Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Bluetooth crippling.

Last response: in Network Providers
Share
Anonymous
August 5, 2005 10:07:02 PM

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

Has VZW ever offered a technical explanation (or reason) that they do this
???


--
I work for the ILEC ...." stuff happens! "

More about : bluetooth crippling

Anonymous
August 5, 2005 10:07:03 PM

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

"Remove This" <telcotech@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:aVNIe.98$lK2.97@trndny01...
> Has VZW ever offered a technical explanation (or reason) that they do this
> ???

The reasons is that they would prefer to charge for transferring pictures,
ringtones and video, and for syncing data. Bluetooth provides an easy,
direct way to do this, bypassing Verizon.

>
>
> --
> I work for the ILEC ...." stuff happens! "
>
>
>
August 6, 2005 4:14:02 AM

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

The following is copied from an email
from verizon tech support. Ha..

It is the intent of Verizon Wireless to
provide the best equipment and services
possible while maintaining reasonable
security measures to protect our
customers and the security of our
wireless network.

Hypothetically, someone walking by with
a PDA in there pocket or a laptop in a
car near you could pass a virus to your
phone, corrupting your phone, from there
you head home and your home network and
PC is corrupted and finally the virus
corrupts the network.

The limited use of mp3 is also due to
the same security measure's as
bluetooth. Layer 3 files or MP3's or
encrypted sound files that people can
download or even create there own using
there own software. The process in
creating or even downloading MP3's can
carry a virus that can cripple your
phones software. Therefore, we limited
or take out these features for the
safety of both our customers and the
network.

Due to an unusual large amount of
e-mails received, we are taking slightly
longer to respond and we apologize for
the delay. We appreciate your patience.

We appreciate your business. Thank you
for using Verizon Wireless products and
services.


KEn
Related resources
August 6, 2005 9:49:49 AM

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

"Ken" <asken@att.net> wrote in message
news:j408f1l208jhcmfscjaqtmptntfhfj3u86@4ax.com...
> The following is copied from an email
> from verizon tech support. Ha..
>
> It is the intent of Verizon Wireless to
> provide the best equipment and services
> possible while maintaining reasonable
> security measures to protect our
> customers and the security of our
> wireless network.
>
> Hypothetically, someone walking by with
> a PDA in there pocket or a laptop in a
> car near you could pass a virus to your
> phone, corrupting your phone, from there
> you head home and your home network and
> PC is corrupted and finally the virus
> corrupts the network.
>
> The limited use of mp3 is also due to
> the same security measure's as
> bluetooth. Layer 3 files or MP3's or
> encrypted sound files that people can
> download or even create there own using
> there own software. The process in
> creating or even downloading MP3's can
> carry a virus that can cripple your
> phones software. Therefore, we limited
> or take out these features for the
> safety of both our customers and the
> network.
>
> Due to an unusual large amount of
> e-mails received, we are taking slightly
> longer to respond and we apologize for
> the delay. We appreciate your patience.
>
> We appreciate your business. Thank you
> for using Verizon Wireless products and
> services.
>
>
> KEn
>
MP3's are not an executable and therefore can carry a virus....
Anonymous
August 6, 2005 9:31:33 PM

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

i got a virus from an mp3 before. I've gotten several viruses from mp3s
before. But I get my mp3s legally now so no worries about viruses.
"Phillip" <phillipdevoll@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1cYIe.171$911.24@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Ken" <asken@att.net> wrote in message
> news:j408f1l208jhcmfscjaqtmptntfhfj3u86@4ax.com...
>> The following is copied from an email
>> from verizon tech support. Ha..
>>
>> It is the intent of Verizon Wireless to
>> provide the best equipment and services
>> possible while maintaining reasonable
>> security measures to protect our
>> customers and the security of our
>> wireless network.
>>
>> Hypothetically, someone walking by with
>> a PDA in there pocket or a laptop in a
>> car near you could pass a virus to your
>> phone, corrupting your phone, from there
>> you head home and your home network and
>> PC is corrupted and finally the virus
>> corrupts the network.
>>
>> The limited use of mp3 is also due to
>> the same security measure's as
>> bluetooth. Layer 3 files or MP3's or
>> encrypted sound files that people can
>> download or even create there own using
>> there own software. The process in
>> creating or even downloading MP3's can
>> carry a virus that can cripple your
>> phones software. Therefore, we limited
>> or take out these features for the
>> safety of both our customers and the
>> network.
>>
>> Due to an unusual large amount of
>> e-mails received, we are taking slightly
>> longer to respond and we apologize for
>> the delay. We appreciate your patience.
>>
>> We appreciate your business. Thank you
>> for using Verizon Wireless products and
>> services.
>>
>>
>> KEn
>>
> MP3's are not an executable and therefore can carry a virus....
>
August 6, 2005 11:03:18 PM

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

"Remove This" <telcotech@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:aVNIe.98$lK2.97@trndny01...
> Has VZW ever offered a technical explanation (or reason) that they do this
> ???
$$$, nuff said.
Anonymous
August 7, 2005 12:26:33 AM

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

Does Verizon really think we believe this nonsense?

"Ken" <asken@att.net> wrote in message
news:j408f1l208jhcmfscjaqtmptntfhfj3u86@4ax.com...
> The following is copied from an email
> from verizon tech support. Ha..
>
> It is the intent of Verizon Wireless to
> provide the best equipment and services
> possible while maintaining reasonable
> security measures to protect our
> customers and the security of our
> wireless network.
>
> Hypothetically, someone walking by with
> a PDA in there pocket or a laptop in a
> car near you could pass a virus to your
> phone, corrupting your phone, from there
> you head home and your home network and
> PC is corrupted and finally the virus
> corrupts the network.
>
> The limited use of mp3 is also due to
> the same security measure's as
> bluetooth. Layer 3 files or MP3's or
> encrypted sound files that people can
> download or even create there own using
> there own software. The process in
> creating or even downloading MP3's can
> carry a virus that can cripple your
> phones software. Therefore, we limited
> or take out these features for the
> safety of both our customers and the
> network.
>
> Due to an unusual large amount of
> e-mails received, we are taking slightly
> longer to respond and we apologize for
> the delay. We appreciate your patience.
>
> We appreciate your business. Thank you
> for using Verizon Wireless products and
> services.
>
>
> KEn
>
Anonymous
August 7, 2005 3:12:12 PM

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

In a word?

YES!!!

"PTravel" <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
news:Z19Je.273$911.18@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
| Does Verizon really think we believe this nonsense?
|
| "Ken" <asken@att.net> wrote in message
| news:j408f1l208jhcmfscjaqtmptntfhfj3u86@4ax.com...
| > The following is copied from an email
| > from verizon tech support. Ha..
| >
| > It is the intent of Verizon Wireless to
| > provide the best equipment and services
| > possible while maintaining reasonable
| > security measures to protect our
| > customers and the security of our
| > wireless network.
| >
| > Hypothetically, someone walking by with
| > a PDA in there pocket or a laptop in a
| > car near you could pass a virus to your
| > phone, corrupting your phone, from there
| > you head home and your home network and
| > PC is corrupted and finally the virus
| > corrupts the network.
| >
| > The limited use of mp3 is also due to
| > the same security measure's as
| > bluetooth. Layer 3 files or MP3's or
| > encrypted sound files that people can
| > download or even create there own using
| > there own software. The process in
| > creating or even downloading MP3's can
| > carry a virus that can cripple your
| > phones software. Therefore, we limited
| > or take out these features for the
| > safety of both our customers and the
| > network.
| >
| > Due to an unusual large amount of
| > e-mails received, we are taking slightly
| > longer to respond and we apologize for
| > the delay. We appreciate your patience.
| >
| > We appreciate your business. Thank you
| > for using Verizon Wireless products and
| > services.
| >
| >
| > KEn
August 7, 2005 5:30:37 PM

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

In article <jIedndtTNqGrsWjfRVn-jA@comcast.com>, mnmma@comcast.net
says...
> i got a virus from an mp3 before. I've gotten several viruses from mp3s
> before. But I get my mp3s legally now so no worries about viruses.

