The bands are still around and still being used (though much smaller in trhe US than elsewhere) The main difference between DECT and the more free for all 2.4/5G bands is that in DECT the protocols are specified and designed to coexist and work together (there's no choosing a wifi channel, DECT is smart and will spread out by itself, both in time and freq)

This is an evolution of the same radio techonology that was used in those cordless phones.

DECT is awesome for wireless business headsets. Further range, clarity and less interference compared to BT.

Most importantly, not having to deal with BT software shittiness. BT is actually OK when it works but getting it to work and not stumbling on edge cases is the tricky bit, suggesting the RF side of it is sane and adequate but let down by terrible software.

BT wouldn’t be so bad if it was all abstracted away by a dongle that handled all the communication and presented itself to the OS as a dumb audio device.

> presented itself to the OS as a dumb audio device.

Not much use if what you want to do is send a file.

zmodem :)

Those were the days!

DECT is a surprisingly complex and capable system, which has been used for metropolitan cellular service.

https://www.rcrwireless.com/19980105/archived-articles/telec... [1998]

In the DECT Wikipedia page:

There has been only one major installation of DECT for public access: in early 1998 Telecom Italia launched a wide-area DECT network known as "Fido" after much regulatory delay, covering major cities in Italy. The service was promoted for only a few months and, having peaked at 142,000 subscribers, was shut down in 2001.

142K subscribers isn't quite your kitchen and den phone any more. :)

> DECT is a surprisingly complex and capable system

'99-'00 I worked on a Linux-based tablet where the first iteration used a DECT extension for data (DECT MMAP)... Wifi was not yet dominant enough to be the obvious winner.