2.4GHz-Friendly Phones?

da3dAlus writes "When I first bought my 2.4GHz wireless phone system several years ago, it was a rather new technology, and wi-fi wasn't even on the scene. Now it appears that all wireless phones are on the 2.4 or 5.8 GHz spectrum, and I've got neighbors with wi-fi (with myself included). While checking out new phones recently, I've noticed some are carrying a "802.11 Friendly" sticker. The question is, are there any trully 802.11 friendly phones? Has anyone really ever had a problem with these types of phones interfering with their wi-fi network?"

Comments

Yes, I have

[Lordofohio]

We had to stop using our brand new 2.4Ghz phones at work because our wi-fi stuff wouldn't hold a signal when the phones were in use. Keep in mind this was 2 years ago, haven't tried anything since.

Re:Yes, I have

[Anonymous Coward]

My parents quit using *their* 2.4ghz wireless phone (Siemens).. the WiFi stayed up fine, and in fact I only measured a speed drop from maybe 500KBps down to 450KBps or so, with the phone right next to the machine. But you can hear clicks and dropouts on the phone itself no matter where it is in the house. The WiFi acess point is in the basement, with antennas folded down (it's on a cabinet), while the phone base is upstairs.. so reasonably, the phone should work fine and knock out the WiFi when you're upstairs, since it's much closer. But instead, the WiFi screws up the phone. The clicks are pretty infrequent and minor when the wireless network isn't busy, but if someone's web surfing it clicks enough to be annoying. If someone is either spooling a print job, or reading some files off a samba file server I've got going there, or something, forget about it.. you can't understand what the other dude's saying. I think the person at the other end can hear you saying "What? What?" just fine though 8-). They have a Siemens, and I've heard they're infamous for this. They use a 900mhz Southwestern Bell Freedom Phone.. but they had a 900mhz Vtech and it worked great too, until it was dropped into a grease can 8-).

In fact, you can still find the old 49mhz phones sometimes.. They had great range, and I can tell you, since they aren't common any more, the old problem of either hearing someone else's call (the real old analog ones), or having your range drop off because of interference from another user on your channel (if it's digital) isn't much trouble anymore.

900MHz

[Anonymous Coward]

Although I'm not sure how many new ones are available today, my 900MHz cordless has never interfered with my wireless network. In fact, it always seems to get better range than my "better" 2.4GHz phones.

Vtech

[jcostantino]

We just bought a Vtech 2.4ghz phone system - two handsets, one base w/ answering machine and a base with a charger. The system said "2.4ghz Friendly" and it replaced a Vtech 2.4ghz phone bought earlier in the year (and subsequently killed during a storm) which would knock the 802.11 offline unless I set my AP to channel 6.

I haven't bothered to change the AP to a different channel but so far it's working fine.

Worthy of mention is that the new handsets come with speakerphone and use three NiMH AAA cells instead of a shrinkwrapped battery with a lead. Plus they sound great and I don't have the problem I used to have on the older phone where the microphone was too sensitive and I heard background noise at too high a level in the earpiece.

2.4 GHz phones == bad idea

[Anonymous Coward]

I've gone back to the older 900 MHz phones since installing a WiFi network at home. The WLAN didn't interfere with the 2.4 GHz cordless phones we had, but the phones knock the network down hard. I haven't heard anything about "802.11 friendly" labels on newer 2.4 GHz phones, but I'd be skeptical. If they work at all, they work by adaptively locating an empty part of the 2.4 GHz spectrum, and around many crowded residental areas, there ain't no such thing no mo'.

You can also get 5 GHz phones, too. Either 900 MHz or 5 GHz is fine, just keep 'em off 2.4 GHz.

Re:2.4 GHz phones == bad idea

[Clueless Moron]

Isn't sound quality better on the 2.4s, but range much shorter?

