Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Human body shields bluetooth connection between cellular a..

Last response: in Technologies
Share
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 1:56:59 PM

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

I have just bought a bluetooth headset ("MSI BTHS",
http://www.msicomputer.co.uk/Products.aspx?product_id=7...)
and tested it with my Nokia 6310i. It works generally not bad but my
conversational partner recognized that when I walk through the room
sometimes my voice sounds choppy. This seems to be when my head is
between the headset and the cellular. The distance is not more than 3 or
4 metres. Moving my ear with the headset towards the cellular the sound
becomes clear again. Is that normal? Or are there bluetooth headsets
which work without such trouble through my body when I walk through the
room turning around? Would you recommend alternatives (what about "Jabra
BT-250")?
Thanks for answers/advice!

Karlo
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 6:06:26 PM

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

"Karlo Janos" <news3.20.beamer2@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
news:D 35dgb$diq$1@domitilla.aioe.org...
>I have just bought a bluetooth headset ("MSI BTHS",
>http://www.msicomputer.co.uk/Products.aspx?product_id=7...) and
>tested it with my Nokia 6310i. It works generally not bad but my
>conversational partner recognized that when I walk through the room
>sometimes my voice sounds choppy. This seems to be when my head is between
>the headset and the cellular. The distance is not more than 3 or 4 metres.
>Moving my ear with the headset towards the cellular the sound becomes clear
>again. Is that normal? Or are there bluetooth headsets which work without
>such trouble through my body when I walk through the room turning around?
>Would you recommend alternatives (what about "Jabra BT-250")?
> Thanks for answers/advice!
>
> Karlo

Mate, the BT system works at 2.4Ghz, same as microwave ovens.
This frequency is absorbed by water molecules, causing them to vibrate.
http://home.howstuffworks.com/microwave1.htm

So, as your head is basically water, fats & sugars, it absorbs the radio
waves, reducing reception.
DON'T PANIC!! Microwave ovens run at 800 - 1000watts.
BT headsets run at 0.001watts - you ain't going to cook your head!
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 7:26:48 PM

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

Karlo Janos <news3.20.beamer2@spamgourmet.com> wrote:

>I have just bought a bluetooth headset ("MSI BTHS",
>http://www.msicomputer.co.uk/Products.aspx?product_id=7...)
>and tested it with my Nokia 6310i. It works generally not bad but my
>conversational partner recognized that when I walk through the room
>sometimes my voice sounds choppy. This seems to be when my head is
>between the headset and the cellular. The distance is not more than 3 or
>4 metres. Moving my ear with the headset towards the cellular the sound
>becomes clear again. Is that normal? Or are there bluetooth headsets
>which work without such trouble through my body when I walk through the
>room turning around? Would you recommend alternatives (what about "Jabra
>BT-250")?
>Thanks for answers/advice!
>
>Karlo

The instructions with the BT-250 states that you should have the
headset and the phone on the same side of the body to avoid problems.

--
Jim Rusling
Partially Retired
Mustang, OK
http://www.rusling.org
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 10:27:19 PM

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

> Mate, the BT system works at 2.4Ghz, same as microwave ovens.
> This frequency is absorbed by water molecules, causing them to vibrate.
> http://home.howstuffworks.com/microwave1.htm
>
> So, as your head is basically water, fats & sugars, it absorbs the radio
> waves, reducing reception.
> DON'T PANIC!! Microwave ovens run at 800 - 1000watts.
> BT headsets run at 0.001watts - you ain't going to cook your head!

Nice explanation, but not the answer to my question(s). I do not doubt
about the fact that water molecules are absorbing electromagnetic waves
of this frequency. I did not ask _why_ the sound becomes choppy, but if
there are alternatives or possibilities to get rid of that.
So, are there any bluetooth headsets that can deal with this "shielding
problem"?
Thanks!