Hmmm.... imagine Microsoft disable Internet access because thats the way
you can get viruses or illigal software :) )))


AP
August 7, 2005 5:30:38 PM

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

"AP" <cat@eveningstar.dyndns.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d5fc8f838c8b63a9898da@news.dallas.sbcglobal.net...
> In article <jIedndtTNqGrsWjfRVn-jA@comcast.com>, mnmma@comcast.net
> says...
> > i got a virus from an mp3 before. I've gotten several viruses from mp3s
> > before. But I get my mp3s legally now so no worries about viruses.
>
> Hmmm.... imagine Microsoft disable Internet access because thats the way
> you can get viruses or illigal software :) )))
>
>
But to make the analogy more comparable, Microsoft would then have to be
your ISP and have sold you hardware for use on their system. This being
said, many ISP's limit or cap certain functionality. Interestingly enough,
many that complain about cellphone network or hardware restrictions never
bat an eye at what the ISP's do.
Anonymous
August 7, 2005 5:30:39 PM

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

--

"Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in message
news:F8KdndcAo95TjmvfRVn-3w@adelphia.com...
|
| > > i got a virus from an mp3 before. I've gotten several viruses from
mp3s
| > > before. But I get my mp3s legally now so no worries about viruses.
| >
| > Hmmm.... imagine Microsoft disable Internet access because that's the
way
| > you can get viruses or illegal software :) )))
| >
| >
| But to make the analogy more comparable, Microsoft would then have to be
| your ISP and have sold you hardware for use on their system. This being
| said, many ISP's limit or cap certain functionality. Interestingly
enough,
| many that complain about cellphone network or hardware restrictions never
| bat an eye at what the ISP's do.

Could that be the things that ISP's do aren't intentionally designed to miss
lead / nickel and dime the customer base?

To my view the only real difference between VZN's business plan and that of
Ken Lay's ENRON is that VZN's is not so blatantly illegal.
August 7, 2005 5:30:40 PM

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

"NotMe" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:p 9qJe.3262$Zo3.193@fe03.lga...
>
> --
>
> "Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in message
> news:F8KdndcAo95TjmvfRVn-3w@adelphia.com...
> |
> | > > i got a virus from an mp3 before. I've gotten several viruses from
> mp3s
> | > > before. But I get my mp3s legally now so no worries about viruses.
> | >
> | > Hmmm.... imagine Microsoft disable Internet access because that's the
> way
> | > you can get viruses or illegal software :) )))
> | >
> | >
> | But to make the analogy more comparable, Microsoft would then have to be
> | your ISP and have sold you hardware for use on their system. This being
> | said, many ISP's limit or cap certain functionality. Interestingly
> enough,
> | many that complain about cellphone network or hardware restrictions
never
> | bat an eye at what the ISP's do.
>
> Could that be the things that ISP's do aren't intentionally designed to
miss
> lead / nickel and dime the customer base?

Really? Speed caps (to generate more revenue), Usenet caps, port blocks, no
guarantee of service........... all are designed to either nickel and dime
or mislead.

>
> To my view the only real difference between VZN's business plan and that
of
> Ken Lay's ENRON is that VZN's is not so blatantly illegal.
>

Please elaborate- I don't remember the part of Business 101 that makes it a
crime to actually charge for services rendered. Unless you re talking about
the limited functionality of the network if you don't want to pay extra, and
then you need to point me to successful companies that give away their
services for free.
Anonymous
August 7, 2005 5:30:41 PM

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

On 8/7/05 11:53 AM, in article QoednVAmFazCxWvfRVn-og@adelphia.com, "Scott"
wrote:

<snip>

>> To my view the only real difference between VZN's business plan and that
> of
>> Ken Lay's ENRON is that VZN's is not so blatantly illegal.
>>
>
> Please elaborate- I don't remember the part of Business 101 that makes it a
> crime to actually charge for services rendered. Unless you re talking about
> the limited functionality of the network if you don't want to pay extra, and
> then you need to point me to successful companies that give away their
> services for free.

You've nailed the seminal point - Verizon is in business to sell a product
to those who are willing to buy it....!

The commonly held notion that Verizon has "crippled" Bluetooth is silly in
the extreme. Words mean things.

Verizon made a business decision to selectively implement some, but not all,
of the features Bluetooth can provide. They implemented all the features
that matter, IMO. Complaining endlessly about being unable to transfer
photos and ring tones without paying for the privilege strikes me as puerile
whining. Most folks neither need nor want those "kiddy" functions.....

I like my v710 - it's a great phone, which I use as a phone and data modem,
I don't take pictures with it, I have a digital SLR for that purpose, and I
don't play MP3's on it, I have an iPod for that purpose and I could care
less about childish ring tones......

Soooooo, if someone wants those childish features, other carriers will
happily accommodate them, but they won't do it for free.....:) 

PC
August 8, 2005 12:01:45 AM

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

In article <BF1BA926.401C%nospam@nospam.com>, nospam@nospam.com says...
>
> Verizon made a business decision to selectively implement some, but not all,
> of the features Bluetooth can provide. They implemented all the features
> that matter, IMO. Complaining endlessly about being unable to transfer
> photos and ring tones without paying for the privilege strikes me as puerile
> whining. Most folks neither need nor want those "kiddy" functions.....
>
> I like my v710 - it's a great phone, which I use as a phone and data modem,
> I don't take pictures with it, I have a digital SLR for that purpose, and I
> don't play MP3's on it, I have an iPod for that purpose and I could care
> less about childish ring tones......

You see.... so why you can not use E815 as datamodem? It is not hardware
issue. Verizon disabled this option .... and yes ... you can enable it
yourself.

AP
Anonymous
August 8, 2005 12:01:46 AM

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

On 8/7/05 1:01 PM, in article
MPG.1d6024a63293f9e59898de@news.dallas.sbcglobal.net, "AP" wrote:

> In article <BF1BA926.401C%nospam@nospam.com>, nospam@nospam.com says...
>>
>> Verizon made a business decision to selectively implement some, but not all,
>> of the features Bluetooth can provide. They implemented all the features
>> that matter, IMO. Complaining endlessly about being unable to transfer
>> photos and ring tones without paying for the privilege strikes me as puerile
>> whining. Most folks neither need nor want those "kiddy" functions.....
>>
>> I like my v710 - it's a great phone, which I use as a phone and data modem,
>> I don't take pictures with it, I have a digital SLR for that purpose, and I
>> don't play MP3's on it, I have an iPod for that purpose and I could care
>> less about childish ring tones......
>
> You see.... so why you can not use E815 as datamodem? It is not hardware
> issue. Verizon disabled this option .... and yes ... you can enable it
> yourself.

I don't know that you can't use the e815 as a data modem - what makes you
think you can't???

Beyond that, what's your point?

I'm due to get an e815 and I think it will work fine, just as every other
Motorola phone I've used has worked fine.....

PC
August 8, 2005 4:03:34 AM

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

In article <BF1BE836.409F%nospam@nospam.com>, nospam@nospam.com says...
>
> I don't know that you can't use the e815 as a data modem - what makes you
> think you can't???
>
> Beyond that, what's your point?
>
> I'm due to get an e815 and I think it will work fine, just as every other
> Motorola phone I've used has worked fine.....
>

No "official" USB driver .... disabled Dialup on bluetooth.
I like that phone though (after few changes)

AP
Anonymous
August 8, 2005 4:03:35 AM

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

On 8/7/05 5:03 PM, in article
MPG.1d605d55249c09799898df@news.dallas.sbcglobal.net, "AP" wrote:

> In article <BF1BE836.409F%nospam@nospam.com>, nospam@nospam.com says...
>>
>> I don't know that you can't use the e815 as a data modem - what makes you
>> think you can't???
>>
>> Beyond that, what's your point?
>>
>> I'm due to get an e815 and I think it will work fine, just as every other
>> Motorola phone I've used has worked fine.....
>>
>
> No "official" USB driver .... disabled Dialup on bluetooth.
> I like that phone though (after few changes)

Nothing unusual about any of that - the "driver" will be included in MOK, as
usual....it's happened before, i.e., MOK wasn't released with the phone....