Sound quality has nothing to do with the carrier frequency used. Consider broadcast FM; it's at around 100 MHz, or 0.1 GHz, yet I'm sure you'd admit it sounds quite a bit better than your cordless phone does.

You are correct that higher bandwidth == higher fidelity, but my point is that bandwidth is independent of the band you choose to use, as long as the bandwidth is available on that band. And it is on both 900 MHz and 2.4 GHz.

There isn't any significant inherent difference in range either (note, lurkers, I said significant), but 2.4 GHz phones tend to be lossier than 900 MHz phones. That is, their power output tends to be lower and their receive sensitive not as good for stuff designed for the same money.

So, yeah, 900 MHz phones are pretty good. The older 49 MHz phones are sucky in that the inherent wavelength is over 6 meters, and so their antennas are notoriously inefficient. At 900 MHz, the wavelength is just 30cm, making it really easy to build efficient omnidirectional antennas, and 2.4GHz doesn't really have much of an advantage there.

By the way

[jcostantino]

Link to the phone:

http://www.vtechphones.com/vtechui/shop/productdet ail.cfm?itemID=1299

WiFi and 2.4GHz Don't Mix

[pbwiz]

WiFi (802.11b) and 2.4GHz Phones almost always will clash -- but there is a good article on wifi planet that gives some things that can be done to lessen interference.
http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/tutorials/article.php/2 191241/
Of course, the best solution is a 900MHz or 5.8GHz Cordless Phone.

Re:My microwave

[John Miles]

Household microwave ovens spew a lot of 2.4 GHz energy all over the band (enough that after looking at it on a spectrum analyzer, I no longer feel like pressing my face up to the window to see if the cheese on my pizza has melted yet).

However, they radiate only on alterating half-cycles of the 60 Hz line frequency. There may be a config option in your WLAN hardware's client utility to make it more resistant to microwave-oven leakage by forcing transmission of smaller packets. You'll lose some performance if you enable it, but it should keep your WLAN from going down altogether.

Re:5.8

[Glonoinha]

You mean like the 802.11a wireless networks?

But the first guy hit it right on the head. 900MHz phones are the best bet if you are running a regular wifi network and don't want interference.

Re:5.8

[imp]

No. 5.8GHz won't interfere with your wireless network. 802.11[bg] is at 2.4GHz, and 802.11a is at 5.4GHz.

Re:Why YES, I have had problems

[prockcore]

So, I had a linksys wifi router and an AT&T 2.4 gHz phone... They fought like dogs!

I'm willing to bet that the linksys you've got is the first generation BEFW11S4. I had problems with my 2.4ghz phones but when I upgraded to linksys's 802.11g router, all my problems went away.

I'd recommend upgrading because if a 2.4ghz phone causes your router to die, then its likely that your router won't play well with others. If your neighbors get 802.11b/g, your router will die a horrible death.

Re:I get interference

[Cyberop5]

I've tried a few 5.8ghz phones. They have horrible range and still pollute 802.11a. The quality is better, but not being able to leave the room with the base antenna doesn't really help.

Just stick to 900mhz for the best range and wireless reliability.

Re:No problems in my house

[jwcorder]

Not to nig your post here, but there is no way he cracked YOUR WAP with NetStumbler unless he just left it for about 2 months.

The way NetStumbler works is that it looks for "special" packets that have weak keys. Once it gets enough of these (a million is a good number) it can crack your WEP. The only problem with this is that the average home with one or two wireless connections would have to send constant data for months and months before there would be enough packets sniffed to crack it.

A business would do it in a week probably if they had say 25-50 wireless users, but 1-3 wireless connections wouldn't be enough data to even bother sniffing out.

Not like I know ANYTHING about doing this kind of stuff though....

