I need another phone as the old one is about to give out. I have noticed that 2.4Ghz models are coming down in price… but still about double a comperable 900Mhz model. Is there much of an advantage going with the 2.4 jobbies?
There was an article on this in Consumer Reports within the last month or two. They said that there wasn’t much difference between the two–but I always take their recommendations with a big block of salt.
Green Bean
Why do you always take comsumer Reports recomendations with a measure of salt?
I picked up a 2.4 ghz phone last week for $80 at a cutout sale at the local Good Guys. It’s louder, the range is about triple my old vtech 900mhz, the battery lasts a little longer but prolly just because the phone’s new. Couple new features. It pages me when I get a voicemail on the built-in answering machine.
I like it, but wouldn’t have paid the retail $239
I was thinking the same thing, gazpacho.
I don’t think Consumer Reports is the bee’s knee’s when it comes to what to buy or not, but it ain’t bad. Besides, what other mag are you going to turn to that is as unbiased as CU?
Not many that I can think of.
*Personally, the section of Consumer Reports that I’m always eager to read is the ‘Selling It’ page. I like those. As a matter of fact, whenever I get an issue, I skip straight to the back of the issue, hoping there will be some good ones.
I also like the reader responses too.
Some of those are classic.
If you think Liberalism is dead in this society, think again. They get some letters from people so left of center, it’d make a flower child want to nuke 'em.
Anyrate, back to your question.
I had the issue that you should get, bernse. It details the new 2.4Ghz vs. the 900Mhz phones, but I gave it back to the friend that let me read it, so I can’t give you specifics here.
Although I skimmed through it, I looked at it closely enough to catch the main gist of the article (My own phone is old and I’ll need to replace it someday. I love it and hope it’ll go forever, but I strive to not be so naive).
What they essentially said was to buy the 900Mhz model rather than the new 2.4Ghz. They recommended doing so simply because the 900Mhz are tried and tested, and come with more features, for far less than the- for now- expensive 2.4Ghz models.
What they said makes sense.
Unless you’re after what the 2.4’s specifically address, and off-hand I really can’t remember what the did offer over the others, then don’t get one.
According to them, save your money and get a ‘souped’ up 900 for the price you’d pay for a crappy 2.4.
Nothing wrong with that recommendation, if you ask me.
A few years back, Consumer Reports did some ratings on bicycles. One of the criteria was “ease of pedaling.” Absurd. How easy a bike is to pedal is wholly dependent on the gear you’re in and the terrain. (Unless it’s a super cheapo bike, but that’s not what they were testing.)
Ever since then, I’ve looked at the magazine much more critically. I find that many of their recommendations are based on assumptions about the consumer which may not be true. They should make it clear what the assumptions are. For example, in that same article on bicycles, it seemed that it was assumed that the consumer would be a light recreational rider. The bikes that were tested were in a suitable price range for that kind of rider ($300-400). That’s fine if that is who their main readership is. But I thought it odd that no mention was made of the fact that they had limited the field that way. Their “best” bike was laughable by my standards. I felt the article should have at least mentioned in passing that there was a whole world of better bikes out there, priced accordingly.
It’s a good magazine, but I’d never buy anything on their say-so alone.
I have one of each. A 900 MHz in my bedroom and a 2.4 GHz in the kitchen.
I completely dig my 2.4, like it much better. The signal is clearer and I can walk a lot farther from my home (yes I have gone at least 150 yards from the home base with no problem. I cant do that with my 900.
The only drawback, it seems, is that the 2.4 eats the battery sooner. It’s not horrible but if you are on the phone for a while it tends to die out somewhat sooner than the 900.
BTW, both are Panasonic (A brand for cordless phones I recommend, highly) but the 2.4 has the Caller ID integrated which is probably why it wears the battery down sooner.
In either case, this is more MHO, I like my 2.4 better than my 900, much better.
I recently got a 2.4G, mostly because I wanted a phone with a headset to walk around outside. Inside, though, I almost always go with the older 900 MHz. Why? It’s Uniden, with better construction, ergonomics, and sound quality than my relatively new Bell Sonicor 2.4 GHz. At $40, I thought the latter was a steal last Christmas at Sam’s Club. But distance is the only thing guaranteed to be better, so if there’s a big price difference, I’d follow what CR said.