Dialup on Bluetooth isn't disabled - you just have to configure it
manually....

FWIW, I use my v710 as a data modem via Bluetooth on a Mac laptop - I expect
to use the e815 the same way......

PC
August 8, 2005 4:06:47 AM

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

Ken wrote on [Sat, 06 Aug 2005 00:14:02 GMT]:
> Hypothetically, someone walking by with
> a PDA in there pocket or a laptop in a
> car near you could pass a virus to your
>
> The limited use of mp3 is also due to
> the same security measure's as
> bluetooth. Layer 3 files or MP3's or
> encrypted sound files that people can
> download or even create there own using
> there own software. The process in
>
> Due to an unusual large amount of
> e-mails received, we are taking slightly
> longer to respond and we apologize for
> the delay. We appreciate your patience.
>
> We appreciate your business. Thank you
> for using Verizon Wireless products and
> services.

Was this really received from VZW customer service? You'd think they'd
know the correct use of the words there and their.
August 8, 2005 4:43:37 AM

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

In article <BF1BF2B8.40B9%nospam@nospam.com>, nospam@nospam.com says...
>
> Nothing unusual about any of that - the "driver" will be included in MOK, as
> usual....it's happened before, i.e., MOK wasn't released with the phone....

Im not saying that any of those options are not possible.... just for
some reason Verizon decided to disable some optiosn (Im not talking
about turning bluetooth on)

As for data (yes... I have been able to access Express network and use
data cable ... but had to use "unofficial" software) here is response
from Motorola:

"Thank you for contacting Motorola e-mail support, we appreciate your
request.

Thank you very much for your considerations and interest in our
products.

Regarding your concern, please note that the Mobile Phone Tools software
is not compatible with your E815 phone. We do not have any other drivers
or software to use with this phone.

We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause you and look forward
to assisting you in the future.

If you have further questions or need additional assistance, please
contact our Cellular Information Center at 1-800-331-6456. Our business
hours are Monday through Friday from 7am to 10pm CST and Saturday and
Sunday from 9am to 6pm CST."


AP
August 8, 2005 11:51:14 AM

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

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 12:03:50 -0700, Proconsul <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote:

>Verizon made a business decision to selectively implement some, but not all,
>of the features Bluetooth can provide. They implemented all the features
>that matter, IMO. Complaining endlessly about being unable to transfer
>photos and ring tones without paying for the privilege strikes me as puerile
>whining. Most folks neither need nor want those "kiddy" functions.....

This may come as a shock to you but business users may have a desire
to transfer files using their bluetooth connection through their phone
from their computer. Your definition of "childish" would not be
appreciated by business folk.

- -
Anonymous
August 8, 2005 1:24:02 PM

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

On 8/8/05 7:51 AM, in article c8sef11km7pilujemjvs3a2ss2g4njv7k9@4ax.com,
"Joseph" wrote:

> On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 12:03:50 -0700, Proconsul <nospam@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Verizon made a business decision to selectively implement some, but not all,
>> of the features Bluetooth can provide. They implemented all the features
>> that matter, IMO. Complaining endlessly about being unable to transfer
>> photos and ring tones without paying for the privilege strikes me as puerile
>> whining. Most folks neither need nor want those "kiddy" functions.....
>
> This may come as a shock to you but business users may have a desire
> to transfer files using their bluetooth connection through their phone
> from their computer. Your definition of "childish" would not be
> appreciated by business folk.

I'm not "shocked" but rather skeptical......

I specifically said ring tones and photos, etc., which are clearly
"childish" demands.....

What "files" are important for business folks that can't be transferred?? I
suspect the "demand pull" is miniscule.....

In any event, Verizon provides means by which you can those things, but you
have to pay....too bad!....:)  That's one of those pesky business decisions
the whiners don't like.....:) 

PC
August 8, 2005 10:01:03 PM

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

"Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96AC66CB44E25noone@63.223.7.253...

>
> Sure am going to be following this class action lawsuit against VZW for
the
> hobbled Bluetooth phones.


Phones that work exactly as advertised- that will sure to command a very
high settlement. Can you point out the statute that gives control of the
Verizon network to the consumer and not the Company? Or the statute that
mandates full functionality of the bluetooth product in all situations? You
are living proof of one thing- a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Now, let's look at how many places this topic is referenced:

From the Service Agreement:

"Your Wireless Phone
Your wireless phone is any device you use to receive our wireless voice or
data service. It must comply with Federal Communications Commission
regulations and be compatible with our network and your calling plan.
Whether you buy your wireless phone from us or someone else is entirely your
choice. At times we may change your wireless phone's software or programming
remotely and without notice. This could affect data you've stored on, or the
way you've programmed, your wireless phone. Your wireless phone may also
contain software that prevents it from being used with any other company's
wireless service, even if it's no longer used to receive our service."

Notice the first sentence- "our wireless voice or data service." At no
point do they endorse products or services they do not supply.

"Disclaimer Of Warranties
? WE MAKE NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING,
TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE CONCERNING YOUR SERVICE
OR YOUR WIRELESS PHONE. WE CAN'T PROMISE UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR-FREE SERVICE
AND DON'T AUTHORIZE ANYONE TO MAKE ANY WARRANTIES ON OUR BEHALF. THIS
DOESN'T DEPRIVE YOU OF ANY WARRANTY RIGHTS YOU MAY HAVE AGAINST ANYONE
ELSE."

This makes everything you just posted moot, especially in light of the
attention given to bluetooth in the written documentation.

The Verizon definition of Bluetooth:

"Bluetooth
Bluetooth is a low bandwidth, wireless networking technology designed
primarily to replace cables for communication between personal computing and
communication devices. It is intended to be used for both voice and data
communications. With Bluetooth, you can make hands-free calls virtually
whenever and wherever you want. To use Bluetooth technology, you'll need a
Bluetooth-capable device and headset. "



I don't see any claims of full functionality there.

"Does Verizon Wireless offer any Bluetooth-compatible devices?

We currently offer the following devices with select Bluetooth capability:
Motorola v710, Motorola E815, Audiovox XV6600 (Microsoft Pocket PC PDA),
BlackBerry 7250 (RIM BlackBerry device), LG VX8100, Samsung i730, and Treotm
650. The specific Bluetooth functionality included for each of these devices
can be found in the Bluetooth profile section below."



Again, the implication of full functionality is lacking.



"Which profiles does Verizon Wireless currently include?

Rather than discuss specific profiles, Verizon Wireless has found it more
helpful to our customers to discuss Bluetooth functionality. Refer to the
Bluetooth chart for functionality included on each of our Bluetooth-enabled
devices. "

Again, no claim of full functionality.

And the chart? It gives a model-by-model description of the functionality
available. Now, let's go to the product description for the E815 as an
example:

"*The E815 supports Bluetooth Profiles for wireless headsets, hands-free
accessories. Phonebook/datebook synchronization with optional Motorola Phone
Tools. It does not support all object exchange (OBEX) profiles. Accessories
and Phone Book Tool sold separately. See Bluetooth for details."

Not as small print, but as part of the description. All other BT phones
carry the same disclaimer.

I could post more, but it is abundantly clear- only an idiot would buy a
phone assuming full bluetooth when all documentation indicates otherwise.



And Larry- thanks for proving my earlier point about certain people feeling
entitled to more than they deserve. I suspect that your antics add about a
buck a year to every state tax bill to cover the cost of your pomposity.
The last thing we need here is a legal cut and paster that doesn't
understand everything they post. As I said- a little knowledge is a
dangerous thing.
August 9, 2005 10:51:11 AM

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

"Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in news:EYidnXt55O5nbGrfRVn-uw@adelphia.com:

> Can you point out the statute that gives control of the
> Verizon network to the consumer and not the Company?