Re:I have always had one or more of these wireless

[MrAndrews]

I actually found a conflict between the wireless phones and wifi to be rather widespread. At my house we had a problem where if you were closer to the base station with your laptop than the phone was to its base station, the phone wouldn't always ring --- and then if you were further away with the laptop the phone would drop your internet while it was ringing. Can't say I've checked out newer phones... we've switched to iChat AV and cell phones for all our telecommunications needs :)

Re:Why YES, I have had problems

[thegoogler]

hmm, i have 2.4ghz phone and it never compleatly knocks down the network, it just slows to about 5.5mbps(i have 802.11g)the trick is to get an older(about 2001) panasonic phone, my friend got one of these and it never takes his network down either(same one i have)

Re:5.8

[Aaden42]

From: http://www.vocal.com/data_sheets/80211a_fre.html

The 5 GHz U-NII frequency bans is segmented into three 100 MHz bands for operation in the US. The lower band ranges from 5.15 -5.25 GHz, the middle band ranges from 5.25-5.35 GHz and the upper band ranges from 5.725-5.825 GHz.

So odds are a 5.8GHz phone would mess with the upper range of 802.11a.

Re:why 0.9Ghz is better

[psyconaut]

Sorry, but I don't think you know too much about RF. All things equal (same effective power output, same obstacles), low frequencies travel further.

This is part of the reason why low frequency radio has such a reach (well, that and it can be bounced off the ionosphere whereas higher frequencies often break-through).

-psy

Nope, wrong again!

[Penguinoflight]

^Quoting Rafiki from the lion king... The base has longer range because it has a higher power output. The physicaly properties of EM waves dictate that a 2.4ghz wave requires more energy to produce than a 900mhz wave. This is in part why AM radio stations are lower power, and the range is a lot better.

Joining the 900 MHz crowd..

[cmowire]

The cordless phone manufacturers have been playing quite a game over the past decade. They keep trying to get you to upgrade phones to a "higher" megahertz phone because they know that you are already being told by Intel to upgrade your CPU to a "higher" megahertz CPU.

So, here's the thing. It's a general rule that as you go up in megahertz, the ability to penetrate walls goes down. Thus, the higher the megahertz, the lower the effective range. Consumer Reports did some tests here and showed that this carries over to reality. This is also why Verizon Wireless tends to have better reception -- they are primarily on the 850 MHz band instead of the 1900 MHz band.

So what have you gotten by upgrading to an "advanced" 2.4 or 5.8 GHz phone? Less range, although generally enough range to make it around a "normal" house.

Now, in order to produce a device that works in the 900 MHz, 2.4 GHz or 5.8 GHz band without a license the FCC requires you to be spread-spectrum.

There's some upsides and downsides here. First, some of the spread-spectrum devices, most notably older ones, didn't use very good spread-spectrum methods.

Second, in *theory* if everything's optimized properly, you can use some number of devices and they will all be perceived as "noise" to all of the other devices. So as you add more functioning devices in general, they will all start to experience interference. The problem is when devices using conflicting spread spectrum techniques are in use.

Third, microwaves and other such RF-heating applications, are covered underneath a different set of FCC rules, which generally are built around not causing your eyeballs to be fried overeasy (your eyeballs are the first thing to suffer damage from microwaves, which is why staring at the microwave window is not the world's brightest idea) Microwaves are supposed to be Faraday cages, but sometimes there's a leak. I'd start to wonder about my Microwave's safety if it started interfering with my WiFi, mind you.

Fourth, if there's interference and undesired performance, you have essentially no recourse. I've been thinking that they really should have allocated a frequency band that's reserved for only devices using a 802.11-standard protocol, but that decision really should have been made a long time ago. Oh, and if you start interfering with something important (That's the "Harmfull Interference" they speak of on the FCC warning on the back of a device) you can and will have government folks knocking on your doorstep. There have been documented cases of equipment interfering with aircraft navigation signals from the ground, which makes the airlines very unhappy and tends to get investigated. ;)