Karlo
Anonymous
April 8, 2005 11:41:11 PM

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

Thus spake Karlo Janos:
>> Mate, the BT system works at 2.4Ghz, same as microwave ovens.
>> This frequency is absorbed by water molecules, causing them to
>> vibrate. http://home.howstuffworks.com/microwave1.htm
>>
>> So, as your head is basically water, fats & sugars, it absorbs the
>> radio waves, reducing reception.
>> DON'T PANIC!! Microwave ovens run at 800 - 1000watts.
>> BT headsets run at 0.001watts - you ain't going to cook your head!
>
> Nice explanation, but not the answer to my question(s). I do not doubt
> about the fact that water molecules are absorbing electromagnetic
> waves of this frequency. I did not ask _why_ the sound becomes
> choppy, but if there are alternatives or possibilities to get rid of
> that. So, are there any bluetooth headsets that can deal with this
> "shielding problem"?
> Thanks!
>
> Karlo

Sounds fairly normal to me. If you had this problem with the devices under
~1m apart, I'd worry. You may find that either device just ain't that
brilliant at streaming audio & newer BT devices generally work better. My
2nd generation Ericsson HBH-15 suffered from break-up to the point of being
fairly useless with both a T39 & a T610. I concluded that this early
implementation of a BT headset was just poor until I paired it with my
K700i - works wonderfully now. I'd personally grab the phone then keep it
near me during use. Audio is circuit switched data & not the less
time-critical packet switched type, so less chance for error
correction/retransmission to cleanup real-time low latency streamed audio as
it can with file transfers.

--
Thank people in advance? Thanking or cursing them afterwards at least
gives some feedback!
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 9:44:01 PM

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

> Sounds fairly normal to me. If you had this problem with the devices under
> ~1m apart, I'd worry.

Fine. Then I am pleased to own a normally working headset. :-)
Thanks!

Karlo
Anonymous
April 12, 2005 9:46:08 PM

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

> The instructions with the BT-250 states that you should have the
> headset and the phone on the same side of the body to avoid problems.

Well, that is what they recommend. But how is it in practice? Does the
"Jabra BT-250" shielded by your head show the choppy sound to your
conversational partner?
Thanks!

Karlo
Anonymous
April 13, 2005 12:57:25 AM

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

Karlo Janos <news3.20.beamer2@spamgourmet.com> wrote:

>> The instructions with the BT-250 states that you should have the
>> headset and the phone on the same side of the body to avoid problems.
>
>Well, that is what they recommend. But how is it in practice? Does the
>"Jabra BT-250" shielded by your head show the choppy sound to your
>conversational partner?
>Thanks!
>
>Karlo

I wear the phone in an enclosed leather case designed for a camera on
the front of my left hip and wear the BT-250 on my right ear. Ever
once in a while I will get some static, but it may be coming from
something else. I have not noticed any particular position that
causes the static. I have been very happy with this configuration. I
have noticed that I have some connection problems when I have my feet
propped up and have my arm covering the phone.

--
Jim Rusling
Partially Retired
Mustang, OK
http://www.rusling.org
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 10:32:45 PM

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

Thus spake Karlo Janos:
>> Sounds fairly normal to me. If you had this problem with the devices
>> under ~1m apart, I'd worry.
>
> Fine. Then I am pleased to own a normally working headset. :-)
> Thanks!
>
> Karlo

As an aside: BT, IMO if no one else's, came out too late & has serious
question marks regarding its survival. WiFi in some guise will get to the
point where its chipsets will both shrink & be cheap enough to fit into many
more phones than it does now. Fortunately for BT, WiFi chipsets will
probably not shrink enough to fit into wireless headsets without short
recharge cycles. If this scenario proves to be the case, BT's only reason to
exist would be for wireless headsets & a few other uses where the power
consumption of future WiFi solutions may still not match BT. Very few camera
makers have bothered with BT but are looking to WiFi - a missed opportunity
even when cameraphones get good enough to take out the bottom end of the
digicam market.

So BT vendors need to get their collective act together & make sure BT works
well with latency sensitive streamed data such as duplex audio or face
either extinction or a limited market. As someone working in electronics,
I've ruefully noted that proprietary standards often work far better than
those drawn up by standards bodies. The whole point of having standards is
interoperability & when this is aspect is so weak, single vendor products
seem far more attractive than they should. With the state of current IEEE
WiFi wrangles, there is still hope for BT's survival.

