>From: "EDWARDS, EDDIE J" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Reply-To: "EDWARDS, EDDIE J" <email@example.com>
>To: "'Pete Smith'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
>Subject: RE: [RFI] Apology
>Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 08:28:01 -0500
>No need Pete. I checked some of the other links out, and they don't spec
>the freq at all. Only a couple models gave any specs so some of them may
>on Amateur freqs as the msg said. Guess we'll hafta keep our eyes & ears
>the lookout just in case.
>de ed -K0iL
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Pete Smith [SMTP:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> > Sent: Wednesday, 16 May, 2001 2:29 AM
> > To: email@example.com
> > Subject: [RFI] Apology
> > The message I just posted may be in error. I took the writer at his
> > but afterward, when I followed the link he says is to a phone that
> > operates
> > in a US ham band, it turns out to specify a frequency pair of 249/375
> > Many of the other ones don't say what frequency they operate on, but
> > I've found specifies an amateur frequency.
> > 73, Pete N4ZR
> > Contesting is!
I checked the Cordlessmart site yesterday and it clearly had 146 listed for
the base. Honest to God. I wish now I would have printed it out. Now this
morning it shows 375. No doubt they got plenty of e-mails when all this was
posted and probably changed it. I really couldn't believe it, but it was
clearly shown in the specs as 146 for the base.
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/rfi
Administrative requests: rfi-REQUEST@contesting.com