I'm really wondering what the "Wifi-Friendly" cordless phones are actually. Especially given that VTech is the folks who are advertising it. As I've mentioned above, in *theory* any device on the 900 MHz, 2.4 GHz, and 5.4/5.8 GHz ISM bands (they are actually the same thing) shouldn't prevent each other from working and should just be perceivable as noise Also, *in theory*, one could "do better" by listening for 802.11b/g activity and actively routing around it. This is the big difference between Bluetooth 1.1 and 1.2. But that's more circuitry, so I'm not entirely sure if they are actually doing that, or they just put them in a test lab to see what happens. They'll probably insist that it took years of engineering time and it's a special feature, even if it's more the second. ;)

I personally have just stuck to 900 MHz phones. Like I said, all things being equal, they tend to have longer range. Plus, I figure that having absolutely no interference is better than having a measured amount while the phone is in use. ;)

Sure my WiFi uses 802.11b, which is 2.4 GHz, but there's some darn good reasons for why one should keep 802.11a around.

The main one is that 802.11a is usually faster than 802.11g at close range. So I have a halfassed

Re:Joining the 900 MHz crowd..

[0111 1110]

Good post. I was going to mod you up, but I'd like to make a minor correction instead. As many have stated, the "penetration ability" of RF waves is inversely proportional to frequency (proportional to wavelength). For getting through building structures the best are 46/49 Mhz phones followed by 900, 2.4, and 5.8. What no one has (yet) mentioned is that higher frequencies do give better range for unobstructed line-of-sight transmission. Higher frequencies require less power (especially important for handsets) to propogate through empty space. The problem lies with obstructions like walls.

Anyone who has tried to use a handheld GPS while hiking in dense forest has seen that even 1227 or 1575 Mhz is a high enough frequency to have difficulty penetrating the leaves on trees (at least at such low power).

So as long as you can actually see your base a 5.8 Ghz cordless phone (RF transmitter) will give you the greatest range, but in any situation with obstructions it will give you the least range per unit of output power.

46 Mhz is such a low frequency that it penetrates walls easily without losing much power, but it is less efficient at open-space propogation (per watt). 900 Mhz seems to be a nearly perfect balance (perhaps 450 Mhz might be better). The frequency is high enough that open space propagation is very efficient, but still low enough that it will penetrate walls with some effectiveness.

Spread spectrum is not a form of "frequency hopping" in most cordless phones. It is a form of "wideband" transmission. It does not actually "hop" per se (although there are exceptions). It does allow for greater power and range. The longest range cordless phones for most people who live indoors in a multi-room house is a 900 Mhz spread spectrum phone.

I bought as many of these as I could because I knew that MarketSpeak would win over RF theory and that truly long range cordless phones would probably become unavailable.

Re:Joining the 900 MHz crowd..

[Anonymous Coward]

Almost correct. 1 watt is 1 watt at any frequency. Tell hams that lower frequencies won't carry as far but stand back if you don't want get get wet from the laughter you get back. What higher frequencies do is allow higher gain antennas with less space. The least, effective, antenna is 1/4 of the wavelength of the frequency (with ground plane) 1/2 without a ground. Frequecy goes up wavelength goes down. To make a 1/4 wave antenna at 49MHz you need over 4 feet. The same 1/4 wave antenna at 900MHz needs only 3/4 inch. 900 MHz is a very good balance for cordless phone. High enough frequency for small antennas, low enough to penetrate walls and such. Also the FCC allow greater power output at higher frequencies. 4 watts EIRP (1 watt into a 6db gain antenna) at 2.4GHz and 16 watts at 5.8 GHz. The requirements at 49MHz are much lower.

Re:5.8

[stilwebm]

The other question is, will the 5.8 interfere?

I have an AT&T 5840 phone that uses 5.8GHz but if you read the fine print in the specifications, it also uses 2.4GHz:

• RF Frequency Band (Handset to base): 2400 MHz - 2483.5 MHz
• RF Frequency Band (Base to handset): 5725 MHz - 5850 MHz

All 802.11b/g devices use channels within 2412 MHz - 2483.5 MHz, so there is quite a bit of overlap there. When shopping around, I noticed that many 5.8 GHz phones actually use 2.4 GHz as well. In my limited use of 802.11b in the vicinity of this phone, I noticed no interference, but ymmv.