End vent>

--
I would prefer to be removed by a dictator than suffer a slow death by
committee!
Anonymous
April 14, 2005 10:32:46 PM

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

Paul Busby wrote:

> Thus spake Karlo Janos:
>>> Sounds fairly normal to me. If you had this problem with the devices
>>> under ~1m apart, I'd worry.
>>
>> Fine. Then I am pleased to own a normally working headset. :-)
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Karlo
>
> As an aside: BT, IMO if no one else's, came out too late & has serious
> question marks regarding its survival. WiFi in some guise will get to the
> point where its chipsets will both shrink & be cheap enough to fit into
> many more phones than it does now. Fortunately for BT, WiFi chipsets will
> probably not shrink enough to fit into wireless headsets without short
> recharge cycles. If this scenario proves to be the case, BT's only reason
> to exist would be for wireless headsets & a few other uses where the power
> consumption of future WiFi solutions may still not match BT. Very few
> camera makers have bothered with BT but are looking to WiFi - a missed
> opportunity even when cameraphones get good enough to take out the bottom
> end of the digicam market.
>
> So BT vendors need to get their collective act together & make sure BT
> works well with latency sensitive streamed data such as duplex audio or
> face either extinction or a limited market. As someone working in
> electronics, I've ruefully noted that proprietary standards often work far
> better than those drawn up by standards bodies. The whole point of having
> standards is interoperability & when this is aspect is so weak, single
> vendor products seem far more attractive than they should. With the state
> of current IEEE WiFi wrangles, there is still hope for BT's survival.

Bluetooth is not in competition with wifi, any more that USB is in
competition with Ethernet. They're designed for different purposes. A
wifi headset makes as much sense as an Ethernet headset.
>
> End vent>
>

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 3:21:24 AM

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

Thus spake J. Clarke:
> Paul Busby wrote:
>
>> Thus spake Karlo Janos:
>>>> Sounds fairly normal to me. If you had this problem with the
>>>> devices under ~1m apart, I'd worry.
>>>
>>> Fine. Then I am pleased to own a normally working headset. :-)
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> Karlo
>>
>> As an aside: BT, IMO if no one else's, came out too late & has
>> serious question marks regarding its survival. WiFi in some guise
>> will get to the point where its chipsets will both shrink & be cheap
>> enough to fit into many more phones than it does now. Fortunately
>> for BT, WiFi chipsets will probably not shrink enough to fit into
>> wireless headsets without short recharge cycles. If this scenario
>> proves to be the case, BT's only reason to exist would be for
>> wireless headsets & a few other uses where the power consumption of
>> future WiFi solutions may still not match BT. Very few camera makers
>> have bothered with BT but are looking to WiFi - a missed opportunity
>> even when cameraphones get good enough to take out the bottom end of
>> the digicam market.
>>
>> So BT vendors need to get their collective act together & make sure
>> BT works well with latency sensitive streamed data such as duplex
>> audio or face either extinction or a limited market. As someone
>> working in electronics, I've ruefully noted that proprietary
>> standards often work far better than those drawn up by standards
>> bodies. The whole point of having standards is interoperability &
>> when this is aspect is so weak, single vendor products seem far more
>> attractive than they should. With the state of current IEEE WiFi
>> wrangles, there is still hope for BT's survival.
>
> Bluetooth is not in competition with wifi, any more that USB is in
> competition with Ethernet. They're designed for different purposes.
> A wifi headset makes as much sense as an Ethernet headset.

I would have agreed with you entirely a year ago but now have doubts. When
BT was being promoted ~5yrs ago, one of the UK electronics papers (either EW
or ET) was very dismissive of BT - saying that it was inferior to WiFi & had
laughable b/w. It played down BT's strengths such as lower power, more
effective security, good immunity to interference, size & cost. Whether or
not this was a reaction to those marketing BT as a replacement to WiFi, I
can't say. Whatever, I thought at the time it was poor journalism from a
usually less biased paper.

I contend that BT has been poorly implemented. Although NGs in general can
give one the impression of systemic problems merely because people don't
often post saying "Hey, went to use BT today & it worked great"; the posts
here, on web forums & in phone discussion groups certainly don't contradict
my view either, with many a tale of XP SP2 problems, having to re-pair
devices for no apparent reason in the right order, non-recognition of other
devices etc, etc. I have been reluctant to give the BT naysayers much
credence in the past but now wonder if they are not indeed correct. In BT's
favour is the fact it exists now & that a new WiFi standard for low power
consumption with good RF & processing power management would have to be
written. If BT fades, I certainly would not be the 1st to have predicted it
by a mile. In the long term, I'd put my money on most of the radio spectrum
going towards so-called Cognitive Radio (an intelligent form of UWB). BT has
failed to make headway in a particularly large market where IEEE 802.11x has
been widely adopted, just to add another dimension.