The network is not warrantied. Bluetooth has nothing to do with their
network. Bluetooth is a communication system between Bluetooth items. The
lawsuit's contention is Bluetooth is a set of tools, a functionality every
other manufacturer provides. When one buys a Bluetooth item, just the word
implies ("implied warranty of suitability for a particular purpose"). The
crippling negates Bluetooth's operation. This violates the Bluetooth
operability of the unit. The unit is then not ready for sale.

It would be the same as a dishwasher. Just the word dishwasher describes
to the consumer a functionality. If you buy a "dishwasher", there is no
need to completely describe in every detail in a legal document what you,
the consumer buying a "dishwasher" expects. You expect it to do certain
functions. When you get it home, you find the company has hobbled the
"dishwasher" and it will actually only wash glasses. It fails miserably to
wash plates and pots and pans...it only washes glasses. Do you think the
jurists will side with the company that it doesn't, as a "dishwasher" need
to wash plates and pots, too? Do we need to spell that out in legal
details in the warranty and advertising? No. Normal prudent humans
brought up in our society expect a "dishwasher" to wash everything used to
prepare foods, even the grates from the gas grille. That it only washes
glasses is unacceptable to the jurist, the only person in the suit that
matters. The same with Bluetooth. Bluetooth isn't a communication system
with earphones ONLY. Bluetooth communicates and is operable with all kinds
of Bluetooth-enabled items. Anything less is unacceptable because the
consumer expects the word "Bluetooth" to do these things.

I bet the jurist agrees....don't you? The recall will follow to have
Bluetooth uncrippled, by force, of course.

--
Larry
August 9, 2005 11:01:07 AM

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

"Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in
news:EYidnXt55O5nbGrfRVn-uw@adelphia.com:

> WE MAKE NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
> INCLUDING, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, ANY IMPLIED
> WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
> CONCERNING YOUR SERVICE OR YOUR WIRELESS PHONE. WE CAN'T PROMISE
> UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR-FREE SERVICE AND DON'T AUTHORIZE ANYONE TO MAKE
> ANY WARRANTIES ON OUR BEHALF. THIS DOESN'T DEPRIVE YOU OF ANY WARRANTY
> RIGHTS YOU MAY HAVE AGAINST ANYONE ELSE."
>

You see this on every item on every limited warranty. However, read the
FTC manual. It means nothing. The two implied warranties are in full
force for the length of the limited warranty, no matter what it says.

15USC50 section 2308(a) states:

"TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 50 > § 2308

§ 2308. Implied warranties

(a) Restrictions on disclaimers or modifications
No supplier may disclaim or modify (except as provided in subsection (b) of
this section) any implied warranty to a consumer with respect to such
consumer product if

(1) such supplier makes any written warranty to the consumer with respect
to such consumer Product, or

(2) at the time of sale, or within 90 days thereafter, such supplier enters
into a service contract with the consumer which applies to such consumer
product."

and the reference to (b) which says:

"(b) Limitation on duration
For purposes of this chapter (other than section 2304 (a)(2) of this
title), implied warranties may be limited in duration to the duration of a
written warranty of reasonable duration, if such limitation is conscionable
and is set forth in clear and unmistakable language and prominently
displayed on the face of the warranty."

Total disclaiming of implied warranties, as you can plainly read, is not
permitted just because the merchant and manufacturer want them to be. This
is Federal Law. What amazes me is how easy it is to read....(c;

--
Larry
August 9, 2005 11:02:31 AM

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

"Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in
news:EYidnXt55O5nbGrfRVn-uw@adelphia.com:

> "Bluetooth
> Bluetooth is a low bandwidth, wireless networking technology designed
> primarily to replace cables for communication between personal
> computing and communication devices. It is intended to be used for
> both voice and data communications. With Bluetooth, you can make
> hands-free calls virtually whenever and wherever you want. To use
> Bluetooth technology, you'll need a Bluetooth-capable device and
> headset. "
>
>

They even admit it. The communications between the phone and personal
computer devices is what is at issue, right?...(c;

--
Larry
August 9, 2005 11:04:05 AM

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

"Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in news:EYidnXt55O5nbGrfRVn-uw@adelphia.com:

> I don't see any claims of full functionality there.
>
> "Does Verizon Wireless offer any Bluetooth-compatible devices?
>
>

As I said before, the word "Bluetooth" means it will communicate with
Bluetooth devices. It doesn't. It's crippled. Even Motorola says it's
crippled. What do you think the jurist, not the company or some company
hack, will say? That's the only issue.

--
Larry
August 9, 2005 12:10:15 PM

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

"Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96AD432DAEEDDnoone@63.223.7.253...
> "Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in news:EYidnXt55O5nbGrfRVn-uw@adelphia.com:
>
> > Can you point out the statute that gives control of the
> > Verizon network to the consumer and not the Company?
>
> The network is not warrantied. Bluetooth has nothing to do with their
> network. Bluetooth is a communication system between Bluetooth items.
The
> lawsuit's contention is Bluetooth is a set of tools, a functionality every
> other manufacturer provides. When one buys a Bluetooth item, just the
word
> implies ("implied warranty of suitability for a particular purpose"). The
> crippling negates Bluetooth's operation. This violates the Bluetooth
> operability of the unit. The unit is then not ready for sale.
>
> It would be the same as a dishwasher. Just the word dishwasher describes
> to the consumer a functionality. If you buy a "dishwasher", there is no
> need to completely describe in every detail in a legal document what you,
> the consumer buying a "dishwasher" expects. You expect it to do certain
> functions. When you get it home, you find the company has hobbled the
> "dishwasher" and it will actually only wash glasses. It fails miserably
to
> wash plates and pots and pans...it only washes glasses. Do you think the
> jurists will side with the company that it doesn't, as a "dishwasher" need
> to wash plates and pots, too? Do we need to spell that out in legal
> details in the warranty and advertising? No. Normal prudent humans
> brought up in our society expect a "dishwasher" to wash everything used to
> prepare foods, even the grates from the gas grille. That it only washes
> glasses is unacceptable to the jurist, the only person in the suit that
> matters. The same with Bluetooth. Bluetooth isn't a communication system
> with earphones ONLY. Bluetooth communicates and is operable with all
kinds
> of Bluetooth-enabled items. Anything less is unacceptable because the
> consumer expects the word "Bluetooth" to do these things.
>
> I bet the jurist agrees....don't you? The recall will follow to have
> Bluetooth uncrippled, by force, of course.
>
Actually, you are dead wrong again. I'm aware of only a very few BT items
that are fully functional- most only use a limited number of the available
profiles. The jury would end up voting for common sense, as opposed to the
uniformed stupidity you are touting here.
August 9, 2005 12:12:41 PM

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

"Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96AD44D3DA682noone@63.223.7.253...
> "Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in
> news:EYidnXt55O5nbGrfRVn-uw@adelphia.com:
>
> > WE MAKE NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
> > INCLUDING, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, ANY IMPLIED
> > WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
> > CONCERNING YOUR SERVICE OR YOUR WIRELESS PHONE. WE CAN'T PROMISE
> > UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR-FREE SERVICE AND DON'T AUTHORIZE ANYONE TO MAKE
> > ANY WARRANTIES ON OUR BEHALF. THIS DOESN'T DEPRIVE YOU OF ANY WARRANTY
> > RIGHTS YOU MAY HAVE AGAINST ANYONE ELSE."
> >
>
> You see this on every item on every limited warranty. However, read the
> FTC manual. It means nothing. The two implied warranties are in full
> force for the length of the limited warranty, no matter what it says.
>
> 15USC50 section 2308(a) states:
>
> "TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 50 > § 2308
>
> § 2308. Implied warranties
>
> (a) Restrictions on disclaimers or modifications
> No supplier may disclaim or modify (except as provided in subsection (b)
of
> this section) any implied warranty to a consumer with respect to such
> consumer product if
>
> (1) such supplier makes any written warranty to the consumer with respect
> to such consumer Product, or
>
> (2) at the time of sale, or within 90 days thereafter, such supplier
enters
> into a service contract with the consumer which applies to such consumer
> product."
>
> and the reference to (b) which says:
>
> "(b) Limitation on duration
> For purposes of this chapter (other than section 2304 (a)(2) of this
> title), implied warranties may be limited in duration to the duration of a
> written warranty of reasonable duration, if such limitation is
conscionable
> and is set forth in clear and unmistakable language and prominently
> displayed on the face of the warranty."
>
> Total disclaiming of implied warranties, as you can plainly read, is not
> permitted just because the merchant and manufacturer want them to be.
This
> is Federal Law. What amazes me is how easy it is to read....(c;
>
But you failed to cite the area of contract law that allows for this- what I
posted came directly from the service contract, not the product warranty.
Please brush up.
August 9, 2005 12:14:14 PM

