Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Motorola V710, Bluetooth, and Verizon, oh my!

Tags:
  • Verizon
  • Motorola
  • Bluetooth
  • Internet Service Providers
Last response: in Network Providers
Share
Anonymous
November 28, 2004 3:12:08 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

My current contract with Verizon is just about up, I'll qualify for new
every two, and I'm looking at new phones. My top interest is the V710.
But I have a question. Is Verizon still passing off their original
purposely crippled idea of Bluetooth, or is it possible to sync the phone
with a PC or PDA via Bluetooth now? I recall posts saying something about
Motorola would fix this in November, and November is now almost gone, so
what's the status? Thanks.


David

More about : motorola v710 bluetooth verizon

Anonymous
November 28, 2004 6:39:13 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 00:12:08 GMT, "David M. Moore"
<davmooDEATH@TOgibbousmoonSPAMMERS.com> wrote:

>My current contract with Verizon is just about up, I'll qualify for new
>every two, and I'm looking at new phones. My top interest is the V710.
>But I have a question. Is Verizon still passing off their original
>purposely crippled idea of Bluetooth, or is it possible to sync the phone
>with a PC or PDA via Bluetooth now? I recall posts saying something about
>Motorola would fix this in November, and November is now almost gone, so
>what's the status? Thanks.
>
>
>David
>


Also: Does anyone know if I can use this phone as a modem, say with a
Powerbook via Bluetooth?
Anonymous
November 28, 2004 1:00:56 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

VZW, hates Bluetooth because of its lack of security.

Bluetooth hasn't changed and VZW hasn't changed is commitment to security.

-julie

PS Motorola NEVER does anything when they say they will. If they promise
November of '04 expect it MAYBE summer of '05 if at all.

"David M. Moore" <davmooDEATH@TOgibbousmoonSPAMMERS.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95AEC355CFBA1dmm2002dmm2002dmm@140.99.99.130...
> My current contract with Verizon is just about up, I'll qualify for new
> every two, and I'm looking at new phones. My top interest is the V710.
> But I have a question. Is Verizon still passing off their original
> purposely crippled idea of Bluetooth, or is it possible to sync the phone
> with a PC or PDA via Bluetooth now? I recall posts saying something about
> Motorola would fix this in November, and November is now almost gone, so
> what's the status? Thanks.
>
>
> David
>
>
Related resources
Anonymous
November 28, 2004 9:09:29 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

>VZW, hates Bluetooth because of its lack of security.
>
>Bluetooth hasn't changed and VZW hasn't changed is commitment to security.

The only security risk for VZW is that people won't be paying for ringtones or
games using Get It Now if they have access to uncrippled Bluetooth. Anybody who
believes VZW is crippling Bluetooth to protect your security is very naive.
Anonymous
November 29, 2004 7:27:28 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"Julie Ruin" <julieruin@mixmail.com> wrote in
news:lnoqd.4814$KO5.3142@fed1read02:

> VZW, hates Bluetooth because of its lack of security.
>
> Bluetooth hasn't changed and VZW hasn't changed is commitment to
> security.

While I appreciate your reply, I agree with the other reply to your post.
Bluetooth's security, or lack of, has nothing to do with why Verizon
initially released the phone with crippled Bluetooth. They want you tied
to Get It Now. The only thing they are concerned about is dollars.

Unfortunately for Verizon, my desire for Bluetooth is because I want to be
able to sync the damned thing with a PC and a PDA without stringing more
cables around my desk. Plus I want the syncing to be done every time I
come near my PC, without having to manually do it. I don't give a damn
about ring tones or pictures, and in fact would prefer a Bluetooth phone
without a camera.

I was hoping there had been enough bitching at Verizon from its customers
that they had seen the light and uncrippled the phone.

I guess its time to at least look at the wares of other providers.


David
Anonymous
November 29, 2004 10:24:37 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

singha_lvr <singha_lvr@nospam.net> wrote:

>Also: Does anyone know if I can use this phone as a modem, say with a
>Powerbook via Bluetooth?
>

Yes, the phone wil work as a modem, but it uses very high com ports
(40 and up) via a DUN. Throughput is OK, and I have not compared it
with a wired connection to the notebook.

