USB to Bluetooth cellphone speed?

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

In <tqy%[email protected]> on Thu, 13 Apr 2006
20:22:49 GMT, DecaturTxCowboy <[email protected]> wrote:

>clifto wrote:
>> Glenn Shaw wrote:
>>> Bluetooth Class 1: max range 300 feet, used primarily in industrial
>>> applications.
>>> Bluetooth Class 2: max range 30 feet, typically used in mobile devices
>>> like cell phones and PDAs.
>>> Bluetooth Class 3: max range 3 feet.
>>>
>>> Source: http://www.bluetooth.com/Bluetooth/Learn/Basics/
>>>
>>> The only way I see BT being even remotely useable at a 1-mile range, is
>>> if the BT device were Class 1 and a high-gain directional antenna were
>>> used.
>>
>> And an exceptional low-noise, high-sensitivity receiver were on each
>> end instead of the consumer-grade stuff available.
>
>Nope...Popular Science had a write up how-to on this and its been well
>documented in the Defcon hacking articles. I recall a rifle stock
>mounted 12 driver element Yagi antenna here:
>http://www.tgdaily.com/2004/08/02/defcon_12/page6.html
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluetooth_sniping
>
>Bottom line, Bluetooth CAN indeed be compromised up to a mile away and
>THAT was the gist of my reply to Kevin.

Only with Bluetooth Class 1, not Class 2 (as in the case of most cell phones)
or Class 3, your attempt to scramble notwithstanding.

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

---

› See More: USB to Bluetooth cellphone speed?

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

In <tqy%[email protected]> on Thu, 13 Apr 2006
20:22:49 GMT, DecaturTxCowboy <[email protected]> wrote:

>clifto wrote:
>> Glenn Shaw wrote:
>>> Bluetooth Class 1: max range 300 feet, used primarily in industrial
>>> applications.
>>> Bluetooth Class 2: max range 30 feet, typically used in mobile devices
>>> like cell phones and PDAs.
>>> Bluetooth Class 3: max range 3 feet.
>>>
>>> Source: http://www.bluetooth.com/Bluetooth/Learn/Basics/
>>>
>>> The only way I see BT being even remotely useable at a 1-mile range, is
>>> if the BT device were Class 1 and a high-gain directional antenna were
>>> used.
>>
>> And an exceptional low-noise, high-sensitivity receiver were on each
>> end instead of the consumer-grade stuff available.
>
>Nope...Popular Science had a write up how-to on this and its been well
>documented in the Defcon hacking articles. I recall a rifle stock
>mounted 12 driver element Yagi antenna here:
>http://www.tgdaily.com/2004/08/02/defcon_12/page6.html
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluetooth_sniping
>
>Bottom line, Bluetooth CAN indeed be compromised up to a mile away and
>THAT was the gist of my reply to Kevin.

Only with Bluetooth Class 1, not Class 2 (as in the case of most cell phones)
or Class 3, your attempt to scramble notwithstanding.

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

John Navas wrote:
>> Bottom line, Bluetooth CAN indeed be compromised up to a mile away and
>> THAT was the gist of my reply to Kevin.
>
> Only with Bluetooth Class 1, not Class 2 (as in the case of most cell phones)
> or Class 3, your attempt to scramble notwithstanding.

Did I not say "Bluetooth CAN indeed be compromised up to a mile away"
ans is not Bluetooth Class 1 not Bluetooth? My statement is still valid,
your attempt to scramble notwithstanding.

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

In <[email protected]> on Thu, 20 Apr 2006
13:30:10 GMT, DecaturTxCowboy <[email protected]> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>>> Bottom line, Bluetooth CAN indeed be compromised up to a mile away and
>>> THAT was the gist of my reply to Kevin.
>>
>> Only with Bluetooth Class 1, not Class 2 (as in the case of most cell phones)
>> or Class 3, your attempt to scramble notwithstanding.
>
>Did I not say "Bluetooth CAN indeed be compromised up to a mile away"
>ans is not Bluetooth Class 1 not Bluetooth? My statement is still valid,
>your attempt to scramble notwithstanding.

Your actual flat statement was:

And with Bluetooth usable up to a mile away too...

Which isn't correct in the context of non-Class 1 devices, like most cell
phones.

Are you now claiming that you were being disingenuous, off-topic, misleading,
or a smartass, rather than just being misinformed?

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

John Navas wrote:
> Your actual flat statement was:
>
> And with Bluetooth usable up to a mile away too...
>
> Which isn't correct in the context of non-Class 1 devices, like most cell
> phones.
>

My statement is still valid as I never stated which class of a device.
Any assumption that I was referring to a non-Class 1 device is your own.

> Are you now claiming that you were being disingenuous, off-topic, misleading,
> or a smartass, rather than just being misinformed?

None of the above. I believe you have market cornered on all of those
points. Have a nice day.