Number of RJ-45 sockets "network sockets" - What makes sense?

He is talking about IP telephony in the house and not DECT.

the phone/the charging station

I already thought it would be difficult to follow your posts with many words. But it doesn’t get any easier without words.
What do you want to say?

Since my previous comment was apparently deleted without any notice (very classy), once again to Knallkörper, that the advantage lies in the range if you’re anyway providing WLAN throughout the whole house. Then you can save yourself the additional coverage with DECT in the house.

I already thought it would be difficult to follow your posts with many words. But without words it doesn’t get any easier. What do you want to say?

Not without words: I had made it bold in the quote that Deliverer had written about a phone or the charging station. "Charging station" implies handset.

that the advantage lies in the range, if you provide WLAN throughout the whole house anyway. Then you can save the additional coverage with DECT in the house.

For voice devices, the transmission quality is personally more important to me.

Okay. I always thought DECT has a much better range. I need 2 APs for Wi-Fi so that I have coverage in every room at all. The DECT phone has full reception everywhere with only one base (in the router).

Not without words: I had made bold in the quote that Deliverer had written about a phone or the charging station. "Charging station" implies handset.

Tapatalk apparently does not show bold. Or at least not in quotes.

But that does not exclude it. This device type is just apparently unknown to you: handset, WLAN with SIP client. Or alternatively not an additional device at all but the smartphone with WLAN and SIP client.

With voice devices, I personally prefer the transmission quality.

HD telephony via DECT is certainly not bad. The codec via VOIP is freely selectable, with at least equivalent quality, if not better. But the "bottleneck" will be the public network; no matter how great codecs you use in the local network.

Okay. I always thought DECT had a significantly better range. I need 2 APs for WLAN so that I have reception in every room at all. The DECT phone has full reception everywhere with only one base (in the router).

The range is better, yes. But here it was criticized that with reinforced concrete ceilings the Fritzbox in the basement simply does not reach the upper floor, so it should be positioned on the ground floor (and the internet access must be routed back to the basement via a double socket). Someone even posted a picture of the box high up on the wall in the hallway – yikes!
Solution 1: use DECT repeaters
Solution 2: if the house is supplied with WLAN anyway (one access point per floor), save DECT repeaters and connect the telephony devices via WLAN.

This type of device is only apparently unfamiliar to you: handset, WLAN with SIP client. Or alternatively, no additional device at all but the smartphone with WLAN and SIP client.

Yes, I do know it.

HD telephony via DECT is certainly not bad. The codec via VOIP is freely selectable but with at least equivalent quality, rather beyond that. The "bottleneck" will be the public network, no matter how great codecs you use in the local network.

The codec, which indeed some protocols share, is only one aspect. And the bottleneck often comes before the public network: namely in the form of consumer all-in-one boxes with mediocre electronics. But that is a vast topic on its own.