 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General General TopicsGSMBluetoothProviders AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizonManufacturers EricssonNokiaMotorolaCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics PocketPCPalmMore Topics ... |
Cellular Phone Forum / Providers / Cingular / March 2006Disabled Bluetooth Question
I know why providers disable the various Bluetooth options on different phones, but I'm wondering if it's possible to restore the full Bluetooth functionality. In my case, I have a Moto MPX220 and a Treo 650. I'm not asking for detailed instructions...just want to know if this is commonly done. BT is not crippled on either one of those devices so I'm not sure what you are talking about. If you are trying to send files from one device to another it can be done extremely easy with the MPX220 and the Treo 650 (read the manual) or visit https://onlinecare.cingular.com/device-support/index.do > BT is not crippled on either one of those devices so I'm not sure what > you are talking about. If you are trying to send files from one device > to another it can be done extremely easy with the MPX220 and the Treo > 650 (read the manual) or visit > https://onlinecare.cingular.com/device-support/index.do It was my understanding that certain features such as Object Push are disabled. I had an issue with the 220 when I first got it and my remark to the Cingular tech was "I thought only Verizon crippled their devices". His response was..."oops". >I know why providers disable the various Bluetooth options on different >phones, but I'm wondering if it's possible to restore the full Bluetooth >functionality. I'd appreciate your thoughts on why a provider would do this. For example, it seems Verizon and Alltel sell a Motorola V710 that only has BT available for a headset, while other phones they sell have full BT functionality, i.e. phone-phone-PC file xfer. Alltel's V710 is more expensive than their Nokia 6255i, but the Nokia has full BT capability. This makes no sense. I'm beginning to think its the phone manufacturers, not the cell companies, that choose to provide less than complete features. mike >>I know why providers disable the various Bluetooth options on different >>phones, but I'm wondering if it's possible to restore the full Bluetooth >>functionality. > >I'd appreciate your thoughts on why a provider would do this. ... Security. (Google "Bluejacking".) Piracy. (File sharing.)  SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> >[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Security. (Google "Bluejacking".) >Piracy. (File sharing.) John, you left out an important reason... Revenue Generation. (To get you to use a proivider's paid wireless service) <G> subdude >>>>I know why providers disable the various Bluetooth options on different >>>>phones, but I'm wondering if it's possible to restore the full Bluetooth [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Revenue Generation. (To get you to use a proivider's paid wireless >service) <G> I left it out intentionally. Conspiracy theories notwithstanding, I doubt that was a significant factor. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > > In <u0kl1213778nkfcghfctjssug6hqcliqtf@4ax.com> on Fri, 17 Mar 2006 > 15:06:32 >>Revenue Generation. (To get you to use a proivider's paid wireless >>service) <G> > > I left it out intentionally. Conspiracy theories notwithstanding, I doubt > that was a significant factor. And yet the inclusion of a paid feature allows a user to use the two areas you posted as being the true reasons. That would make them an insignificant factor. >[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >I left it out intentionally. Conspiracy theories notwithstanding, I doubt >that was a significant factor. Well, (removing tinfoil hat <G>) I *can* tell you that it was a major factor in Verizon's disabling BT and Cable xfers of images on their smartphone entries a few years ago - I've mentioned it before as the main reason I came to Cingular in the first place. At the time, the ONLY way to get images off the phone was via Verizon's PAID MMS service. So I respectfully disagree that it's not a significant factor, although I can't say this is the case in this particular thread (having come late to the party). subdude >>>John, you left out an important reason... >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >factor in Verizon's disabling BT and Cable xfers of images on their >smartphone entries a few years ago ... Proof? SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > Proof? http://www.nuclearelephant.com/papers/v710.html http://voip-blog.tmcnet.com/blog/rich-tehrani/consumer-electronics/verizon-sued- over-crippled-v710-bluetooth.html http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1751567,00.asp http://www.mobileburn.com/news.jsp?Id=1065&source=SIDEBARHOME >> Proof? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >http://www.mobileburn.com/news.jsp?Id=1065&source=SIDEBARHOME What part of "proof" do you not understand? SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > What part of "proof" do you not understand? Probably a different part than you- Cowboy is at least providing facts and not ignoring the call for them. >[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Proof? Proof - Here you go. I went to a Verizon Company store to pick out a smartphone with a camera a little over 2 years ago. The particular phone in question had BT as a feature. I asked the salesman if I could download images from the internal camera, he said no - images on that particular phone could only be tranferred by two means - using the optional data cable kit and software, or by using the MMS paid service. The manufacturer of the phone had listed the phone on their website as using a Widcomm BT stack with a fully implemented set of profiles, including BT OBEX and File Transfers. You could also do transfers from the IR port. When I showed the webpage to the salesman, he confirmed that in Verizon's version of the ROM - *both* of those features were disabled. In fact the only way you could transfer an image from the phone was either buying the optional data kit and software or paying for the premium MMS service