«

Interesting scenerio.

I have been reading a number of articles bringing up problems with cell
phones, various wireless devices, and cordless phones.

With the advent of the popularity of wireless networks, there is starting to
be an interference problem with cellular phones, and the 2.4 gHz cordless
phones, clashing with wireless networks. There are also other wireless
devices that are effected.

If you are buying a cordless phone, and live in an area where there may be
wireless networks, and Bluetooth users, it is advisable to seriously
consider a 5.8 gHz phone. These are more expensive, but are worth it, to not
have reception problems.

Many of the wireless systems, for computers, and industrial systems are
working in a number of bands that are shared. These are in the approximate
range of 320 ~ 380 mHz, 520 ~ 620 mHz, 800 ~ 900 mHz, and 1.2 ~ 2.5 gHz.
These frequencies are approximate, and can vary in different parts of the
world, according to their approved allocation. Over the last few years, the
5 ~ 6 gHz bands have been opening up. If you contact your local
communications authorities, you can find out the exact allocated frequency
bands for your area.


--

JANA
_____

JANA wrote:
> Interesting scenerio.
>
> I have been reading a number of articles bringing up problems with cell
> phones, various wireless devices, and cordless phones.
>
> With the advent of the popularity of wireless networks, there is starting to
> be an interference problem

Only if "starting to" means began about 3-4 years ago

> with cellular phones, and the 2.4 gHz cordless
> phones, clashing with wireless networks. There are also other wireless
> devices that are effected.

Garage door openers, nanny cams, etc.

> If you are buying a cordless phone, and live in an area where there may be
> wireless networks

Earth

> and Bluetooth users, it is advisable to seriously
> consider a 5.8 gHz phone. These are more expensive, but are worth it, to not
> have reception problems.

Many "5.8GHz" phone bases actually transmit at 2.4GHz while the handsets
transmit at 5.8GHz. And the fallacy that 5.8GHz is better because
there's more hertz continues to be promoted by retailers and manufacturers.

> Many of the wireless systems, for computers, and industrial systems are
> working in a number of bands that are shared. These are in the approximate
> range of 320 ~ 380 mHz, 520 ~ 620 mHz, 800 ~ 900 mHz, and 1.2 ~ 2.5 gHz.

In the States it's 900MHz, 2.4GHz, 5.3GHz and 5.8GHz for unlicensed
networking devices, with probably 99% falling in the 2.4 and 5.8GHz ranges.

> These frequencies are approximate, and can vary in different parts of the
> world, according to their approved allocation. Over the last few years, the
> 5 ~ 6 gHz bands have been opening up. If you contact your local
> communications authorities, you can find out the exact allocated frequency
> bands for your area.

Local communications authorities? You mean, like the FCC?

I was bringing up a point about getting out of the same band as the other
devices. Not having something to do with the false representation that more
gHz is better.

You have a point about the frequency allocation for the base and the
handset. But, the 5.8 gHz phones do solve this problem when it is apparent.

Many sales people are putting on false representation that the higher gHz
are better. The frequency will not really effect the actual performance of
the phone. It is the power output of the base, the handset, and the overall
quality of design. A good 800 mHz phone will sound just as good as a 2.4 or
5.8 gHz phone, as long as the quality of design is there, and there is no
interference.


--

JANA
_____


"Rôgêr" <> wrote in message
news:UPidnfP-IbZWrdvfRVn-...
> JANA wrote:
> > Interesting scenerio.
> >
> > I have been reading a number of articles bringing up problems with cell
> > phones, various wireless devices, and cordless phones.
> >
> > With the advent of the popularity of wireless networks, there is
starting to
> > be an interference problem
>
> Only if "starting to" means began about 3-4 years ago
>
> > with cellular phones, and the 2.4 gHz cordless
> > phones, clashing with wireless networks. There are also other wireless
> > devices that are effected.
>
> Garage door openers, nanny cams, etc.
>
> > If you are buying a cordless phone, and live in an area where there may
be
> > wireless networks
>
> Earth
>
> > and Bluetooth users, it is advisable to seriously
> > consider a 5.8 gHz phone. These are more expensive, but are worth it, to
not
> > have reception problems.
>
> Many "5.8GHz" phone bases actually transmit at 2.4GHz while the handsets
> transmit at 5.8GHz. And the fallacy that 5.8GHz is better because
> there's more hertz continues to be promoted by retailers and
manufacturers.
>
> > Many of the wireless systems, for computers, and industrial systems are
> > working in a number of bands that are shared. These are in the
approximate
> > range of 320 ~ 380 mHz, 520 ~ 620 mHz, 800 ~ 900 mHz, and 1.2 ~ 2.5 gHz.
>
> In the States it's 900MHz, 2.4GHz, 5.3GHz and 5.8GHz for unlicensed
> networking devices, with probably 99% falling in the 2.4 and 5.8GHz
ranges.
>
> > These frequencies are approximate, and can vary in different parts of
the
> > world, according to their approved allocation. Over the last few years,
the
> > 5 ~ 6 gHz bands have been opening up. If you contact your local
> > communications authorities, you can find out the exact allocated
frequency
> > bands for your area.
>
> Local communications authorities? You mean, like the FCC?

JANA wrote:
> Rebecca must be a man!!!
>

Oh you wish, don't you.
Sorry, but I'm a ****.

"JANA" wrote
> Rebecca must be a man!!!

How many times do you need to be told to STOP
RESPONDING TO TROLLS and REPEATING
THE POINTLESS CROSSPOSTING STARTED
BY A TROLL? Are you retarded? What,
exactly about this do you not understand?
Do you understand ANYTHING about the
mechanics of posting and netiquette?

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 19:42:26 -0800, "gangle" <> wrote:

>"JANA" wrote
>> Rebecca must be a man!!!
>
>How many times do you need to be told to STOP
>RESPONDING TO TROLLS and REPEATING
>THE POINTLESS CROSSPOSTING STARTED
>BY A TROLL? Are you retarded? What,
>exactly about this do you not understand?
>Do you understand ANYTHING about the
>mechanics of posting and netiquette?

No.

--
"No lusers were harmed in the creation of this usenet article.
AND I WANT TO KNOW WHY NOT!"
--glmar04 at twirl.mcc.ac.uk in a.s.r

> <snort>
>
> You never heard of 5.8GHz wireless networking then, you ****tard ****?
>
> You really are a ****ing loon.
>
Many of us have heard of it. It exists. It is not as common, so you're
likely to solve a problem by switching to that band on a phone.

And loons should be mating any day now, so if someone could help the
K-"man" to a little birdwatching, he might be able to tell the
difference in the future. (Or at least we'd have a little less abusive
language on this newsgroup in the meantime.)

In <ZcKdnR28Nqv-4NrfRVn->,
gangle took 12 lines to utter:

>"JANA" wrote
>> Rebecca must be a man!!!
>
>How many times do you need to be told to STOP
>RESPONDING TO TROLLS and REPEATING
>THE POINTLESS CROSSPOSTING STARTED
>BY A TROLL? Are you retarded? What,
>exactly about this do you not understand?
>Do you understand ANYTHING about the
>mechanics of posting and netiquette?

I don't understand them; would you clarify things
for me, please?

--
I'm easy to please...as long as I get my way.

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 17:23:01 -0800, "Rebecca"
<> wrote:

>Sorry, but I'm a ****.

That has been established beyond doubt.

--
Jim Watt
http://www.gibnet.com

Jana wrote:
> Thanks!!! That guy is about the rudest I ever saw (read)! He must
> have no self respect at all.
>
> --
>
> JANA
> _____

You're a sensitive poofta, ain't 'cha.