I've been lucky: my 2nd generation Ericsson BT headset finally works well
enough to use with my K700, where my T610 & T39 before it didn't - all being
the same make! If vendors don't delay getting BTv2 EDR devices into shops,
WiFi may thankfully not get a look in. IMO, BT standards bodies should also
consider channel bonding to up the b/w even further (or up the b/w by more
elegant means). It would be very ironic if BT fails & the even lower power &
b/w industrial ZigBee radio standard takes off albeit in an entirely
different market. Maybe BT's problem is that it falls into a b/w deadzone of
being too little, too late & too unreliable. It is technically feasible to
get BT to handshake faster & stream reliably but this has to be sorted
pretty quickly.

--
Thank people in advance? Thanking or cursing them afterwards at least gives
some feedback!
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 3:21:25 AM

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

Paul Busby wrote:

> Thus spake J. Clarke:
>> Paul Busby wrote:
>>
>>> Thus spake Karlo Janos:
>>>>> Sounds fairly normal to me. If you had this problem with the
>>>>> devices under ~1m apart, I'd worry.
>>>>
>>>> Fine. Then I am pleased to own a normally working headset. :-)
>>>> Thanks!
>>>>
>>>> Karlo
>>>
>>> As an aside: BT, IMO if no one else's, came out too late & has
>>> serious question marks regarding its survival. WiFi in some guise
>>> will get to the point where its chipsets will both shrink & be cheap
>>> enough to fit into many more phones than it does now. Fortunately
>>> for BT, WiFi chipsets will probably not shrink enough to fit into
>>> wireless headsets without short recharge cycles. If this scenario
>>> proves to be the case, BT's only reason to exist would be for
>>> wireless headsets & a few other uses where the power consumption of
>>> future WiFi solutions may still not match BT. Very few camera makers
>>> have bothered with BT but are looking to WiFi - a missed opportunity
>>> even when cameraphones get good enough to take out the bottom end of
>>> the digicam market.
>>>
>>> So BT vendors need to get their collective act together & make sure
>>> BT works well with latency sensitive streamed data such as duplex
>>> audio or face either extinction or a limited market. As someone
>>> working in electronics, I've ruefully noted that proprietary
>>> standards often work far better than those drawn up by standards
>>> bodies. The whole point of having standards is interoperability &
>>> when this is aspect is so weak, single vendor products seem far more
>>> attractive than they should. With the state of current IEEE WiFi
>>> wrangles, there is still hope for BT's survival.
>>
>> Bluetooth is not in competition with wifi, any more that USB is in
>> competition with Ethernet. They're designed for different purposes.
>> A wifi headset makes as much sense as an Ethernet headset.
>
> I would have agreed with you entirely a year ago but now have doubts. When
> BT was being promoted ~5yrs ago, one of the UK electronics papers (either
> EW or ET) was very dismissive of BT - saying that it was inferior to WiFi
> & had laughable b/w. It played down BT's strengths such as lower power,
> more effective security, good immunity to interference, size & cost.
> Whether or not this was a reaction to those marketing BT as a replacement
> to WiFi, I can't say. Whatever, I thought at the time it was poor
> journalism from a usually less biased paper.
>
> I contend that BT has been poorly implemented. Although NGs in general can
> give one the impression of systemic problems merely because people don't
> often post saying "Hey, went to use BT today & it worked great"; the posts
> here, on web forums & in phone discussion groups certainly don't
> contradict my view either, with many a tale of XP SP2 problems,

Just about everybody has XP SP2 problems--this is an XP problem, not a
Bluetooth problem. When Microsoft went to nail down the security they
nailed it too hard.

> having to
> re-pair devices for no apparent reason in the right order, non-recognition
> of other devices etc, etc. I have been reluctant to give the BT naysayers
> much credence in the past but now wonder if they are not indeed correct.