Re:why 0.9Ghz is better

[Anonymous Coward]

Free space loss for radio transmissions (in dB):
L(f,d)=20.log(f*d)+92.5
(got it from http://www.geocities.com/senol_gulgonul/linkbudget /formula.html, which is a list of formulas for calculating link budgets for satellite communications, but it's the same physics as for a cordless phone...)

f is frequency, d is distance.

So obviously L(2.4GHz,d) > L(0.9GHz,d). Meaning lower frequency leads to less loss (further reach).

Re:why 0.9Ghz is better

[Smitty825]

My personal experience with phones suggests that 900MHz is better because it tends to travel through walls better, thus making it appear like it works further away. If you only used your phone outside, or in a large empty warehouse, then you'll likely find that the 2.4GHz phones work equally well.

(IIRC, a few years ago, 2.4GHz phones were allowed to operate with more power, thus making those phones appear to work better...however, (again IIRC), the FCC up'd the max. allowable power of the 900MHz phones a few years ago)

Re:why 0.9Ghz is better

[lpp]

Remember, he said "all things being equal"...

Hmm... base, plugged into wall outlet, plenty of power... handset, running on battery, probably using less energy for transmission in order to conserve energy.

I'd say the transmission power *might* play a factor in there somewhere. And I, too, recall that lower frequencies tend to travel further.

In addition

[IncohereD]

In support of the comments about the handset running off batteries, and therefore having a shorter range, why do you think they're running 900 on the way back, and not 2.4 both ways? Because 900 takes LESS power to get the same range!

Thank you, come again.

Why 47 MHz is even better

[Outatime]

47 MHz phones (you remember them, right? -- the *original* cordless) may be your best option yet! They're on such a low frequency that they don't have a chance of interfering with anything in your house, except maybe your neighbor kid's walkie-talkies or the garage door opener, and those are both very unlikely. Get a set with voice scrambling and you've got some privacy too. And lastly it has a terrific range and because it's analog, sounds good even when the reception is getting poor (you will get a little static, but that's better than drop-outs).

Re:5.8

[rerunn]

This absolutely true of most 5.8 phones out there. It takes more power to transmit at the higher frequency so in order to preserve battery life and keep the same range they handset actually talks at the 2.4 frequency.

Re:why 0.9Ghz is better

[bwalzer]

Free space loss for radio transmissions (in dB): L(f,d)=20.log(f*d)+92.5

...

So obviously L(2.4GHz,d) > L(0.9GHz,d). Meaning lower frequency leads to less loss (further reach).

Which is true, but misleading. Fascinating RF engineering trivia follows;

The variable L is often called "free space path loss". This sort of path loss increases with frequency. But where is the actual loss? This is supposed to be in free space, i.e. vacuum. Since there isn't anything in vacuum to heat up or whatever the loss can't be in the actual path between the antennas (which is why the "path loss" bit is misleading).

It's because of the antennas. An efficient omnidirectional transmitting antenna will radiate pretty much all the power you feed it. An omnidirectional receiving antenna will receive power proportional to it's size. Obviously larger antennas will collect more power. Rather than giving each antenna a separate transmit gain and receive gain the RF engineering types just fudge it with the idea of "free space path loss".

So yes, you will end up with more signal at the receive antenna of a 0.9GHz as opposed to a 2,4GHz phone. The formula is correct in that. After all the receive antenna is 2.7 times bigger. That's a whole 8 dB more signal. Of course the larger antenna will receive noise that much better too (and there tends to be a lot at 900MHz). The 900 MHz antenna will probably be so large that you will only be able to get one in a handset (some 900MHz phones actually have an extendable antenna). If the 2.4GHz faction puts more than one antenna in their handset and then has the phone pick the one with the best signal, they will probably win in practice.