Another issue not mentioned yet in this thread is the different 900 MHz technologies. The original ones were analog, which could be staticky at times, had less range, and sometimes could pick up crosstalk from your neighbors. Next came digital, and then digital spread spectrum, with corresponding increases in range, clarity, resistance to eavesdropping, and price. I haven’t heard this addressed for 2.4GHz; I assume they are all digital.
FTR, my 900MHz that I prefer to the 2.4GHz is digital, but not spread spectrum. People with bad experiences probably had analog.
Not to shill for Best Buy, but I was actually out looking at phones tonight, and their sales flier includes a NW Bell 900 for $10 after rebate, and a Siemens 2.4 for $40 after rebate. And, I now see for the first time that all the 2.4 phones listed are described as digital spread spectrum.
Hope that helps.
We have 2.4gig Panasonic and my mother has a 900MHZ Sony. After a good test I found the 2.4gig had only slightly longer distance, both much longer than I’ll ever need. Both of them are digital spread spectrum by the way. Never buy analog. Any fool with a scanner can & will listen in to your phone conversations if you have an analog cordless phone. Don’t think this isn’t happening where you live, because it is! Always buy a digital phone, never analog.
Another tip: Buy your phone from a dealer that takes returns no questions asked. We had bought 3 different brands of expensive, digital spread phones before we were happy with the Panasonic. We bought a 900MHZ digital by SouthWest Bell. Absolutely horrible. The range was lousy, and it had a terrible echo. We also bought a Uniden 2.4ghz unit. Nice phone, but it kept making these loud clicks in the back ground of the hand set. Annoying! The V-tech model we bought had range from here to the moon, but also sounded like we were talking to astronauts on the moon. Weird electronic noise. the voices had a “digital” sound to them. Returned all those, kept the fabulous Panasonic. Great sounding phone! Keep your receipt.
I have both and the range and clarity difference between the two frequencies is negligible. Phone construction quality and base placement will make more a difference in range and clarity than frequency will. Having said this one aspect not mentioned so far in this thread, and the reason I would only buy 2.4 gigahertz models is simply that there are a lot more scanners in circulation capable of picking up the 900 mhz vs the 2.4 ghz frequencies.
Before anyone tells me this is highly illegal and that scanners are frequency notched to prevent this…please. Modifing and existing certain 900 mhz scanners is a trivial exercise for a ham geek. I am an ex-Radio Shack manager and I know what these guys can do. I have been told point blank by the fireman/ham geek/wannabe policeman in our neighborhood that this is what they do for entertainment and to “keep an ear on things”.
I make the default assumption than any conversation I have on a wireless phone (including cellular) is being monitored. It’s just harder (at this time) to monitor 2.4 GHz than 900 MHz units.
The earlier scaners do not even need to be modified to pickup 900 mgh cordless phones.
Good point. But scanners cannot pick up digital signals, which is why I recommend only buying a digital cordless phone.
WARNING! Not all 2.4ghz phone are digital! Quite a few are analog. The scanners that go up to 2.4 ghz will intercept a 2.4 gig phone if it is analog! Like Astro said, there aren’t many brands of scanners that go up that high, but there are some. Who knows what your neighborhood geek has in his basement! Always buy digital for the most security.
Hmmm.
Thanks for the heads-up people.
Do the phones usually say on the box if they’re digital or analog?
I have a 2.4GHz, and I hate it. It’s a Panasonic, and several of it’s channels interferes horribly with my wireless lan here at the house. It shuts my network down. It’s so bad, I’ve gone back to Cat5 until I figure out what to do.
I have the worst luck with cordless phones. In the past 7-8 years, I’ve gone through 1 a year at least. They all start out working great, then after a year or so, they die a horrible death. Either the static gets so bad I can’t hear, or they stop ringing, or they sloooowly loose volume so the people I’m talking to can’t hear me. I don’t know why this is, all I know is that I was getting very sick of spending $100-$150 once/year for a damn phone.
So I went out and spent the big bucks on a Bang & Olufsen 2.4 Ghz Cordless. Yes, it was pricey. And yes, it’s the best damn phone I’ve ever had. I don’t know if the 2.4 Ghz has anything to do with it, but this phone is just as good as a corded phone. I’ve never had static or volume loss with it. It always rings when it’s supposed to. I can use it next to my computer or any other electronic device and it causes no interferance. I can walk for 1-2 blocks away from my house and it still works.
Not only that, but the UI is so good that I actually use the memory functions - I’ve never done that before, since I could never remember the sequence of buttons to press to use it. This baby stores up to 200 numbers, and makes it easy to find them.
I love this phone. I will never go back.