Personally I find bluetooth to work fine. I use a bluetooth headset,
keyboard, phone (desk phone, not cellular), mouse, etc, and find no
problems with any of them. But trying to connect those devices using
802.11 networking would be a nightmare.

> In BT's favour is the fact it exists now & that a new WiFi standard for
> low power consumption with good RF & processing power management would
> have to be written.

But the 802.11 committee is not even _attempting_ to address the desktop
bus. They have no interest in that.

> If BT fades, I certainly would not be the 1st to have
> predicted it by a mile. In the long term, I'd put my money on most of the
> radio spectrum going towards so-called Cognitive Radio (an intelligent
> form of UWB). BT has failed to make headway in a particularly large market
> where IEEE 802.11x has been widely adopted, just to add another dimension.

Uh, where is this "large market"? Who is selling products into that market
at this time? Intel and the IEEE are working on a UWB standard, 802.15,
which may very well end up the successor to Bluetooth, but it is no more
"wifi" as we know it than Bluetooth is "wifi".

> I've been lucky: my 2nd generation Ericsson BT headset finally works well
> enough to use with my K700, where my T610 & T39 before it didn't - all
> being the same make! If vendors don't delay getting BTv2 EDR devices into
> shops, WiFi may thankfully not get a look in. IMO, BT standards bodies
> should also consider channel bonding to up the b/w even further (or up the
> b/w by more elegant means).

Why? Bluetooth is not aimed at any market that requires high bandwidth.

> It would be very ironic if BT fails & the even
> lower power & b/w industrial ZigBee radio standard takes off albeit in an
> entirely different market. Maybe BT's problem is that it falls into a b/w
> deadzone of being too little, too late & too unreliable. It is technically
> feasible to get BT to handshake faster & stream reliably but this has to
> be sorted pretty quickly.

I think you are assuming that Bluetooth is intended to be a replacement for
Ethernet or something. It's not. It's intended market is and was the same
one as the Apple desktop bus and in that market it works well enough.
>

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 11:34:38 PM

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

Thus spake J. Clarke:
<Snipped>
>> I contend that BT has been poorly implemented. Although NGs in
>> general can give one the impression of systemic problems merely
>> because people don't often post saying "Hey, went to use BT today &
>> it worked great"; the posts here, on web forums & in phone
>> discussion groups certainly don't contradict my view either, with
>> many a tale of XP SP2 problems,
>
> Just about everybody has XP SP2 problems--this is an XP problem, not a
> Bluetooth problem. When Microsoft went to nail down the security they
> nailed it too hard.

Yes, doesn't like unsigned drivers for starters. You are right that MS
screwed up here but BT is BT & passing blame doesn't give this technology a
helping hand. You don't comment on the unquoted points I made.
>
>> having to
>> re-pair devices for no apparent reason in the right order,
>> non-recognition of other devices etc, etc. I have been reluctant to
>> give the BT naysayers much credence in the past but now wonder if
>> they are not indeed correct.
>
> Personally I find bluetooth to work fine. I use a bluetooth headset,
> keyboard, phone (desk phone, not cellular), mouse, etc, and find no
> problems with any of them. But trying to connect those devices using
> 802.11 networking would be a nightmare.

I did have in the back of my mind that WiFi's ease of connectivity was no
better than BT's during my original reply! I would prefer BT to be got to
work more seamlessly than have yet enough another committee driven & delayed
standard to replace it, despite any extra b/w it may have.

> But the 802.11 committee is not even _attempting_ to address the
> desktop bus. They have no interest in that.
>
>> If BT fades, I certainly would not be the 1st to have
>> predicted it by a mile. In the long term, I'd put my money on most
>> of the radio spectrum going towards so-called Cognitive Radio (an
>> intelligent form of UWB). BT has failed to make headway in a
>> particularly large market where IEEE 802.11x has been widely
>> adopted, just to add another dimension.
>
> Uh, where is this "large market"? Who is selling products into that
> market at this time? Intel and the IEEE are working on a UWB
> standard, 802.15, which may very well end up the successor to
> Bluetooth, but it is no more "wifi" as we know it than Bluetooth is
> "wifi".