Real path loss caused by things like building materials and trees does tend to go up with frequency. OTOH higher frequency signals can squeeze though smaller holes. It's all a bit complicated. I personally suspect that free space path loss isn't a significant factor in the actual range you end up with.

Re:900mhz?

[number11]

We're talking about cordless, not cellular. You furriners need to read for comprehension.

Some GSM cell phones run on the 900MHz band (880-960MHz).

Some US cordless phones run on the 902-928MHz band. But thanks for your insightful comment anyhow, AC.

Re:I don't get it

[0111 1110]

Yet another reason why 900 Mhz is the best frequency so far allocated to cordless phones. It is high enough to allow reasonably short antennas and open space propogation efficiency, and low enough to still penetrate multiple walls at reasonable power levels.

My 900 Mhz handset seems to use a reasonably efficient 3" (~8cm) 1/4 wave antenna, while my base uses a nice 6" 1/2 wave antenna. Of course 2400 Mhz allows antennas that don't protrude out of even a small handset. In some applications, like very small handsets, this could be a significant design advantage, especially outside in rural areas where building penetration is least important and open space range most important).

For the old 46/49 Mhz phones the only privacy feature that I can recall is "frequency inversion" which produced Donald Duck quacking noises instead of speech. Some Uniden phones used this. However, such speech could still be monitored with the use of commonly available frequency inversion decoders. There were better "rolling" frequency scramblers for which decoders were not so easily available, but Uniden was not using those.

Keep in mind that the 46/49 Mhz phones were so low in power in comparison to modern phones that an eavesdropper needed to be much closer and/or have a much more sensitive receiver to pick up the broadcast. When 900 Mhz phones first came out they were regarded as less private until the first digital and then digital spread spectrum models were released. I am not aware of any viable method to eavesdrop on DSS calls.

Re:No problems in my house

[Trukster]

You are thinking of Airsnort. Netstumbler is wardriving software that does nothing but log access points it detects, and Airsnort is the wep cracking software.

And for what it's worth, Airsnort has the ability to save its place so you can stop and restart at a later point, so it doesn't have to be a continuous month long cracking session, and if it's a neighbor I don't doubt that they could leave it running in the background enough to crack a wep key. It's in his house, so it's not like anyone is going to notice a van sitting in front of their house all the time.

Re:900mhz?

[badasscat]

We're talking about cordless, not cellular. You furriners need to read for comprehension.

Pot kettle black.

Someone apparently doesn't know that 900mhz cordless phones exist, and all of them are wi-fi friendly. I myself have a Panasonic 900mhz digital spread spectrum phone and have no problems at all with my wi-fi when using it.

Re:why 0.9Ghz is better

[0111 1110]

You are almost right. Low frequencies only travel farther (transmissions are attenuated less) when there are obstacles involved. Higher frequencies are better for line-of-sight transmission. Since most people (at least the ones who buy cordless phones) don't live outside on flat open land, microwave transmitters are less efficient for cordless phone applications. The use of 5.8 Ghz for cordless phones only makes sense if you live in a studio (one room) apartment.

Re:Why YES, I have had problems

[jht]

Interestingly, many of the 5.8 GHz phones (like the one I use at home, it's an AT&T) actually only receive from the base station at 5.8 GHz. In order to save on their power budget, they transmit back in the good old 2.4 GHz band.

Though they do play much nicer with 802.11x than older generation stuff did.

In general, I've seen that newer phones coexist nicely, and also 802.11g devices seem to be less interference-prone than 802.11b. Also, 900MHz phones play pretty nicely because they aren't even in the same neighborhood.

Re:I get interference

[Cyberop5]

My suggestion, if you have the money to spend, is an engenius. We use a pair at work and aside from a flakey power system they get great reception and distance. Analog I believe. We get through 5 stories of concrete building plus the perimeter and into the neighboring buildings.

