Disabled 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.

---

› See More: Disabled Bluetooth Question

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

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

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

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

In <[email protected]> on Thu, 16 Mar 2006 21:32:05 -0500, "Michael"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"Ric" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>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.)

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

>>"Ric" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>>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.)


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.

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

In <[email protected]> on Fri, 17 Mar 2006 10:44:02 -0500, "Ric"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>>"Ric" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>>>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.)
>
>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.

Then why don't they disable cable transfers? In other words, your dark
theory, delicious as it is, doesn't fit the available facts.

--
Best 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.

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

In <[email protected]> on Fri, 17 Mar 2006 12:12:08 -0500, "Ric"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> 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.

--
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 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:
>>
>>>"Ric" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>>>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.)
>
>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.

--
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]...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Thu, 16 Mar 2006 21:32:05 -0500,
> "Michael"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"Ric" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>>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.)
>
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 ?

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Fri, 17 Mar 2006
> 15:06:32
> GMT, subdude <[email protected]> wrote:
>

>>
>>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.

John Navas wrote:
> Piracy.

Your dark theory, delicious as it is, doesn't fit the available facts.

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [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.
>
> --
> Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

Or SD cards in their many incarnations. Very easy to move files via the
cards and they are not disabled.

Don