USA. Also note how many BT enabled phones come from the Far-East. Intel is
also working on WUSB. I read somewhere in the last couple of days that there
is a class action suit starting against Verizon in the States alleging
crippling of BT by their branding f/w on certain models. I have wondered if
America is being guilty of the "not invented here" syndrome. I'd suggest
that if BT takes off in America, BT takes off. At the moment it's very
Eurocentric technology.

>> I've been lucky: my 2nd generation Ericsson BT headset finally works
>> well enough to use with my K700, where my T610 & T39 before it
>> didn't - all being the same make! If vendors don't delay getting
>> BTv2 EDR devices into shops, WiFi may thankfully not get a look in.
>> IMO, BT standards bodies should also consider channel bonding to up
>> the b/w even further (or up the b/w by more elegant means).
>
> Why? Bluetooth is not aimed at any market that requires high
> bandwidth.

It certainly wasn't originally & EDR will only help BT now. I bet anyone
designing something like BT now would consider even EDR's b/w borderline.

>> It would be very ironic if BT fails & the even
>> lower power & b/w industrial ZigBee radio standard takes off albeit
>> in an entirely different market. Maybe BT's problem is that it falls
>> into a b/w deadzone of being too little, too late & too unreliable.
>> It is technically feasible to get BT to handshake faster & stream
>> reliably but this has to be sorted pretty quickly.
>
> I think you are assuming that Bluetooth is intended to be a
> replacement for Ethernet or something. It's not. It's intended
> market is and was the same one as the Apple desktop bus and in that
> market it works well enough.

I think that BT's market is just too narrow & I don't have problems with
your technical assessment but do feel you underplay many people's less than
satisfactory experience of this technology. Like yourself, I've had far less
problems getting it to work than many have had. I'm also less confident of
BT's longevity than you seem to be. I hope I'm wrong.

--
Thank people in advance? Thanking or cursing them afterwards at least
gives some feedback!
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 12:11:01 PM

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

Paul Busby wrote:

> Thus spake J. Clarke:
> <Snipped>
>>> I contend that BT has been poorly implemented. Although NGs in
>>> general can give one the impression of systemic problems merely
>>> because people don't often post saying "Hey, went to use BT today &
>>> it worked great"; the posts here, on web forums & in phone
>>> discussion groups certainly don't contradict my view either, with
>>> many a tale of XP SP2 problems,
>>
>> Just about everybody has XP SP2 problems--this is an XP problem, not a
>> Bluetooth problem. When Microsoft went to nail down the security they
>> nailed it too hard.
>
> Yes, doesn't like unsigned drivers for starters.

I've not had that problem.

> You are right that MS
> screwed up here but BT is BT & passing blame doesn't give this technology
> a helping hand. You don't comment on the unquoted points I made.

So?

>>> having to
>>> re-pair devices for no apparent reason in the right order,
>>> non-recognition of other devices etc, etc. I have been reluctant to
>>> give the BT naysayers much credence in the past but now wonder if
>>> they are not indeed correct.
>>
>> Personally I find bluetooth to work fine. I use a bluetooth headset,
>> keyboard, phone (desk phone, not cellular), mouse, etc, and find no
>> problems with any of them. But trying to connect those devices using
>> 802.11 networking would be a nightmare.
>
> I did have in the back of my mind that WiFi's ease of connectivity was no
> better than BT's during my original reply!

You're missing the point. Imagine a keyboard with an Ethernet card in it
and how you would make that work with a PC and you might begin to
understand the problem. It's not "connectivity", it's that wifi was NOT
DESIGNED TO CONNECT KEYBOARDS.

Bluetooth is designed to support keyboards and headsets and the like, wifi
is designed to carry TCP/IP packets. Different purposes.

> I would prefer BT to be got to
> work more seamlessly than have yet enough another committee driven &
> delayed standard to replace it, despite any extra b/w it may have.
>
>> But the 802.11 committee is not even _attempting_ to address the
>> desktop bus. They have no interest in that.
>>
>>> If BT fades, I certainly would not be the 1st to have
>>> predicted it by a mile. In the long term, I'd put my money on most
>>> of the radio spectrum going towards so-called Cognitive Radio (an
>>> intelligent form of UWB). BT has failed to make headway in a
>>> particularly large market where IEEE 802.11x has been widely
>>> adopted, just to add another dimension.
>>
>> Uh, where is this "large market"? Who is selling products into that
>> market at this time? Intel and the IEEE are working on a UWB
>> standard, 802.15, which may very well end up the successor to
>> Bluetooth, but it is no more "wifi" as we know it than Bluetooth is
>> "wifi".
>
> USA.