We tried most consumer products before purchasing these and nothing came close to the performance of these. The 5.8 ghz phones, from panasonic, could hardly get reception down the hall. All of the 2.4 ghz phones we tried couldn't reach another story. The 2.4 ghz I use at home can't reach to the other end of the house while our 900mhz (digital) can penetrate the house and surrounding acreage.

Finally, I can tell when my father uses our 2.4 ghz phone when I'm on the perimeter of the linksys 802.11b/g border. Depending on what my signal strength is, it'll drop or weaken.

Re:spread spectrum hops

[0111 1110]

Nice link. Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum (FHSS) "hops" (jumps around to different frequencies). Direct Sequence Spread Spectrum does not. Direct Sequence is used more often on cordless phones. It is true that wideband is technically different, but Spread Spectrum could be seen as a form of wideband transmission since the whole point is to spread the signal over a wide range of frequencies to reduce detection.

Here's a quote from that article:
The use of these special pseudo noise codes in spread spectrum (SS) communications makes signals appear wide band and noise-like.

Re:5.8

[TWX]

"But the real question is, considering the speed and price of 802.11g these days, why would you ever choose to run 802.11a?"

Multiple reasons:

• Less people on it. Channels will be available until the end of time, and even if everyone in your neighbourhood has an access point, you won't have network problems.
• Less interest with wardrivers. While "security through obscurity" isn't the best idea if you're going to pick only one way to secure your systems, if you combine the fact that most people aren't looking for 802.11a networks with the fact that there are tons of open 802.11b and 802.11g networks you won't be looked upon as a potential victim nearly as much. It's not the end of security, but it's a good beginning.
• No protocol issues. 802.11b and 802.11g frequently have issues sharing, where the "g" features dumb down to "b" speeds if anything "b" is talking. This is bad in my opinion.
• Few, if any consumer devices in the 5GHz range. Nothing running in the house on 5GHz means nothing interfering with the network. Since everyone seems to be making 900MHz and 2.4GHz devices, including microwaves, telephones, and other things, using the currently lightly-used 5GHz area makes a lot of sense to me.

I was really sad that 802.11a never really made it to prime time in Linux while it was still commercially viable to manufacturers. I'd have bought into it in a heartbeat.

Go DECT and be done with it

[Zilch]

Unless you are unfortunate enough to live in North America, just make sure you get a DECT phone. These operate in the 1880-1900 MHz range, and are actually standards based.

From what I understand this frequency range is reserved in the US - so bad luck. You are stuck with stupid phones and the imperial system :-)

I made the mistake of getting a Panasonic 2.4GHz phone. Complete crap, and has about 60% chance of killing your (and your neighbors) wireless LAN dead when you call someone. I'm just in the process of moving to DECT/GAP myself.

More info: http://www.dect.org/toptech.html

Ironically, this wouldn't be a problem for me except my stupid IBM Thinkpads think they are in the US, and won't allow me to use the extra channels that we are given in Australia. My WAP will go all the way up to channel 13 if I tell it I live in Australia - which is well out of the range the phone uses - but the Thinkpads limit me to max channel 11.

Zilch.

900Mhz Cordless Phones Consumer Reports "Best Buy"

[electricmba]

According to CR, The Panasonic KX-TC1484B gets both the #1 ranking in their review of 30 cordless phones (covering 900Mz, 2.4Ghz and 5.4Ghz phones). In addition, it receives the "Best Buy" designation, given that it rings in at $69.99 up here in Toronto...and a paltry, Froogled $29.99 right here: http://www.soundcitycorp.com/ECscripts/ECware.exe/ dcp?id=001&sku=Panasonic%20KX-TC1486&type=A1CN1&lc =EN for our American cousins. The CR comments indicated that in general, 900Mhz phones had the best sound clarity and battery duration (the Panasonic above lasts 16 hours).