If you need to use a lower com port for programs which do not use
Windows DUN, you will have to wire the phone to the notebook.
Anonymous
November 29, 2004 12:38:36 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

In article <0001HW.BDD0B4FF0040DD32F04075B0@news-server.nyc.rr.com>,
bunny <bunny@bunny.net> wrote:

> I noticed that VZW now mentions "syncing" in its description of the
> V710 online, so perhaps the phone is now capable of file transfer.
> Or they're giving you a cable to do it. Or they've figured out a way
> to charge you for the functionality.

I don't see syncing anywhere in the phone's description. I searched the
page for "syn" and didn't find any hits.

But it's always been able to synch, using a cable. They can advertise
it as a capability without having to provide the cable.

But I did find the following, which is much more interesting, I think:

> And with Bluetooth wireless technology, you can make hands-free, eyes-free
> calls, and connect to your PC or PDA whenever and wherever you want.

Of course, it doesn't say what you can do with the connection to the PC
or PDA, so it might be just for modem use.

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
Anonymous
November 29, 2004 2:48:26 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Jeremy Nixon wrote:

> But it is enough to raise the old question of unlocking a Sprint phone and
> using it with Verizon. I wonder if you could do it with a Treo 650?

It must be a CDMA thing. Sprint PCS doesn't have Bluetooth either -- yet,
unless they released the Bluetooth handset that was being discussed a couple
months ago.

They DID have the SonyEricsson T608 - but only about 10,000 of them, because
SonyEricsson pulled out of the CDMA handset business and is now doing
exclusively GSM. And the T608 supposedly isn't a wonderful phone anyhow.


--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
Anonymous
November 29, 2004 2:49:56 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Steve Sobol wrote:
> Jeremy Nixon wrote:
>
>> But it is enough to raise the old question of unlocking a Sprint phone
>> and
>> using it with Verizon. I wonder if you could do it with a Treo 650?
>
>
> It must be a CDMA thing. Sprint PCS doesn't have Bluetooth either --
> yet, unless they released the Bluetooth handset that was being discussed
> a couple months ago.
>
> They DID have the SonyEricsson T608 - but only about 10,000 of them,
> because SonyEricsson pulled out of the CDMA handset business and is now
> doing exclusively GSM. And the T608 supposedly isn't a wonderful phone
> anyhow.

Of course, I wasn't thinking that the 650 had been released, either. I may very
well be incorrect about that.

But now that I'm thinking about Bluetooth, I do believe the 600 has it, and
they're readily available and the only question is whether you can get them
unlocked. None of the non-PDA phones currently carried by Sprint have BT.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
Anonymous
November 29, 2004 2:50:39 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

>The only security risk for VZW is that people won't be paying for ringtones
>or
>games using Get It Now if they have access to uncrippled Bluetooth. Anybody
>who
>believes VZW is crippling Bluetooth to protect your security is very naive.

YESS Sah !!!!! ( enter ed mcmahon laugh here) we have a winner !
VZW would lose a TON of data revenue-
get it now apps, pix transfers, etc..
Motorola has a fully functional bluetooth item, it is the software that has
been purposefully crippled by you-know-who...
Anonymous
November 30, 2004 3:59:38 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:

> palmOne says it does, I have a prospective client who uses a Treo 600, and she
> and I discussed this not two weeks ago.

I see. Well, Verizon's version definitely doesn't have it.

> And I don't know where you get the idea that Verizon users can still use
> Sprint without roaming charges

Mainly from doing it.

> - Verizon has been eliminating Sprint from the PRL in many places, and
> their primary roaming partners are USCC and Alltel, so you're more likely
> to roam on one of those companies' networks than on Sprint.

Yeah, but you can still use Sprint in all but a few areas where it's been
removed. The NYC Sprint system was removed, for example, which is where I
live, but that doesn't matter because Verizon has coverage here, and I've
never seen Sprint roaming here (there isn't really anywhere that Verizon's
coverage doesn't work).