Where? What companies are manufacturing "UWB" products, what companies are
buying them, how many are sold each year?

> Also note how many BT enabled phones come from the Far-East.

What does this have to do with your claim that there is a "large market" for
some alternative product that doesn't appear to exist? Note how many
computers of any kind come from the far east. What of it? The Orientals
can make decent cheap computers, decent cheap cell phones, decent cheap
cars, and decent cheap just about anything else. More power to them.

> Intel is
> also working on WUSB.

Intel is working on many things. What of it?

> I read somewhere in the last couple of days that
> there is a class action suit starting against Verizon in the States
> alleging crippling of BT by their branding f/w on certain models.

In the US one gets sued if one sneezes in a manner that a litigious person
finds offensive. Lawsuits are in the process of replacing baseball as the
national pastime. What of it? If Verizon _loses_ the suit, then it
becomes news.

> I have
> wondered if America is being guilty of the "not invented here" syndrome.
> I'd suggest that if BT takes off in America, BT takes off. At the moment
> it's very Eurocentric technology.

That's funny, I've noticed no paucity of Bluetooth devices in the US.
Certainly they are available at every computer or office-supply or consumer
electronics store that I've visited recently.

If you are expecting Bluetooth to become a competitor to 802.11, it's not
going to happen anymore than keyboard cables are going to become
competitors to network cables. They aren't the same. They don't do the
same thing, they aren't supposed to do the same thing, why are you having
trouble with this?

Bluetooth is not wifi, wifi is not Bluetooth, you can do things with
Bluetooth that are very difficult or impossible with wifi, you can do
things with wifi that are very difficult or impossible with Bluetooth, the
two are _not_ in competition, and pretending that they are shows a marked
misunderstanding of both products.

I think you will find that network cables outsell keyboard cables by a wide
margin. By your reasoning this would indicate that networks are replacing
keyboards. Do you see what's wrong with that assessment?

>>> I've been lucky: my 2nd generation Ericsson BT headset finally works
>>> well enough to use with my K700, where my T610 & T39 before it
>>> didn't - all being the same make! If vendors don't delay getting
>>> BTv2 EDR devices into shops, WiFi may thankfully not get a look in.
>>> IMO, BT standards bodies should also consider channel bonding to up
>>> the b/w even further (or up the b/w by more elegant means).
>>
>> Why? Bluetooth is not aimed at any market that requires high
>> bandwidth.
>
> It certainly wasn't originally & EDR will only help BT now. I bet anyone
> designing something like BT now would consider even EDR's b/w borderline.

Why? I certainly see no need for EDR for any use to which I would put a
Bluetooth device. I don't see why one would _want_ to stream video via
Bluetooth unless someone wants to make video goggles that connect to a cell
phone or some such.

>>> It would be very ironic if BT fails & the even
>>> lower power & b/w industrial ZigBee radio standard takes off albeit
>>> in an entirely different market. Maybe BT's problem is that it falls
>>> into a b/w deadzone of being too little, too late & too unreliable.
>>> It is technically feasible to get BT to handshake faster & stream
>>> reliably but this has to be sorted pretty quickly.
>>
>> I think you are assuming that Bluetooth is intended to be a
>> replacement for Ethernet or something. It's not. It's intended
>> market is and was the same one as the Apple desktop bus and in that
>> market it works well enough.
>
> I think that BT's market is just too narrow & I don't have problems with
> your technical assessment but do feel you underplay many people's less
> than satisfactory experience of this technology. Like yourself, I've had
> far less problems getting it to work than many have had. I'm also less
> confident of BT's longevity than you seem to be. I hope I'm wrong.

