Re: 10. Wireless unreliability upset Pro's

[Crash Gordon® <NONE@xxxxxxxx>]

Oh, there will be more. He seems to run in cycles. I think it coincides =
with when he re-ups his medication or when they let him out of the =
physco-ward for home visits.


"Dr. Phred" <fred.spearey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message =
news:427BFF74.5050801@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Is this it, is he done? I'm sorry but for some reason I was expecting =
a=20
> 12 step program, er lesson.
>=20
> Crash Gordon=AE wrote:
> > Why? Because you're an idiot.
> >=20
> > If you want manufacturers responses, why not contact them directly? =
We can't speak for a manufacturer.
> >=20
> > BTW, the FCC does not "warranty" anything - they never have.
> >=20
> >=20
> > <-pull@shoot> wrote in message =
news:hh1n719726qfe19f24590ie1bthlqqj8q4@xxxxxxxxxx
> >=20
> >>What does upset Pro's in this news group when i say that wireless
> >>alarm systems are unreliable during RFI ?
> >>
> >>Well look at theyre childish answers (instead of providing
> >>professional arguments) they try to ridicule, mono-bit/mono-lingual
> >>persons language battle, they tell you everything, the most stupid
> >>first, .. Usual "low level electrician behavior" who think they have
> >>to battle to defend theyre position.
> >>Look around when you are in the industry, fighting is a typical
> >>attitude of the "lower education class" persons.
> >>
> >>Where are manufacturers counter arguments ?
> >>Why do manufacturers not provide data about the main difference
> >>between wired and wireless: the wireless data loop between sensors =
and
> >>the control panel ?
> >>Because RFI can't be resolved in the actual FCC allowed frequency
> >>space, to crowded, to limited in band size. It can be used free by
> >>anybody without interference and FCC warranty and control of course.
> >=20
> >=20
>