Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!bu.edu!telecom-request
From: Jim.Redelfs@iugate.unomaha.edu (Jim Redelfs)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: AT&T Cordless Phones, Security, Flexible Antennas
Message-ID: <74375@bu.edu.bu.edu>
Date: 9 Feb 91 16:16:11 GMT
Sender: news@bu.edu.bu.edu
Reply-To: jim.redelfs@iugate.unomaha.edu
Organization: TELECOM Digest
Lines: 26
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 105, Message 7 of 7


On 30-JAN-91, Robert Savery wrote:

> All the security code does is keep nefarious types from using another
> handset to outdial on your line. It in no way stops someone from
> listening in on your conversations.

> An AT&T phone is no "safer" than one of the el-cheepos.

True ... but at least you'll SOUND better to the listeners!  :)

JR

Copernicus V1.02
Elkhorn, NE [200:5010/666.14] (200:5010/2.14)


[Moderator's Note: Maybe or maybe not. There was a sort of
'Pepsi challenge'-like contest a few years ago where people recieved
calls placed from various models of cordless phones including AT&T.
All were placed under the same conditions; same distance from base,
etc. They were to identify one model of cordless phone from another.
Most of the people could not identify the specific phone being used
and about half the people could perceive no difference in quality.
Radios are radios are radios. There are too many variables involved to
firmly place the blame or good points with any one model.   PAT]