Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!casbah.acns.nwu.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: nolan@helios.unl.edu (Michael Nolan)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: AT&T Cordless Phones, Security, Flexible Antennas
Message-ID: <16490@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 28 Jan 91 04:59:57 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Reply-To: nolan@helios.unl.edu
Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Lines: 41
Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 75, Message 4 of 12


ho@hoss.unl.edu (Tiny Bubbles...) writes:

>1.  Are flexible antennas any good?  They sell them for ten bucks or
>    so at the local discount store (genuine AT&T), but they're pretty
>    short compared to the "whip" that comes with it.  Do they work as
>    well as the whip?  (Too bad they can't retract.)

I personally prefer the flexible antennas, as opposed to the three
foot extendible/breakable monsters.  Part of this is using them in
places like lying down in bed, when the antenna kinda gets in the way,
and the fact that I've replaced two or three of the others because my
younger son busted them by bending them too fast.  Can't say I've
noticed much difference in signal strength between the two thpes,
either.

>2.  Without divulging anything nasty, how secure is the security code?
>    Are voice transmissions scrambled by the key, or is it just the 
>    dialing codes?  I ask because recent rulings say that monitoring
>    a radio broadcast from a cordless phone is not a "wiretap," and I
>    wonder if my phone is safe.  That's a big consideration for me, and
>    it's one of the reasons I buy AT&T cordless phones.

My understanding is that the 'security code' only affects the
recognition of a 'ring' signal, so that someone calling your phone
doesn't ring your neighbor, even if they are on the same channel.  It
does NOT scramble your phone call in any way.  This is based on a
fairly thorough perusing of the manuals and the fact that
scrambling/descrambling chips are still a little pricey for phones in
the under $200 range.  The cheapest cordless phone I've seen that
offered scrambling was something like $500.  (Don't remember where I
saw it, somewhere like Sharper Image.)

BTW, I've had several cordless phones, and have had VERY good luck
with the higher priced Panasonic phones, especially the ten channel
model.  (I missed the original posting, but get the impression it
slammed Panasonic.)  I've not had much good luck with Sony cordless
phones, though.


Michael Nolan