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

Garage door openers, nanny cams, etc.

Earth

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.

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.

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" <abuse@your.isp.com> wrote in message
news:UPidnfP-IbZWrdvfRVn-ug@pghconnect.com...

JANA, <jana@ca.inter.net>, the bohemian, self-opinionated fishmonger, and
dustman, yapped:

<snort>

You never heard of 5.8GHz wireless networking then, you fucktard cunt?

You really are a fucking loon.

--
http://www.nice-tits.org/pics.html

JANA, <jana@ca.inter.net>, the bohemian, self-opinionated fishmonger, and
dustman, yapped:

<snort>

You never heard of 5.8GHz wireless networking then, you fucktard cunt?

You really are a fucking loon.

--
http://www.nice-tits.org/pics.html

Jim Watt wrote:
Stick a broken bottle up your fucking arse, you fucktard cunt. Do you call
your bitch mother 'girl'?

Jim Watt wrote:
Stick a broken bottle up your fucking arse, you fucktard cunt. Do you call
your bitch mother 'girl'?

"Jim Watt" <jimwatt@aol.no_way> wrote in message
news:fpsd41568afg7f8p1qukt3ui1jbk5sesov@4ax.com...
Depends. Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm is sweet.....nauseating, but sweet. This
one is more like "Becky the Bitch Castrates the LinixFux".

"Jim Watt" <jimwatt@aol.no_way> wrote in message
news:fpsd41568afg7f8p1qukt3ui1jbk5sesov@4ax.com...
Depends. Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm is sweet.....nauseating, but sweet. This
one is more like "Becky the Bitch Castrates the LinixFux".

peelson wrote:
Why thank you darling... what a sweet thing for you to say.

(Don't you wish there were more around to cantrate the linuxfucks.)

peelson wrote:
Why thank you darling... what a sweet thing for you to say.

(Don't you wish there were more around to cantrate the linuxfucks.)

Rebecca must be a man!!!


--

JANA
_____


"Rebecca" <nospam@godlikebuthumble.com> wrote in message
news:d27r4l.3a4.1@133.256.1.103.MISMATCH...

Rebecca must be a man!!!


--

JANA
_____


"Rebecca" <nospam@godlikebuthumble.com> wrote in message
news:d27r4l.3a4.1@133.256.1.103.MISMATCH...

Thanks Jim,

You deserve a ............... few points for this one.

--

JANA
_____


"Jim Watt" <jimwatt@aol.no_way> wrote in message
news:nhfd41p0l0nhcsa0hah3272fjbgop9kujb@4ax.com...

Thanks Jim,

You deserve a ............... few points for this one.

--

JANA
_____


"Jim Watt" <jimwatt@aol.no_way> wrote in message
news:nhfd41p0l0nhcsa0hah3272fjbgop9kujb@4ax.com...

Jim Watt, <jimwatt@aol.no_way>, the anti-intellectual, maladroit beetle, and
hirer of changing huts by the seaside, ejaculated:

You'll get a fucking better result with a hot-running, rusty chainsaw shoved
up your fucking cloaca, you snotfucked cuntfungus.

--
http://www.nice-tits.org/pics.html

Jim Watt, <jimwatt@aol.no_way>, the anti-intellectual, maladroit beetle, and
hirer of changing huts by the seaside, ejaculated:

You'll get a fucking better result with a hot-running, rusty chainsaw shoved
up your fucking cloaca, you snotfucked cuntfungus.

--
http://www.nice-tits.org/pics.html

JANA, <jana@ca.inter.net>, the tragicomical, craven politician, and dealer
in worthless horses, panted:

Or an Australian female.

--
http://www.nice-tits.org/pics.html

JANA, <jana@ca.inter.net>, the tragicomical, craven politician, and dealer
in worthless horses, panted:

Or an Australian female.

--
http://www.nice-tits.org/pics.html

JANA wrote:
Oh you wish, don't you.
Sorry, but I'm a cunt.