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

"Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96AD450FD7846noone@63.223.7.253...
> "Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in
> news:EYidnXt55O5nbGrfRVn-uw@adelphia.com:
>
> > "Bluetooth
> > Bluetooth is a low bandwidth, wireless networking technology designed
> > primarily to replace cables for communication between personal
> > computing and communication devices. It is intended to be used for
> > both voice and data communications. With Bluetooth, you can make
> > hands-free calls virtually whenever and wherever you want. To use
> > Bluetooth technology, you'll need a Bluetooth-capable device and
> > headset. "
> >
> >
>
> They even admit it. The communications between the phone and personal
> computer devices is what is at issue, right?...(c;
>

But nowhere is specific functionality mentioned. Assumptions made by an
uneducated consumer are not the liability of the company.
August 9, 2005 12:15:13 PM

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

"Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96AD45520CA76noone@63.223.7.253...
> "Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in news:EYidnXt55O5nbGrfRVn-uw@adelphia.com:
>
> > I don't see any claims of full functionality there.
> >
> > "Does Verizon Wireless offer any Bluetooth-compatible devices?
> >
> >
>
> As I said before, the word "Bluetooth" means it will communicate with
> Bluetooth devices. It doesn't. It's crippled. Even Motorola says it's
> crippled. What do you think the jurist, not the company or some company
> hack, will say? That's the only issue.
>
> --
What will they say? How about, "Can we please rule against this moron so I
can do something productive?"
August 9, 2005 7:40:33 PM

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

On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 08:10:15 -0600, "Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote:

>
>"Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message
>news:Xns96AD432DAEEDDnoone@63.223.7.253...
>> "Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in news:EYidnXt55O5nbGrfRVn-uw@adelphia.com:
>>
>> > Can you point out the statute that gives control of the
>> > Verizon network to the consumer and not the Company?
>>
>> The network is not warrantied. Bluetooth has nothing to do with their
>> network. Bluetooth is a communication system between Bluetooth items.
>The
>> lawsuit's contention is Bluetooth is a set of tools, a functionality every
>> other manufacturer provides. When one buys a Bluetooth item, just the
>word
>> implies ("implied warranty of suitability for a particular purpose"). The
>> crippling negates Bluetooth's operation. This violates the Bluetooth
>> operability of the unit. The unit is then not ready for sale.
>>
>> It would be the same as a dishwasher. Just the word dishwasher describes
>> to the consumer a functionality. If you buy a "dishwasher", there is no
>> need to completely describe in every detail in a legal document what you,
>> the consumer buying a "dishwasher" expects. You expect it to do certain
>> functions. When you get it home, you find the company has hobbled the
>> "dishwasher" and it will actually only wash glasses. It fails miserably
>to
>> wash plates and pots and pans...it only washes glasses. Do you think the
>> jurists will side with the company that it doesn't, as a "dishwasher" need
>> to wash plates and pots, too? Do we need to spell that out in legal
>> details in the warranty and advertising? No. Normal prudent humans
>> brought up in our society expect a "dishwasher" to wash everything used to
>> prepare foods, even the grates from the gas grille. That it only washes
>> glasses is unacceptable to the jurist, the only person in the suit that
>> matters. The same with Bluetooth. Bluetooth isn't a communication system
>> with earphones ONLY. Bluetooth communicates and is operable with all
>kinds
>> of Bluetooth-enabled items. Anything less is unacceptable because the
>> consumer expects the word "Bluetooth" to do these things.
>>
>> I bet the jurist agrees....don't you? The recall will follow to have
>> Bluetooth uncrippled, by force, of course.
>>
>Actually, you are dead wrong again. I'm aware of only a very few BT items
>that are fully functional- most only use a limited number of the available
>profiles. The jury would end up voting for common sense, as opposed to the
>uniformed stupidity you are touting here.
>


Yea, like the O.J. jury
August 9, 2005 10:57:43 PM

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

"Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in news:S86dnWjqocaWJGXfRVn-3A@adelphia.com:

> The jury would end up voting for common sense

I am sure they will.....(c;

--
Larry
August 9, 2005 11:00:01 PM

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

"Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in
news:8didnd0d3c5oJGXfRVn-hw@adelphia.com:

> But you failed to cite the area of contract law that allows for this-
> what I posted came directly from the service contract, not the product
> warranty. Please brush up.
>

All products have this statement. Service is not, yet, warrantied, as I
said before. We are not talking about service warranties. We're talking
about BLUETOOTH and PRODUCT warranties. The PRODUCT is the phone, not the
service. They sold you a PRODUCT, the phone. It IS, whether the big
elephant likes it or not, fully covered by the Magnusson-Moss Warranty
Protection Act, if you bought the phone from the big elephant.

--
Larry
August 9, 2005 11:01:36 PM

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

"Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in news:8didndwd3c5qJGXfRVn-hw@adelphia.com:

> But nowhere is specific functionality mentioned. Assumptions made by an
> uneducated consumer are not the liability of the company.
>

Verizon is as liable for the functionality the jury finds "normal" on the
phone as much as WalMart is on the toaster and stereo. The "merchant" is
the company representative to the consumer, whether they like it or not.
Read the manual....

--
Larry
August 10, 2005 3:18:23 AM

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

"Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in
news:ne-dnXPa5K5TyGTfRVn-2Q@adelphia.com:

> So now you've made another incorrect assumption- I have absolutely no
> connection to Verizon- never been a user, never worked for them, never
> owned stock, never worked as an agent or contractor of theirs. The
> fact that you are so quick to jump to conclusions only makes my
> argument stronger- the use of the word Bluetooth does not
> automatically mean full BT functionality. I'm still waiting for you or
> one of your 'knowledgable" cohorts to point to a bluetooth device that
> uses all BT profiles. Of course, it will never happen.
>
>

It's not me that's the judge. I'm sure the courts will straighten it all
out to the enrichment of the attorney's bank account, opening up new
avenues of Bluetooth functionality in the process...(c;

--
Larry
August 10, 2005 12:58:45 PM

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

"Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96ADE7FCE439Enoone@63.223.7.253...
> "Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in
> news:ne-dnXPa5K5TyGTfRVn-2Q@adelphia.com:
>
> > So now you've made another incorrect assumption- I have absolutely no
> > connection to Verizon- never been a user, never worked for them, never
> > owned stock, never worked as an agent or contractor of theirs. The
> > fact that you are so quick to jump to conclusions only makes my
> > argument stronger- the use of the word Bluetooth does not
> > automatically mean full BT functionality. I'm still waiting for you or
> > one of your 'knowledgable" cohorts to point to a bluetooth device that
> > uses all BT profiles. Of course, it will never happen.
> >
> >
>
> It's not me that's the judge. I'm sure the courts will straighten it all
> out to the enrichment of the attorney's bank account, opening up new
> avenues of Bluetooth functionality in the process...(c;
>
Please explain how anything you just wrote was in response to anything you
were replying to- At no point in my post do I mention anything about
lawsuits. I pointed out that you have again jumped to conclusions about
someone's reason for disagreeing withyou and asked for information that you
apparently are not in possession of, which makes everything you posted in
this thread highly suspect. Could it be that you are hesitant to publicly
answer the question about full BT functionality not being available in any
product because it shows that every BT product is 'crippled' to some extent
and therefore plays to Verizon's favor? Promoting frivolous lawsuits is not
the answer- that is usually a sign of a weak, uneducated, uninformed and
migguided personality (unless the situation involves health or safety
issues). Suing someone because you don't like their available service
options is juvenile.
August 10, 2005 4:22:29 PM

