dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
11857
share rss forum feed


Jeffrey
Connoisseur of leisurely things
Premium
join:2002-12-24
Long Island
kudos:3
Reviews:
·voip.ms
·Verizon FiOS
·Vonage

1.9 vs 5.8 Ghz - Cordless phone w/ expandable handsets

I'm looking to purchase a new cordless phone. I've been very happy with Uniden cordless phones, 5.8Ghz. So, I was just on Newegg for a Uniden model in the 5.8Ghz range with a base and 2 or 3 handsets. Then, I came across a Panasonic in the 1.9Ghz range.

Help me out here. For wireless, I thought that there was 900Mhz, 2.4Ghz, and 5.8Ghz. What is the deal with the 1.9Ghz? Does it offer the range of 2.4Ghz w/o any interference? I *thought* that 5.8 was "the best" for that, but I think I may be mistaken.

Any ideas? Thanks
--
"Honesty may be the best policy, but it's important to remember that apparently, by elimination, dishonesty is the second-best policy." - George Carlin

[my ramblings]



Sandman
Premium
join:2002-07-10
Strafford, MO

1 recommendation

1.9 GHz is also known as DECT »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DECT
--
Rule #62: Don't take yourself so damn seriously!


deleteme

join:2002-04-22
Chicago, IL

1 recommendation

reply to Jeffrey

Use DECT 6.0 @ 1.9Ghz - clear avoidance of any wireless LAN and baby monitors (maybe you don't have any, but your neighbors might)



SparkChaser
Premium
join:2000-06-06
Downingtown, PA
kudos:3
reply to Jeffrey

I like Uniden also. I just bought their DECT 6 to replace a Uniden 5.8 that I lost (don't ask ) I've had it about a month and it's worked very well, no complaints.



Jeffrey
Connoisseur of leisurely things
Premium
join:2002-12-24
Long Island
kudos:3

Thanks for the info everyone. Looks like I'm off to see what I can find on Newegg for the 1.9Ghz.



dosdoxies
Premium
join:2004-12-15
Wallingford, PA
reply to Jeffrey

I just bought the Panasonic KX-TG9344T DECT 6.0 cordless phone system with 4 handsets for $100 shipped on ebay. Sells for $120 to $140 in stores. This is a new, not refurb. Very happy with it. Seller claims to have 145 left.



fireflier
Coffee. . .Need Coffee
Premium
join:2001-05-25
Limbo
reply to Jeffrey

I've used those Uniden series 5.8 Ghz at home and work and love them. I did recently replace my work phone with a Plantronics "DECT 6" which is the "new" 1.9Ghz you're talking about.

Actually, in terms of the ability to penetrate building walls, you'll be better off with the DECT 6 phones. The higher freq phones become more line-of-sight.

I've put this to practical testing by knowing where my Uniden will stop working at my office. The DECT 6 goes quite a bit farther.

Besides that, the 1.9Ghz phones are in a spectrum that won't interfere with or be interfered with from 802.11 b/g gear.
--
Tradition: Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid. --despair.com



Jeffrey
Connoisseur of leisurely things
Premium
join:2002-12-24
Long Island
kudos:3
Reviews:
·voip.ms
·Verizon FiOS
·Vonage

Thank you. Based on this comment from fireflier See Profile and others, Uniden DECT unit has been purchased.

Thanks for the info people!



fireflier
Coffee. . .Need Coffee
Premium
join:2001-05-25
Limbo

Let us know how it works when you try it out. I'm curious to see if you see a range improvement. I certainly did!

In the past I used some 900 Mhz Engenius phones. They were great but a) they were very expensive, and b) their battery life sucked. They had one hell of a range though, and they were tough as nails. Excellent pro phone.

Uniden is inexpensive but still quite well designed and built from my experiences. Hopefully the Uniden engineering capabilities will carry over into the DECT line as well.