You're more likely to get Alltel in their area, but still, the point is that
you can get coverage as a Verizon user basically anywhere Sprint has a signal,
even if you don't end up on Sprint, and there won't be any roaming charges.
So it looks, at least to me, like the Verizon service area is more or less
a superset of the Sprint service area.

> When moving to SoCal from Cleveland, for example, we drove I-40 through
> Oklahoma and Arkansas where there is no VZW native coverage. My VZW phone
> roamed on Alltel. And I know for a fact that Sprint has native coverage in
> the OKC area (not sure about Little Rock).

I've driven that stretch a number of times in the past couple of years; the
Oklahoma part, at least, which I think I've probably done about six times
recently. The Arkansas part only once. I've roamed there onto Sprint almost
all of the time, though this past summer I saw Alltel part of the way while
in Oklahoma, but not all the way across the state. I pay attention because
(and maybe it's just me) I can get data service on Alltel but not on Sprint.
So I actually prefer to roam on Alltel, so the VZW preference suits me just
fine. Once you get into New Mexico, there's not a whole lot east of
Albuquerque, unfortunately, that isn't hard-roaming, but it was like that
even when Sprint was the preferred roaming partner, so I guess no one really
covers that area.

Anyway, this past August was the last time I was in Oklahoma city, and it
was Sprint, not Alltel, thwarting my desire to check my email.

I've definitely seen Sprint roaming also in Missouri, though I try to spend
as little time in that hell-hole as possible; I'll go without sleep to do a
banzai run across it just so I don't have to say I slept there.

Kansas is all Alltel roaming. There are a couple of little VZW coverage
holes on the Pennsylvania Turnpike that roam onto Sprint; someone here a
while back actually mentioned that Sprint SID was removed from the PRL,
so I haven't done a *228 since, because if it's true that would lead to
"no service" for about 50 miles of the highway. But I can verify that
you can still use the Sprint roaming there, as of a few weeks ago (but
again, I've not updated my PRL in a while because of that area).

But there's still the minor annoyance of Arizona's Alltel system. VZW
excludes their system from the PRL, so even where Alltel has coverage, you
get "no service" unless you manually force A-side. If you do that, you
still don't get charged for roaming, but the fact that they don't include
Alltel in the PRL led me to believe that Alltel isn't quite as "preferred"
as it could be, by VZW.

(As as aside, manually forcing A-side now lets you get data service at the
Grand Canyon, which didn't used to be possible.)

> These days you're more likely to roam onto Verizon using a Sprint phone than
> the other way around.

But you'll get charged for it, no?

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
November 30, 2004 3:59:39 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Jeremy Nixon wrote:

> You're more likely to get Alltel in their area, but still, the point is that
> you can get coverage as a Verizon user basically anywhere Sprint has a signal,
> even if you don't end up on Sprint, and there won't be any roaming charges.

Oh, really?

Ok.

How about Little Rock, Arkansas. I just checked a Little Rock zipcode (72203)
and Sprint claims coverage there. I know for sure that Alltel has coverage. I
roamed on Alltel last year in Little Rock, which happens to be home to Alltel's
corporate headquarters (which is why I chose it).

Can someone who has a recent deciphered PRL tell me whether Sprint's Little
Rock network is listed at all?

> I've driven that stretch a number of times in the past couple of years; the
> Oklahoma part, at least, which I think I've probably done about six times
> recently. The Arkansas part only once. I've roamed there onto Sprint almost
> all of the time, though this past summer I saw Alltel part of the way while
> in Oklahoma, but not all the way across the state. I pay attention because
> (and maybe it's just me) I can get data service on Alltel but not on Sprint.

I'm willing to believe you got Sprint in OKC. I'd be very surprised if you got
Sprint in Little Rock. Were you using an updated PRL?

> Kansas is all Alltel roaming. There are a couple of little VZW coverage
> holes on the Pennsylvania Turnpike that roam onto Sprint; someone here a
> while back actually mentioned that Sprint SID was removed from the PRL,
> so I haven't done a *228 since, because if it's true that would lead to
> "no service" for about 50 miles of the highway. But I can verify that
> you can still use the Sprint roaming there, as of a few weeks ago (but
> again, I've not updated my PRL in a while because of that area).