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

"Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in
news:avOdna7P5LdGiGffRVn-gg@adelphia.com:

> Please explain how anything you just wrote was in response to anything
> you were replying to- At no point in my post do I mention anything
> about lawsuits. I pointed out that you have again jumped to
> conclusions about someone's reason for disagreeing withyou and asked
> for information that you apparently are not in possession of, which
> makes everything you posted in this thread highly suspect. Could it
> be that you are hesitant to publicly answer the question about full BT
> functionality not being available in any product because it shows that
> every BT product is 'crippled' to some extent and therefore plays to
> Verizon's favor? Promoting frivolous lawsuits is not the answer- that
> is usually a sign of a weak, uneducated, uninformed and migguided
> personality (unless the situation involves health or safety issues).
> Suing someone because you don't like their available service options
> is juvenile.
>
>
>

You were jumping on me for my opinion and I was telling you my opinion
means nothing as it's up to the judge and jury to decide the lawsuit and
what will or will not Bluetooth after the settlement. I have nothing to do
with "frivolous lawsuits", no more than the newspaper reporter who writes
it up for your local rag.

--
Larry
August 10, 2005 4:22:30 PM

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

"Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96AE7EA966388noone@63.223.7.253...
>
> You were jumping on me for my opinion and I was telling you my opinion
> means nothing as it's up to the judge and jury to decide the lawsuit and
> what will or will not Bluetooth after the settlement. I have nothing to
do
> with "frivolous lawsuits", no more than the newspaper reporter who writes
> it up for your local rag.

And if you are either unable or unwilling to provide facts to back up your
opinion when they are requested, that would seem to indicate that your
opinion is based in fantasy, not fact. You were presented with documented
facts and you chose to ignore them. When specific questions were asked that
could provide answers that bolster your claims, you chose to ignore them as
well. Both actions give the normal rational person the impression that you
avoid them because it blows your entire opinion out of the water. And I am
jumping on your opinion- it was made in a public forum, and not presented as
an opinion, but as fact. If you don't want this to occur in the future, I
would recommend not stating opinion in public.

I've decided to take your opinion and apply it to situations in my own life:

I own a caller ID phone that is crippled by my landline company- the only
way I can get a number to display is to pay extra. Based on the arguments
made by you and others in this thread, I should sue because they are not
allowing me to utilize all functionality of the equipment without paying
extra.

The A/B switch on my cable box is not functional- it was crippled by my
cable company. According to the opinions in this thread, I should file a
lawsuit due to the modification of equipment by the service provider to
limit functionality.

The last computer system I bought came with a 56k modem that did not work
when I plugged it into my phone line. Nobody ever specifically told me that
I would have to pay extra to use the modem. The landline company crippled
my modem by not giving me free access to the internet.

I recently rented a truck to move some stuff. My ability to travel faster
than 65 mph was crippled by the rental company. Based on this thread, I
shoul dbe filing suit claiming that their intention to protect their product
from potential abuse and damage is outweighed by my need to go faster than
65 mph

Anybody want to guess how any of these potential lawsuits might go?
Remember- the arguments I am using in these situations come directly from
this thread. All four would get laughed out of court- so will the BT suit.
Last time I checked, the courts were not empowered to force private
companies to add additional products or services to their business.
Anonymous
August 10, 2005 5:03:56 PM

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

In article <y5udnds3-O8Jr2ffRVn-3A@adelphia.com>,
"Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote:

> I own a caller ID phone that is crippled by my landline company- the
> only way I can get a number to display is to pay extra. Based on the
> arguments made by you and others in this thread, I should sue because
> they are not allowing me to utilize all functionality of the
> equipment without paying extra.

Not at all. The landline company did not do anything to the phone. It
simply told you that if you want caller ID service you have to pay for
it. Further, the phone's marketing material clearly says that caller ID
service is required for the phone's caller ID function to operate.

In the case of the V710, certain blue tooth functionality of the phone
was crippled in the phone itself by the supplier of the phone (or by the
manufacturer at the request of the supplier).

> The A/B switch on my cable box is not functional- it was crippled by
> my cable company. According to the opinions in this thread, I should
> file a lawsuit due to the modification of equipment by the service
> provider to limit functionality.

Did the cable company advertise or market the box as having that A/B
function?

> The last computer system I bought came with a 56k modem that did not
> work when I plugged it into my phone line. Nobody ever specifically
> told me that I would have to pay extra to use the modem. The
> landline company crippled my modem by not giving me free access to
> the internet.

Huh? I think that it is more your perception of how things are supposed
to work. All you need is a phone number of an ISP that you paid to let
you access the number.

> I recently rented a truck to move some stuff. My ability to travel
> faster than 65 mph was crippled by the rental company. Based on this
> thread, I shoul dbe filing suit claiming that their intention to
> protect their product from potential abuse and damage is outweighed
> by my need to go faster than 65 mph

Did they put a governor on the engine? Did they disclose that fact
before you rented the truck?

Your examples are not analogous at all to the blue tooth suit.

> Anybody want to guess how any of these potential lawsuits might go?
> Remember- the arguments I am using in these situations come directly
> from this thread.

I haven't seen anything in the thread relating to your examples.

> Last time I checked, the courts were not empowered to force private
> companies to add additional products or services to their business.

There are laws concerning implied fitness for use. And those are the
laws that I think the suit will rest on.

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 12:33:07 AM

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

Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <y5udnds3-O8Jr2ffRVn-3A@adelphia.com>,
> "Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
> In the case of the V710, certain blue tooth functionality
> of the phone was crippled in the phone itself by the
> supplier of the phone (or by the manufacturer at the
> request of the supplier).

What it hinges on is what functionality is required to say
you have Bluetooth. Nothing that I know of has the full
Bluetooth spec with all the profiles. Does the lawsuit
cover any and every device that is advertised as having
Bluetooth?

> Did the cable company advertise or market the box as
> having that A/B function?

Again, see above. What did VZW advertise? "bluetooth"?
What does that mean? How many profiles and applications
do you have to support to make the claim that something
has bluetooth? Is it the norm to individually list the portion
of the spec and the particular applications available when
advertising that a device has bluetooth?

>
> Your examples are not analogous at all to the blue tooth
> suit.

This was kind of true. They were not the best examples.

>> Anybody want to guess how any of these potential
>> lawsuits might go?

Yes. They won't go anywhere. The result will be to tie
up the courts for some amount of time and a bunch of
lawyers will get paid large sums of money for a good
amount of time.

> I haven't seen anything in the thread relating to your
> examples.

> There are laws concerning implied fitness for use. And
> those are the laws that I think the suit will rest on.

I think this is really out in left field. If anything it will
rest on claims of false advertising. "fitness for use"...
lol. It's a cell phone.

-Quick
August 11, 2005 1:15:29 AM

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

"Michelle Steiner" <michelle@michelle.org> wrote in message
news:michelle-F5CADD.13035610082005@news.west.cox.net...
> In article <y5udnds3-O8Jr2ffRVn-3A@adelphia.com>,
> "Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
> > I own a caller ID phone that is crippled by my landline company- the
> > only way I can get a number to display is to pay extra. Based on the
> > arguments made by you and others in this thread, I should sue because
> > they are not allowing me to utilize all functionality of the
> > equipment without paying extra.
>
> Not at all. The landline company did not do anything to the phone. It
> simply told you that if you want caller ID service you have to pay for
> it. Further, the phone's marketing material clearly says that caller ID
> service is required for the phone's caller ID function to operate.

They did cripple it by not allowing it to work right out of the box- the
functionality is in the unit but not allowed to work on the network. Does
that complaint sound familiar to this thread?