Incidentally, until I looked up DECT, I thought they were 6Ghz phones because they were often sold as DECT 6. I was pretty surprised to find they were 1.9 Ghz.
--
Tradition: Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid. --despair.com



Jeffrey
Connoisseur of leisurely things
Premium
join:2002-12-24
Long Island
kudos:3
Reviews:
·voip.ms
·Verizon FiOS
·Vonage

said by fireflier:

Let us know how it works when you try it out. I'm curious to see if you see a range improvement. I certainly did!
Will do. I'll be able to do a true test---I have a Uniden 5.8Ghz base system that I am bringing over to be in the home office, and this new DECT Uniden model I'm using as the "house phone". So I'll get a good idea of the range.

said by fireflier:

Incidentally, until I looked up DECT, I thought they were 6Ghz phones because they were often sold as DECT 6. I was pretty surprised to find they were 1.9 Ghz.
That's what threw me a little. I got confused, because I had heard that the following was true with cordless phones, and I'm not even sure how accurate it is:

900Mhz - likely chance of interference, great range.
2.4Ghz - potential chance of interference, very good range.
5.8Ghz - Hardly any chance of interference, OK range.

...So I was thinking 6Ghz? Why would they reduce the range and call it better?
--
"Honesty may be the best policy, but it's important to remember that apparently, by elimination, dishonesty is the second-best policy." - George Carlin

[my ramblings]

TheMG
Premium
join:2007-09-04
Canada
kudos:3
Reviews:
·NorthWest Tel

said by Jeffrey:

That's what threw me a little. I got confused, because I had heard that the following was true with cordless phones, and I'm not even sure how accurate it is:

900Mhz - likely chance of interference, great range.
2.4Ghz - potential chance of interference, very good range.
5.8Ghz - Hardly any chance of interference, OK range.

...So I was thinking 6Ghz? Why would they reduce the range and call it better?
Hmmmm I don't know about that, I've taken my Panasonic 5.8GHz phone to about 100 meters before it started cutting out. The 900MHz phone I had before that (Sanyo I think) went about the same distance.


Jeffrey
Connoisseur of leisurely things
Premium
join:2002-12-24
Long Island
kudos:3
Reviews:
·voip.ms
·Verizon FiOS
·Vonage

said by TheMG:

said by Jeffrey:

That's what threw me a little. I got confused, because I had heard that the following was true with cordless phones, and I'm not even sure how accurate it is:

900Mhz - likely chance of interference, great range.
2.4Ghz - potential chance of interference, very good range.
5.8Ghz - Hardly any chance of interference, OK range.

...So I was thinking 6Ghz? Why would they reduce the range and call it better?
Hmmmm I don't know about that, I've taken my Panasonic 5.8GHz phone to about 100 meters before it started cutting out. The 900MHz phone I had before that (Sanyo I think) went about the same distance.
I have the Uniden 5.8Ghz here that won't go more than ehh, 200 feet TOPS before breaking up. A 900Mhz phone I remember having went half way down the block.
--
"Honesty may be the best policy, but it's important to remember that apparently, by elimination, dishonesty is the second-best policy." - George Carlin

[my ramblings]


fireflier
Coffee. . .Need Coffee
Premium
join:2001-05-25
Limbo
reply to TheMG

It's very dependent on terrain and conditions. 5.8Ghz doesn't propogate nearly as well through obstacles as 900 Mhz. If they're both line-of-sight, you might get roughly equivalent range.

There are many factors that affect range at varying frequencies, but in general, lower frequencies do better with obstacles than the higher frequencies. I've observed this firsthand with my old Uniden 5.8Ghz vs. my newer Plantronics 1.9Ghz.

Of course, range can also be impacted by the phone transceiver design too so two different brand and model phones would not make good comparisons.
--
Tradition: Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid. --despair.com



rolltide77

@silohost.com

1 recommendation

reply to Jeffrey

generally speaking the slower the frequency (lower number) will give better penetration of obstacles... is also the reason why if you are near an 850 mhz gsm cell tower you will have better results than a 1900 mhz one.. it's all a marketing thing with phones (bigger numbers must always mean better) the reverse is actually true in this case