Some of it is US Cellular. But I really ought to ask which part of the Turnpike
you're referring to before I make any further comments.

>>These days you're more likely to roam onto Verizon using a Sprint phone than
>>the other way around.
>
> But you'll get charged for it, no?

Maybe. Depends. If you have a local plan or PCS Free and Clear (no roaming on
Sprint networks anywhere nationwide, but other networks cost you), you will. If
you have the $5/month Free and Clear America add-on, or the $5/month "America"
add-on to the new Fair and Flexible plan, you can roam on any system in the US
that is in Sprint's PRL without being charged roaming. The stipulation is that
Sprint reserves the right to kick you off the plan if more than 50% of the
airtime usage in any given month is roaming airtime, but AIUI you'll be given a
couple warnings first.

Point is, Sprint probably uses Verizon as its primary roaming partner in many
more networks than Verizon uses Sprint.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
Anonymous
November 30, 2004 5:57:48 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:

> How about Little Rock, Arkansas. I just checked a Little Rock zipcode (72203)
> and Sprint claims coverage there.

Honestly, I don't know. I only went that way once (in a desperate bid to
avoid Missouri) and I passed through Little Rock in the middle of the night;
I didn't stop there and didn't think to check what system I was on. I had
already noted Sprint coverage while in Oklahoma, so I probably just assumed
I still had no data service and didn't actually check. (That whole stretch
is always a data wasteland; once you leave the St. Louis outskirts, there's
no email or Mapquest or starbucks.com till Albuquerque. Which is why I'd
actually quite welcome Alltel roaming there rather than Sprint.)

>> There are a couple of little VZW coverage holes on the Pennsylvania
>> Turnpike that roam onto Sprint; someone here a while back actually
>> mentioned that Sprint SID was removed from the PRL, so I haven't done
>> a *228 since, because if it's true that would lead to "no service" for
>> about 50 miles of the highway. But I can verify that you can still use
>> the Sprint roaming there, as of a few weeks ago (but again, I've not
>> updated my PRL in a while because of that area).
>
> Some of it is US Cellular. But I really ought to ask which part of the
> Turnpike you're referring to before I make any further comments.

It starts (assuming westbound) somewhere around mile 165 or 170, possibly
a little before, and ends at some point before you hit the Somerset rest
area (the one with the big windmills visible a bit away from the highway;
at least, they're quite big if you go and find them close up, though they
don't look so big from there).

If the Sprint there was replaced with US Cellular, that would be very nice;
I had no idea they were even in that area. I've been across the country and
back on several different routes, and I think I recall noticing that I'd
roamed onto US Cellular once, ever, and only for a short time.

>> But you'll get charged for it, no?
>
> Maybe. Depends. If you have a local plan or PCS Free and Clear (no roaming
> on Sprint networks anywhere nationwide, but other networks cost you), you
> will. If you have the $5/month Free and Clear America add-on, or the
> $5/month "America" add-on to the new Fair and Flexible plan, you can roam
> on any system in the US that is in Sprint's PRL without being charged
> roaming.

Cool. I was still under the impression that Sprint charged for all roaming
off their network.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
November 30, 2004 5:57:49 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Jeremy Nixon wrote:

>>Some of it is US Cellular. But I really ought to ask which part of the
>>Turnpike you're referring to before I make any further comments.
>
>
> It starts (assuming westbound) somewhere around mile 165 or 170, possibly
> a little before, and ends at some point before you hit the Somerset rest
> area (the one with the big windmills visible a bit away from the highway;
> at least, they're quite big if you go and find them close up, though they
> don't look so big from there).

Heh. Microsoft MapPoint doesn't show mile markers. Is Milepost 165 east of
Breezewood? I used Verizon traveling to Maryland from Cleveland in 2002 for a
wedding, and had a period of no service on the Pike. It was probably in the
same place you had problems. Western Maryland and I-68/79 through West Virginia
are US Cellular. I believe part of southern Pennsylvania is too.

You're more likely to hit USCC in WV or MD, though. Harrisburg is native
Verizon and according to posts here, they've just acquired new spectrum there,
so they should have good coverage.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.
Anonymous
November 30, 2004 10:06:38 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote:

> Heh. Microsoft MapPoint doesn't show mile markers. Is Milepost 165 east of
> Breezewood?

Breezewood is exit 161, where the interchange to I-70 east is. By the time
you get there, you have no native Verizon coverage. Breezewood also has a
nice truckstop for if you need a break ("nice" as truckstops go, that is)
which is why it's a pain, since there's no data service at one of the best
places to stop for a break in that part of the state.

Come to think of it, last time I was out there, earlier this month, I didn't
go any further than verifying that I couldn't get data service, I didn't
bother checking whose signal I was picking up. It may have changed even
though I didn't update the PRL after they dropped that Sprint SID. But I
had no idea US Cellular was even in that area, so maybe it's actually safe
to update the PRL after all. Do I dare? I'm out there way too much to
want to lose all coverage there...

> You're more likely to hit USCC in WV or MD, though. Harrisburg is native
> Verizon and according to posts here, they've just acquired new spectrum there,
> so they should have good coverage.

Excellent native coverage in Harrisburg, and indeed the rest of Pennsylvania
except that little area. I've been sitting in the middle of a state forest
in PA getting some work done with a strong digital VZW signal from gawd-knows-
where. Yeah, it sounds silly, but when you telecommute you start to get
crazy ideas like how your "office" can be just about anywhere you can get
on the net. :) 

(Which is why data coverage is so important to me, though I suspect to take
it to the next level I'd need portable satellite access. That's the Holy
Grail. Access that works absolutely anywhere in the US, reliable enough
for business use, acceptable performance for remote logins, and, well, I'd
buy that in a second. Keeping an eye on those new satellites Inmarsat is
supposed to be bringing online next year. Could be very nice. Indeed,
it could return cell phones to just being for phone calls again.)

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
Anonymous
December 3, 2004 12:43:34 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

singha_lvr wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 00:12:08 GMT, "David M. Moore"
> <davmooDEATH@TOgibbousmoonSPAMMERS.com> wrote:
>
>
>>My current contract with Verizon is just about up, I'll qualify for new
>>every two, and I'm looking at new phones. My top interest is the V710.
>>But I have a question. Is Verizon still passing off their original
>>purposely crippled idea of Bluetooth, or is it possible to sync the phone
>>with a PC or PDA via Bluetooth now? I recall posts saying something about
>>Motorola would fix this in November, and November is now almost gone, so
>>what's the status? Thanks.
>>
>>
>>David
>>
>
>
>
> Also: Does anyone know if I can use this phone as a modem, say with a
> Powerbook via Bluetooth?
>
>
I have one on order... what I've been told is the phone WILL work as a
modem via bluetooth. In any case, it will definitely work via the USB
cable. None of the other bluetooth goodies will work though
(up/download pictures/ring tones, etc.)
--Dave
December 3, 2004 2:59:10 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 21:43:34 -0800, Fsbuf Brkdib <no@spam.for.me>
wrote:

>I have one on order... what I've been told is the phone WILL work as a
>modem via bluetooth. In any case, it will definitely work via the USB
>cable. None of the other bluetooth goodies will work though
>(up/download pictures/ring tones, etc.)

You've been told correctly...I use mine as a modem with Bluetooth
daily, on my iPaq PDA and on my laptop.

And yes, the synching/file transfer does NOT work via Bluetooth,
though I didn't buy the phone for that in the first place. You can,
at least now, transfer files over using a TransFlash card (and a
small, included with the card adapter to get the files into and out of
the PC).

Mike
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 2:53:52 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Mike wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 21:43:34 -0800, Fsbuf Brkdib <no@spam.for.me>
> wrote:
>
>
>>I have one on order... what I've been told is the phone WILL work as a
>>modem via bluetooth. In any case, it will definitely work via the USB
>>cable. None of the other bluetooth goodies will work though
>>(up/download pictures/ring tones, etc.)
>
>
> You've been told correctly...I use mine as a modem with Bluetooth
> daily, on my iPaq PDA and on my laptop.
>
> And yes, the synching/file transfer does NOT work via Bluetooth,
> though I didn't buy the phone for that in the first place. You can,
> at least now, transfer files over using a TransFlash card (and a
> small, included with the card adapter to get the files into and out of
> the PC).
>
> Mike

Mike, I am now being told the transflash card approach has been "fixed"
so that your personal sound files cannot be used as ring tones. I saw a
realistic-looking screenshot of what was supposed to be Motorola
internal documentation to that effect. If you want, I'll dig up a link
to it.
--Dave
December 4, 2004 11:47:04 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 23:53:52 -0800, dlskjdsf sdlkfs
<fdslkj@fdksla.fdjlk> wrote:
>Mike, I am now being told the transflash card approach has been "fixed"
>so that your personal sound files cannot be used as ring tones. I saw a
>realistic-looking screenshot of what was supposed to be Motorola
>internal documentation to that effect. If you want, I'll dig up a link
>to it.

I've seen that in the playgro...er...on HowardForums. ;) 

It doesn't bug me that much, because I'm not really Mr. Ringtone to
begin with...heck, half the time, my ringer is set on silent. But
that "fix" you refer to, presumably, is in updated firmware for the
phone.

Mike
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 10:24:28 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

I purchased a 710 on Friday (12/3) and I've d/l and transfered mp3 to
use as ringtones via the TF card. For certain callers I have different
songs. It was pretty easy.





Mike wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 23:53:52 -0800, dlskjdsf sdlkfs
> <fdslkj@fdksla.fdjlk> wrote:
>
>>Mike, I am now being told the transflash card approach has been "fixed"
>>so that your personal sound files cannot be used as ring tones. I saw a
>>realistic-looking screenshot of what was supposed to be Motorola
>>internal documentation to that effect. If you want, I'll dig up a link
>>to it.
>
>
> I've seen that in the playgro...er...on HowardForums. ;) 
>
> It doesn't bug me that much, because I'm not really Mr. Ringtone to
> begin with...heck, half the time, my ringer is set on silent. But
> that "fix" you refer to, presumably, is in updated firmware for the
> phone.
>
> Mike
December 7, 2004 11:54:47 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 07:24:28 -0500, Shawn Haley
<shawn418@zoomtown.com> wrote:

>I purchased a 710 on Friday (12/3) and I've d/l and transfered mp3 to
>use as ringtones via the TF card. For certain callers I have different
>songs. It was pretty easy.

The change is part of rumored firmware changes that may not even be in
the pipeline yet...

Mike
Anonymous
December 27, 2004 8:16:25 PM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

>From Verizon's website (12/27/2004)
**********************************
The Motorola V710 is a phone and a whole lot more. Featuring an
integrated 1.2 megapixel camera, video capture, playback and messaging
to any email address, and Mobile Web 2.0, it's a phone that is designed
for the way you live. And with Bluetooth® wireless technology, you can
make hands-free, eyes-free calls, and connect to your PC or PDA
whenever and wherever you want.
**********************************
http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/store/controller?ite...

FALSE ADVERTISEMENT! "connect to your PC or PDA whenever" Do I smell
another class action lawsuit because Verizon didn't learn from the
first one. (Claiming bigger and better coverage than actually
available!!)
December 28, 2004 12:11:21 AM

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On 27 Dec 2004 17:16:25 -0800, Fireballff@gmail.com wrote:

>FALSE ADVERTISEMENT! "connect to your PC or PDA whenever" Do I smell
>another class action lawsuit because Verizon didn't learn from the
>first one. (Claiming bigger and better coverage than actually
>available!!)

It's not false for me...I have a Motorola v710 and I connect to my PC
and my PDA whenever I want, 24 hours a day. It works quite well,
thank you very much.

Nothing in the statement claims you can transfer contacts or pictures
via Bluetooth.

Mike
!