>
> In the case of the V710, certain blue tooth functionality of the phone
> was crippled in the phone itself by the supplier of the phone (or by the
> manufacturer at the request of the supplier).
>
> > The A/B switch on my cable box is not functional- it was crippled by
> > my cable company. According to the opinions in this thread, I should
> > file a lawsuit due to the modification of equipment by the service
> > provider to limit functionality.
>
> Did the cable company advertise or market the box as having that A/B
> function?

As much as Verizon advertises the BT functions that aren't available on the
phone.


>
> > The last computer system I bought came with a 56k modem that did not
> > work when I plugged it into my phone line. Nobody ever specifically
> > told me that I would have to pay extra to use the modem. The
> > landline company crippled my modem by not giving me free access to
> > the internet.
>
> Huh? I think that it is more your perception of how things are supposed
> to work. All you need is a phone number of an ISP that you paid to let
> you access the number.

But the unit does not function completely when connected to the phone
network.

>
> > I recently rented a truck to move some stuff. My ability to travel
> > faster than 65 mph was crippled by the rental company. Based on this
> > thread, I shoul dbe filing suit claiming that their intention to
> > protect their product from potential abuse and damage is outweighed
> > by my need to go faster than 65 mph
>
> Did they put a governor on the engine? Did they disclose that fact
> before you rented the truck?

The salesperson might have said something about it, but then again they may
not have. But the speedometer went all the way to 100 mph, which must mean
it goes that fast.


>
> Your examples are not analogous at all to the blue tooth suit.

Actually, they are analogous. All are based on a customer's reaction to
limited functionality and use of a product with an incorrect expectation up
front.


>
> > Anybody want to guess how any of these potential lawsuits might go?
> > Remember- the arguments I am using in these situations come directly
> > from this thread.
>
> I haven't seen anything in the thread relating to your examples.

Sure you have- this thread screams of, "It doesn't work like I want it to."

>
> > Last time I checked, the courts were not empowered to force private
> > companies to add additional products or services to their business.
>
> There are laws concerning implied fitness for use. And those are the
> laws that I think the suit will rest on.
>
> --
And as a cellphone, it meets all guidelines for implied fitness and VZW
would win in minutes. That is what they sell service for- any expectation
of services other than those provided over the network would be hard to
demand, even form the courts. And seeing that nobody has yet to post a
single example of a consumer product with full BT functionality, the case is
even harder to win. But there is a reason for this- one doesn't exist.
This means that the omission of BT profiles is the norm, not the exception.
August 11, 2005 1:18:14 AM

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

"Quick" <quick7135-news@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7wtKe.4038$zr1.644@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> Michelle Steiner wrote:>
> >
> > Your examples are not analogous at all to the blue tooth
> > suit.
>
> This was kind of true. They were not the best examples.

Agreed- I was actually trying to pull in the obvious and absurd to show how
the complaints of this thread could easily be stretched to include just
about anything.

>
> >> Anybody want to guess how any of these potential
> >> lawsuits might go?
>
> Yes. They won't go anywhere. The result will be to tie
> up the courts for some amount of time and a bunch of
> lawyers will get paid large sums of money for a good
> amount of time.

Exactly- as will the BT suit.

>
> > I haven't seen anything in the thread relating to your
> > examples.
>
> > There are laws concerning implied fitness for use. And
> > those are the laws that I think the suit will rest on.
>
> I think this is really out in left field. If anything it will
> rest on claims of false advertising. "fitness for use"...
> lol. It's a cell phone.
>
Exactly.
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 1:03:49 PM

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

In article <AsmdnSbc2poQX2ffRVn-rw@adelphia.com>,
"Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote:

> > Not at all. The landline company did not do anything to the phone.
> > It simply told you that if you want caller ID service you have to
> > pay for it. Further, the phone's marketing material clearly says
> > that caller ID service is required for the phone's caller ID
> > function to operate.
>
> They did cripple it by not allowing it to work right out of the box-
> the functionality is in the unit but not allowed to work on the
> network. Does that complaint sound familiar to this thread?

They didn't do anything to the phone. The phone is not crippled. If
you subscribe to caller ID, the phone will show the caller ID without
any changes being made to the phone.

The same cannot be said about the bluetooth functionality of the V710.

> > Did the cable company advertise or market the box as having that
> > A/B function?
>
> As much as Verizon advertises the BT functions that aren't available
> on the phone.

Verizon advertises that the phone is BT capable. Are you saying that
the cable company advertises that the box is A/B capable?

> > Huh? I think that it is more your perception of how things are
> > supposed to work. All you need is a phone number of an ISP that
> > you paid to let you access the number.
>
> But the unit does not function completely when connected to the phone
> network.

Sure it does. The modem dials the correct telephone number, and you are
connected to the internet.

> > Did they put a governor on the engine? Did they disclose that fact
> > before you rented the truck?
>
> The salesperson might have said something about it, but then again
> they may not have. But the speedometer went all the way to 100 mph,
> which must mean it goes that fast.

Oh, I see. You are joking around, and trying to interject some humor
into the discussion. I'll get into the game too.

I'm going to sue General Motors because my Saturn does not have rings
and a methane atmosphere. And I'm going to sue Ford because my Mercury
doesn't have wings on its wheels, and can't fly. And I'm going to sue
Apple Computer because their computers don't bear fruit no matter how
much water, sunlight, and fertilizer it they get. And I'm going to sue
Cox Cable because (well, nevermind; that's getting too personal).

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
August 11, 2005 2:19:03 PM

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

"Michelle Steiner" <michelle@michelle.org> wrote in message
news:michelle-183085.09034911082005@news.west.cox.net...
> In article <AsmdnSbc2poQX2ffRVn-rw@adelphia.com>,
> "Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote:

> >
> > The salesperson might have said something about it, but then again
> > they may not have. But the speedometer went all the way to 100 mph,
> > which must mean it goes that fast.
>
> Oh, I see. You are joking around, and trying to interject some humor
> into the discussion. I'll get into the game too.
>

Not necessarily joking around, but certainly not being totally serious. As
you mentioned, VZW advertises the phones as BT capable- nowhere do they
advertise BT functions that the phone is not programmed to provide. Because
there is NO consumer product that offers full BT functionality, anybody
blindly expecting "BT capable" to mean "full BT functionality" would be
setting an unrealistic expectation. Verizon clearly states in more than one
place the BT profiles it supports- this whole thing smells like a group of
people that didn't research at all and then found out that the product they
bought performed exactly as described but not as they expected. I don't
have much sympathy for it and my examples were fairly outrageous extensions
of the mindset. As you tried to point out, common sense was required to
understand the true nature of the non-problem. The same would apply here.
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 5:57:12 PM

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

In article <XfGdnZ2dnZ3n_AqinZ2dnbHnZt-dnZ2dRVn-yp2dnZ0@adelphia.com>,
"Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote:

> > Oh, I see. You are joking around, and trying to interject some
> > humor into the discussion. I'll get into the game too.
>
> Not necessarily joking around, but certainly not being totally
> serious.

Not being serious at all.

> As you mentioned, VZW advertises the phones as BT capable- nowhere do
> they advertise BT functions that the phone is not programmed to
> provide.

> As you mentioned, VZW advertises the phones as BT capable- nowhere do
> they advertise BT functions that the phone is not programmed to
> provide. Because there is NO consumer product that offers full BT
> functionality, anybody blindly expecting "BT capable" to mean "full
> BT functionality" would be setting an unrealistic expectation.

"Oh, we didn't specifically say that it will do a function that is
considered normal for this type of phone and that all of our competitors
provide, so it's your fault for assuming that we didn't cripple the
phone."

The Verizon Wireless web site does have a chart now that indicates which
models of cars it can transfer the phone book to. There are three
indicators for each make and/or model of car: Yes, No, and N/A. The
N/A indicator means that the car does not have the functionality to
transfer phone books from the phones. A few of the cars have "Yes," so
the question arises as to why it can't be done with all cars that have
the capability.

