Talk:Cordless telephone

message: some cordless phones have different GHz. Some have 2.4, 5.8, ect... which one is better and why?
:2.4 GHz phones can suffer interference from microwave ovens and wireless computer networks.  5.8 GHz phones avoid this problem. LeoO3 00:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

message: I'm sure it's more complicated than "manufacturers say higher frequencies are better but they're not because anonymous editor says so".  
* Yeah, phone bandwidth is very small, but you can use a wider-than-audio band FM, for instance, to get better range and less interference.
* What modulation schemes do these phones use?  Digital?  FM?  frequency-hopping?  
* Do they automatically switch frequencies within the band when they detect interference?  
* How wide is each band?  
* How much of the band can each phone take up, since they aren't likely to interfere at short range?  
* How difficult is it to eavesdrop on each modulation scheme? 
* etc.  — Omegatron 20:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Higher frequencies corresponds to shorter wavelengths, so deflection is less likely and the wave can be transmitted without great loss.
I am fairly certain that the above sentence relating to frequencies is opposite the truth. Higher frequencies thus shorter wavelenghts are more easily reflected and suffer many problems such as multi-path interference because of these reflections. That is why radar is high frequency, because it reflects off of just about any surface.
It is to most of our best interests to prevent our cordless phone conversation from traveling outside of our homes so this is not typically a concern.
Given equal transmission power levels a frequency of half can travel twice as far. A 900MHz phone should have almost 3 times the range if both phones transmitted with equal power.
Boilerbots 04:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah.  Lower frequencies are naturally better, but most radio transceivers don't live in a natural envivonment; they live in one polluted by other radios.  Higher frequencies are often (not always) less polluted, and offer ways to cut through what pollution there is.  Jim.henderson 20:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Performance 

message: "Most cordless telephones, though, no matter what frequency band or transmission method is used, will hardly ever exactly match the sound quality of a high-quality wired telephone attached to a good telephone line."  It goes on to list some questionable concerns (things that applied to very old analog cordless phones, most likely).  Aside from the quantization noise of a DA/AD trip, I think most of these issues have been addressed in the past decade.  Can an engineer who's qualified address this? BillMcGonigle (talk) 00:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality 

message: The security section of the article seems to focus on security during a call, however what of the situation where multiple users are in close proximity.  How are digital cordless phones and base stations "locked" to make it impossible for a user to connect to their neighbours' base station?  Or, for that matter, how are the phones "unlocked" so multiple cordless phones may communicate with a single base station (particularly useful in multiple storey houses, for example)?  Maybe this could be addressed in the article. --ozzmosis 12:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Security 

message: It looks to me that the "((expand))") may no longer be necessary.  The article, to me, appears fairly thorough.  What are your opinions on it's removal? If you think removal is not appropriate, what do you think the article needs before removing this tag is appropriate? Dmcmorris 16:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ( ( expand ) ) -- Still needed? Why? 

message: Is that main picture really appropriate??  I'm sure we can find something better.  Any thoughts?  Tingalex 22:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: What kind of battery is used in cordless phones?  Do they need to be recharged for 20 hours before they can be used?  What happens if you try to recharge a cordless phone battery before its power is completely drained?  Is that the memory effect where the battery will be broken for good and never be able to recharge completely anymore?  How many years are the batteries good for?  And do they pollute a lot when you throw them away to replace them?  206.47.141.21 18:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, ten years ago almost all were ni-cad which have the costs you list.  Some other battery markets have shifted to li-ion which have different costs (like, sometimes they burst into flame) but I don't think cordless phones have shifted yet.  I'm not sure enough to put it in the article.  Jim.henderson 16:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battery 

message: I am interested in any possible health issues with cordless phones, especially compared to cell phones. Can anybody point to any studies that may have been done? Does anybody know the power output of a cordless phone compared to that of a cell phone?--SkiDragon 04:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This could help and may be a seed for a new section in this article --Notopia (talk) 10:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health 

message: After enjoying the benefits of Cordless T. for nearly 15 years, we find it is appears incompatible with our new wireless modem ie it's impossible to hear anything useful, I presume b/c the T's radio signals conflict with those betweem modem and phone tower ! To have to regress to a cord phone seems like an unexpected & unpleasant option...any clues ? Feroshki (talk) 23:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Incompatibile with wireless Internet ? 

message: Can someone please explain the "DECT 6.0" generation of phones? (Example: Uniden has one or more such models.)</br>
What frequencie(s) does this type use?</br>
I've been given the impression that they're not 5.8, but I just don't know.</br>
:Found this: Digital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications#DECT_6.0</br>
LP-mn (talk) 13:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[DECT 6.0]]" standard 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Cordless telephone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150120021035/http://www.uiowa.edu:80/~cyberlaw/FCCOps/1968/13F2-420.html to http://www.uiowa.edu/~cyberlaw/FCCOps/1968/13F2-420.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Cordless telephone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051104221910/http://www.ofta.gov.hk/en/ad-comm/rsac/paper/rsac6-2002.pdf to http://www.ofta.gov.hk/en/ad-comm/rsac/paper/rsac6-2002.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uiowa.edu/~cyberlaw/FCCOps/1968/13F2-420.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:54, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified