Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request From: john@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Cordless Telephone Dies Message-ID: <8837@accuvax.nwu.edu> Date: 10 Jun 90 06:27:36 GMT Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu Reply-To: John Higdon Organization: Green Hills and Cows Lines: 28 Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 425, Message 7 of 8 Irving Wolfe writes: > Based on my own experience, Panasonic make good phones and answering > machines, good (and attractively priced) small business telephone > systems, and absolutely rotten (full of features but weak and > unreliable) cordless phones. I'm curious: in what way are they weak and unreliable? I have owned five Panasonic cordless phones in the past ten years or so and have found them to be entirely satisfactory. All of them are still in service (though not necessarily by me). The two that I am still in possession of are KX-T3900s. One of them has really been beat to sh*t: dropped, stepped on, inadvertantly thrown across the room (not because I was mad at it but it rang when I was asleep and I woke up violently), dropped in the full sink, and dropped in the toilet. It works as well as the day it was purchased, a little over a year ago. How well does it work? Its audio quality is a shade inferior to an AT&T 5500 that I also own, but has considerably more range. Standing next to the base units the AT&T beats the Panasonic. But get about twenty feet away and the AT&T starts deteriorating and at about 40 feet the Panasonic (whose audio quality seems to remain more constant with increasing distance) surpasses the AT&T in audio quality. John Higdon | P. O. Box 7648 | +1 408 723 1395 john@bovine.ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | M o o !