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
August 11, 2005 7:44:26 PM

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

"Michelle Steiner" <michelle@michelle.org> wrote in message
news:michelle-4A7C3A.13571211082005@news.west.cox.net...
> In article <XfGdnZ2dnZ3n_AqinZ2dnbHnZt-dnZ2dRVn-yp2dnZ0@adelphia.com>,
> "Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
> > > Oh, I see. You are joking around, and trying to interject some
> > > humor into the discussion. I'll get into the game too.
> >
> > Not necessarily joking around, but certainly not being totally
> > serious.
>
> Not being serious at all.

Well, nobody should take themselves too seriously- it demonstrates an
artificial and false aura of importance.

>
> > As you mentioned, VZW advertises the phones as BT capable- nowhere do
> > they advertise BT functions that the phone is not programmed to
> > provide.
>
> > As you mentioned, VZW advertises the phones as BT capable- nowhere do
> > they advertise BT functions that the phone is not programmed to
> > provide. Because there is NO consumer product that offers full BT
> > functionality, anybody blindly expecting "BT capable" to mean "full
> > BT functionality" would be setting an unrealistic expectation.
>
> "Oh, we didn't specifically say that it will do a function that is
> considered normal for this type of phone and that all of our competitors
> provide, so it's your fault for assuming that we didn't cripple the
> phone."

The stupidity, pomposity, laziness or lack of effort exhibited by a customer
is neither the responsibility or liability of the company at hand. And yes
(before you attempt to flame)- this is the same attitude that I take as a
consumer. I've never blamed a company for something that could have been
prevented by me, whether by researching further, actually knowing what I was
purchasing or applying common sense. I've also had very few ocassions where
I've had to kick myself because I goofed. And I've never understood those
who don't accept responsiblity for their own inactions- even my nine year
old has more responsibility than that. The hand-holding required is
pathetic, but not as bad as the lack of intelligence exhibited by many
consumers.

>
> The Verizon Wireless web site does have a chart now that indicates which
> models of cars it can transfer the phone book to. There are three
> indicators for each make and/or model of car: Yes, No, and N/A. The
> N/A indicator means that the car does not have the functionality to
> transfer phone books from the phones. A few of the cars have "Yes," so
> the question arises as to why it can't be done with all cars that have
> the capability.

Different file formats? Different OS? Incompatible address book
applications? Could be a bunch of things, all of which don't point to some
great corporate conspiracy.
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 7:44:27 PM

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

In article <2fKdnSy9B9HtW2bfRVn-2w@adelphia.com>,
"Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote:

> > The Verizon Wireless web site does have a chart now that indicates
> > which models of cars it can transfer the phone book to. There are
> > three indicators for each make and/or model of car: Yes, No, and
> > N/A. The N/A indicator means that the car does not have the
> > functionality to transfer phone books from the phones. A few of
> > the cars have "Yes," so the question arises as to why it can't be
> > done with all cars that have the capability.
>
> Different file formats? Different OS? Incompatible address book
> applications? Could be a bunch of things, all of which don't point
> to some great corporate conspiracy.

How about deliberate crippling of functionality in an attempt to screw
the customer?

I'm sticking with Verizon because its the only wireless provider with
even halfway decent coverage at my home, and because I find using a BT
headset to be more convenient than using the BT connection to my car.
But Verizon Wireless's business practices are reprehensible. If another
provider ever puts up a cell tower that gives me better, or even equal,
coverage, I'll switch as soon as economically feasible.

If you wish to worship at the feet of big business and consider whatever
they do to the consumer to be perfectly OK, that's your prerogative.

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
August 11, 2005 8:56:41 PM

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

"Michelle Steiner" <michelle@michelle.org> wrote in message
news:michelle-885946.15404311082005@news.west.cox.net...
> In article <2fKdnSy9B9HtW2bfRVn-2w@adelphia.com>,
> "Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
> > > The Verizon Wireless web site does have a chart now that indicates
> > > which models of cars it can transfer the phone book to. There are
> > > three indicators for each make and/or model of car: Yes, No, and
> > > N/A. The N/A indicator means that the car does not have the
> > > functionality to transfer phone books from the phones. A few of
> > > the cars have "Yes," so the question arises as to why it can't be
> > > done with all cars that have the capability.
> >
> > Different file formats? Different OS? Incompatible address book
> > applications? Could be a bunch of things, all of which don't point
> > to some great corporate conspiracy.
>
> How about deliberate crippling of functionality in an attempt to screw
> the customer?

So you are saying corporate conspiracy. I'm not surprised- the tone of your
posts already indicates a unrealistic expectation of private business. You
seem to have them confused with public service organizations, which is a
rather pollyannish approach to take. BTW- if they were attempting to screw
the customer, the chart wouldn't exist.

>
> I'm sticking with Verizon because its the only wireless provider with
> even halfway decent coverage at my home, and because I find using a BT
> headset to be more convenient than using the BT connection to my car.
> But Verizon Wireless's business practices are reprehensible. If another
> provider ever puts up a cell tower that gives me better, or even equal,
> coverage, I'll switch as soon as economically feasible.

Oh, yes- the grass is always greener. You might want to check the last six
months of Usenet cellular groups- it would appear that they are all the
same. They all actually try to turn a profit and don't believe in the
welfare approach to distribute their services. Piss and moan all you want-
it will continue to be this way for a lot longer than you'll be around.

>
> If you wish to worship at the feet of big business and consider whatever
> they do to the consumer to be perfectly OK, that's your prerogative.
>

Where did I say that? You are now showing poor reading comprehension.
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 9:50:43 PM

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

In article <0YKdnUjh0LfBSmbfRVn-2w@adelphia.com>,
"Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote:

> > How about deliberate crippling of functionality in an attempt to
> > screw the customer?
>
> So you are saying corporate conspiracy.

It takes two or more parties to conspire; there is only one corporation
involved. Therefore, there is no conspiracy.

> I'm not surprised- the tone of your posts already indicates a
> unrealistic expectation of private business. You seem to have them
> confused with public service organizations, which is a rather
> pollyannish approach to take.

Your perception is not reality.

> Oh, yes- the grass is always greener. You might want to check the
> last six months of Usenet cellular groups- it would appear that they
> are all the same.

No, they aren't all the same. The other services don't cripple their
bluetooth phones; they allow the phones to transfer their phone books to
automobiles equipped for that function.

> > If you wish to worship at the feet of big business and consider
> > whatever they do to the consumer to be perfectly OK, that's your
> > prerogative.
>
> Where did I say that? You are now showing poor reading
> comprehension.

Your acceptance and defense of Verizon shows it.

Businesses love people like you; you not only accept whatever they do,
but you defend them for doing it.

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 10:30:44 PM

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

Scott wrote:
> "Michelle Steiner" <michelle@michelle.org> wrote in
> message
> news:michelle-183085.09034911082005@news.west.cox.net...
>> In article <AsmdnSbc2poQX2ffRVn-rw@adelphia.com>,
>> "Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> The salesperson might have said something about it, but
>>> then again they may not have. But the speedometer went
>>> all the way to 100 mph, which must mean it goes that
>>> fast.
>>
>> Oh, I see. You are joking around, and trying to
>> interject some humor into the discussion. I'll get into
>> the game too.
>>
>
> Not necessarily joking around, but certainly not being
> totally serious. As you mentioned, VZW advertises the
> phones as BT capable- nowhere do they advertise BT
> functions that the phone is not programmed to provide.
> Because there is NO consumer product that offers full BT
> functionality, anybody blindly expecting "BT capable" to
> mean "full BT functionality" would be setting an
> unrealistic expectation. Verizon clearly states in more
> than one place the BT profiles it supports- this whole
> thing smells like a group of people that didn't research
> at all and then found out that the product they bought
> performed exactly as described but not as they expected.
> I don't have much sympathy for it and my examples were
> fairly outrageous extensions of the mindset. As you
> tried to point out, common sense was required to
> understand the true nature of the non-problem. The same
> would apply here.

I suspect that simply having the RF and line protocol to
link to another bluetooth device would be enough to
say "bluetooth capable" with respect to false advertising
claims. Having it work for a bluetooth headset on a cell
phone would be a slam dunk.

-Quick
!