the 7250, I recall seeing some correspondence between RIM and the FCC regarding SAR data on the FCC website.

Apparently the FCC found some errors in RIM's numbers.

My thinking is the manual you are reading from RIM was produced prior to the product going to the FCC for approval. Therefore this information is not up to date.

mdgr2000
10-23-2005, 08:42 PM
Thanks for your input on this subject. If RIM knew that its phone had a SAR rating substantially higher than it publicly declared--and if this was memorialized in correspondence with the FCC--RIM could have a substantial legal problem to the extent that consumers relied on RIM's manual in making their purchase. If there was a a known typo or a measuring error on RIM's end, it seems to me that it had an obligation to flag the actual SAR value in a revision/addendum to its product manual and also to make this clear elsewhere on the site.

Jase88
10-23-2005, 08:48 PM
Wirelessly posted (7250: BlackBerry7250/4.0.2 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1)

There's likely some legal drivel in the document which states that the information may be subject to change at any time without prior notification from RIM. So I'd doubt RIM is at risk.

The other issue is that Canadian testing standards may vary from the U.S. RIM may only be obliged to disclose numbers based on the Canadian Standards (assuming these differ).