and mailing the images to yourself - even though this phone with a ROM from the manufacturer worked just fine as reported by other non Verizon users. There's no other viable reason these features (and ONLY these features) were removed from the manufacturers ROM by Verizon except to get you to pay more, and as I came to find out from researching through user groups for PDAs and Smartphones, this was not an uncommon practice for Verizon. And as I have mentioned many times before, this is what led me to Cingular. subdude >>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] >>>Well, (removing tinfoil hat <G>) I *can* tell you that it was a major >>>factor in Verizon's disabling BT and Cable xfers of images on their [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Proof - Here you go. >[SNIP] >There's no other viable reason these features (and ONLY these >features) were removed from the manufacturers ROM by Verizon except to >get you to pay more, ... With all due respect, that's your own conclusion, not proof. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> >> There's no other viable reason these features (and ONLY these >> features) were removed from the manufacturers ROM by Verizon except to >> get you to pay more, ... > > With all due respect, that's your own conclusion, not proof. While it may not be "proof" by *your* standards, its certainly sufficient for a compelling argument. Its may not take a leap of logic to look at the Widcomm specs and the Verizon specs and come to a conclusion that Verizon sees a profit avenue. Verizon's actual explanation was due to potential content licensing as can be found in various online trade discussions with Verizon being quoted. >>>>Well, (removing tinfoil hat <G>) I *can* tell you that it was a major >>>>factor in Verizon's disabling BT and Cable xfers of images on their [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >With all due respect, that's your own conclusion, not proof. Proof of a "full and far reaching conspiracy to defraud customers"? No of course not; if any of us could ever prove such a thing we wouldn't waste time discussing it here...we'd sue the bastards <G>. And I never claimed such a thing, but I can see where you'd draw that conclusion. It does prove however that it happened to *me*, the reasoning was relatively clear and it cost Verizon a customer. That's all I've ever claimed (multiple times in different posts) and all I ever intended to prove. Do you have any documentative and irrefutable *PROOF* otherwise? Of course you don't, so what we're dealing with is logical arguments - and I'd say mine is as good, if not better, than most. The unit had a Widcomm stack which, with a factory fresh ROM, supported the full profile. I fail to see a more compelling argument for disabling these features, but I'm certainly open to your explanations. The ROM originally shipped with the features enabled, but turned off by default, so security concerns are - to me - not a valid argument. I imagine that perhaps Verizon could have developed some kind of software that had problems if those features were enabled, but there was no such software listed in the specs. You (and others here) have considerably more experience with this platform (I'm a PC and Network guy) so I'm sure I could have missed something... Can you think of another reason John? What did I miss? subdude >>>I know why providers disable the various Bluetooth options on different >>>phones, but I'm wondering if it's possible to restore the full Bluetooth [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Security. (Google "Bluejacking".) > Piracy. (File sharing.) Baloney...The manufacturers have every reason to provide phones with as many features as possible to maximize sales. They don't care about security or content licenses one bit...that someone else's problem. It's the Providers who are nickel and diming you by disabling functions that they, in turn, can charge you for. They don't want you swapping ring tones, photos or apps with your friends via Bluetooth when they can get you to pay for each and every download from their network. >>>>I know why providers disable the various Bluetooth options on different >>>>phones, but I'm wondering if it's possible to restore the full Bluetooth [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >your friends via Bluetooth when they can get you to pay for each and every >download from their network. Then why don't they disable cable transfers? In other words, your dark theory, delicious as it is, doesn't fit the available facts. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > Then why don't they disable cable transfers? A spontaneous Bluetooth transfer of content, on the fly is what worries providers the most. They see millions of young folks swapping tones and wallpapers on the street and cringe. It's a huge market they can exploit for a buck. Cable transfers simply don't present the potential loss of income that Bluetooth does. >> Then why don't they disable cable transfers? > >A spontaneous Bluetooth transfer of content, on the fly is what worries >providers the most. They see millions of young folks swapping tones and >wallpapers on the street and cringe. Piracy. >It's a huge market they can exploit for >a buck. Cable transfers simply don't present the potential loss of income >that Bluetooth does. But IR does, and it's not disabled. The bottom line is that the financial case for this is weak. Much more likely are security and piracy concerns. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > Piracy. Your dark theory, delicious as it is, doesn't fit the available facts. > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > But IR does, and it's not disabled. > > The bottom line is that the financial case for this is weak. Much more > likely > are security and piracy concerns. Or SD cards in their many incarnations. Very easy to move files via the cards and they are not disabled. Don >> But IR does, and it's not disabled. >> >> The bottom line is that the financial case for this is weak. Much more >> likely >> are security and piracy concerns. >Or SD cards in their many incarnations. Very easy to move files via the >cards and they are not disabled. Surely you know that it's not nice to spoil a newsgroup flame with facts! ;) SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > Surely you know that it's not nice to spoil a newsgroup flame with facts! > ;) That would put him one up on you. Of course, your agreement with his post shows how clueless you were in GUESSING the reasons for BT limitations. Moron. > Baloney...The manufacturers have every reason to provide phones with as many > features as possible to maximize sales. They don't care about security or [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > your friends via Bluetooth when they can get you to pay for each and every > download from their network. The sole reason is revenue generation. >> Baloney...The manufacturers have every reason to provide phones with as many >> features as possible to maximize sales. They don't care about security or [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >The sole reason is revenue generation. According to you. Security and piracy concerns are other possible reasons. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> >[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >According to you. Security and piracy concerns are other possible reasons. OK, so let me ask you directly, would you agree that revenue generation is as likely a reason as liability and security? subdude >>>> Baloney...The manufacturers have every reason to provide phones with as many >>>> features as possible to maximize sales. They don't care about security or [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >OK, so let me ask you directly, would you agree that revenue >generation is as likely a reason as liability and security? No. If it were, then there would be much more crippling going on. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > No. If it were, then there would be much more crippling going on. Uh...no. Bluetooth is a selling point. To cripple it completely would be self defeating. They want to sell phones by advertising they are Bluetooth capable. They just don't want you to be able to do everything Bluetooth can do. It's painfully obvious they do this because they see a profit potential in downloads and full Bluetooth functionality threatens that. Your overreaching provider talking points have long since gone over the edge into absurdity. >> No. If it were, then there would be much more crippling going on. > >Uh...no. Bluetooth is a selling point. To cripple it completely would be >self defeating. I meant other ways of connecting and other phones. >They want to sell phones by advertising they are Bluetooth >capable. The great majority of the market only seems to care about Bluetooth for headsets. >They just don't want you to be able to do everything Bluetooth can >do. It's painfully obvious they do this because they see a profit potential >in downloads and full Bluetooth functionality threatens that. Sorry, but I don't think that's at all obvious. >Your >overreaching provider talking points have long since gone over the edge into >absurdity. Trying to cast aspersions simply because people disagree with you only serves to undermine your own credibility. I have no connection to any provider. That's just the way I see it. Sorry. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> >[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >No. If it were, then there would be much more crippling going on. See, here's where we diverge. You're arguing that a large corporation like Cingular is worried only about their customer's security and actively preventing piracy. I am arguing that they are, like any other major corporation in America, interested in making as much profit as they can for their officers and stockholders. With al due respect John, I think the tinfoil hat may be on the wrong head...<G> You're reasoning is that there would be "much more crippling going on", but what more could they cripple? Disable the headset profile and you will not only eliminate the possibility of being able to sell the add-on headset, but you'd likely be beaten out for the customer by another provider - hands free in the car being the law in my neighboring state of New Jersey, you'd eliminate all possibility of selling the unit to anyone who drives. I respectfully disagree; I believe the profit potential is as big, if not a larger, motivator for them to disable the feature. And as for Decatur's post saying that "Verizon has gone on record as saying its a content licensing issue", remember that the cigarette companies and fast food vendors said all kinds of things that we are now learning were nothing more than a PR smoke screen for a profit agenda. subdude > OK, so let me ask you directly, would you agree that revenue > generation is as likely a reason as liability and security? Verizon has gone on record as saying its a content licensing issue. I posted some links on that. >> OK, so let me ask you directly, would you agree that revenue >> generation is as likely a reason as liability and security? > >Verizon has gone on record as saying its a content licensing issue. I >posted some links on that. In other words, piracy, as I wrote. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > In other words, piracy, as I wrote. No- they are not one in the same. You are wrong. > In other words, piracy, as I wrote. Piracy and content licensing are two different things. Try again. > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Security. (Google "Bluejacking".) > Piracy. (File sharing.) John, I'm afraid neither explains why for $109 I can get a phone with full BT, and for $129 I get a phone with BT brain-dead, from the same provider. I'm still thinking that the disfunction is originated at the phone manufacturer, not the service provider. mike > I'm still thinking that the disfunction is originated at the phone > manufacturer, not the service provider. Don't the various providers order their phones pre loaded by the manufacturer with their specified ROM ? >> I'm still thinking that the disfunction is originated at the phone >> manufacturer, not the service provider. > >Don't the various providers order their phones pre loaded by the >manufacturer with their specified ROM ? Yep. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.