Disabled Bluetooth Question

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Sat, 18 Mar 2006 15:51:38
GMT, subdude <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 17:31:51 GMT, John Navas
><[email protected]> graced us with:
>
>>In <[email protected]> on Fri, 17 Mar 2006 15:06:32
>>GMT, subdude <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 04:21:46 GMT, John Navas
>>><[email protected]> graced us with:
>>>
>>>>In <[email protected]> on Thu, 16 Mar 2006 21:32:05 -0500, "Michael"
>>>><[email protected]> wrote:

>>>John, you left out an important reason...
>>>
>>>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.
>
>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 ...

Proof?

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

---

› See More: Disabled Bluetooth Question

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Fri, 17 Mar 2006 19:09:14 -0500, "Ric"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> 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.

--
Best 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 <[email protected]> on Mon, 20 Mar 2006 09:13:11 -0500, "Don
Udel \(ETC\)" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...

>> 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!

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

John Navas wrote:
> Proof?

http://www.nuclearelephant.com/papers/v710.html

http://voip-blog.tmcnet.com/blog/ric...bluetooth.html

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1751567,00.asp

http://www.mobileburn.com/news.jsp?I...ce=SIDEBARHOME

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Tue, 21 Mar 2006
19:31:44 GMT, DecaturTxCowboy <[email protected]> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>> Proof?
>
>http://www.nuclearelephant.com/papers/v710.html
>
>http://voip-blog.tmcnet.com/blog/ric...bluetooth.html
>
>http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1751567,00.asp
>
>http://www.mobileburn.com/news.jsp?I...ce=SIDEBARHOME

What part of "proof" do you not understand?

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> 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.

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> 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.

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Wed, 22 Mar 2006 15:15:18
GMT, subdude <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 16:31:23 GMT, John Navas
><[email protected]> graced us with:
>
>>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>>
>>In <[email protected]> on Sat, 18 Mar 2006 15:51:38
>>GMT, subdude <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 17:31:51 GMT, John Navas
>>><[email protected]> graced us with:
>>>
>>>>In <[email protected]> on Fri, 17 Mar 2006 15:06:32
>>>>GMT, subdude <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>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 ...
>>
>>Proof?
>
>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.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

John Navas wrote:
>> 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.

Ric wrote:

> 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.

The sole reason is revenue generation.

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Thu, 23 Mar 2006 07:09:35
-0800, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:

>Ric wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>The sole reason is revenue generation.

According to you. Security and piracy concerns are other possible reasons.

--
Best 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 <[email protected]> on Thu, 23 Mar 2006 22:03:42
GMT, subdude <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 17:23:26 GMT, John Navas
><[email protected]> graced us with:
>
>>In <[email protected]> on Thu, 23 Mar 2006 07:09:35
>>-0800, SMS <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Ric wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>The sole reason is revenue generation.
>>
>>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?

No. If it were, then there would be much more crippling going on.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

subdude wrote:
> 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.

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [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.

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Thu, 23 Mar 2006 19:31:29 -0500, "Ric"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> 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.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>