The state of the art in electronics and computer science has been changing
rapidly for decades, and the end is not coming soon. Bluetooth is a
transient technology, just as 802.11 is a transient technology, and PCI,
and AGP, and IDE, and Arcnet and CRT displays and the rest. I don't see
why you find this disturbing. Yes, something is going to replace
Bluetooth. It may be an improved Bluetooth or it may be 802.15 or it may
be something else. So what? For now it does what I want it to do and I'll
worry about tomorrow when it comes.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 10:03:07 PM

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

Thus spake J. Clarke:
> Paul Busby wrote:
>
>> Thus spake J. Clarke:
>> <Snipped>
>>>> I contend that BT has been poorly implemented. Although NGs in
>>>> general can give one the impression of systemic problems merely
>>>> because people don't often post saying "Hey, went to use BT today &
>>>> it worked great"; the posts here, on web forums & in phone
>>>> discussion groups certainly don't contradict my view either, with
>>>> many a tale of XP SP2 problems,
>>>
>>> Just about everybody has XP SP2 problems--this is an XP problem,
>>> not a Bluetooth problem. When Microsoft went to nail down the
>>> security they nailed it too hard.
>>
>> Yes, doesn't like unsigned drivers for starters.
>
> I've not had that problem.
>
>> You are right that MS
>> screwed up here but BT is BT & passing blame doesn't give this
>> technology a helping hand. You don't comment on the unquoted points
>> I made.
>
> So?
>
>>>> having to
>>>> re-pair devices for no apparent reason in the right order,
>>>> non-recognition of other devices etc, etc. I have been reluctant to
>>>> give the BT naysayers much credence in the past but now wonder if
>>>> they are not indeed correct.
>>>
>>> Personally I find bluetooth to work fine. I use a bluetooth
>>> headset, keyboard, phone (desk phone, not cellular), mouse, etc,
>>> and find no problems with any of them. But trying to connect those
>>> devices using 802.11 networking would be a nightmare.
>>
>> I did have in the back of my mind that WiFi's ease of connectivity
>> was no better than BT's during my original reply!
>
> You're missing the point. Imagine a keyboard with an Ethernet card
> in it and how you would make that work with a PC and you might begin
> to understand the problem. It's not "connectivity", it's that wifi
> was NOT DESIGNED TO CONNECT KEYBOARDS.
>
> Bluetooth is designed to support keyboards and headsets and the like,
> wifi is designed to carry TCP/IP packets. Different purposes.
>
>> I would prefer BT to be got to
>> work more seamlessly than have yet enough another committee driven &
>> delayed standard to replace it, despite any extra b/w it may have.
>>
>>> But the 802.11 committee is not even _attempting_ to address the
>>> desktop bus. They have no interest in that.
>>>
>>>> If BT fades, I certainly would not be the 1st to have
>>>> predicted it by a mile. In the long term, I'd put my money on most
>>>> of the radio spectrum going towards so-called Cognitive Radio (an
>>>> intelligent form of UWB). BT has failed to make headway in a
>>>> particularly large market where IEEE 802.11x has been widely
>>>> adopted, just to add another dimension.
>>>
>>> Uh, where is this "large market"? Who is selling products into that
>>> market at this time? Intel and the IEEE are working on a UWB
>>> standard, 802.15, which may very well end up the successor to
>>> Bluetooth, but it is no more "wifi" as we know it than Bluetooth is
>>> "wifi".
>>
>> USA.
>
> Where? What companies are manufacturing "UWB" products, what
> companies are buying them, how many are sold each year?
>
>> Also note how many BT enabled phones come from the Far-East.
>
> What does this have to do with your claim that there is a "large
> market" for some alternative product that doesn't appear to exist?
> Note how many computers of any kind come from the far east. What of
> it? The Orientals can make decent cheap computers, decent cheap cell
> phones, decent cheap cars, and decent cheap just about anything else.
> More power to them.
>
>> Intel is
>> also working on WUSB.
>
> Intel is working on many things. What of it?
>
>> I read somewhere in the last couple of days that
>> there is a class action suit starting against Verizon in the States
>> alleging crippling of BT by their branding f/w on certain models.
>
> In the US one gets sued if one sneezes in a manner that a litigious
> person finds offensive. Lawsuits are in the process of replacing
> baseball as the national pastime. What of it? If Verizon _loses_
> the suit, then it becomes news.
>
>> I have
>> wondered if America is being guilty of the "not invented here"
>> syndrome. I'd suggest that if BT takes off in America, BT takes off.
>> At the moment it's very Eurocentric technology.
>
> That's funny, I've noticed no paucity of Bluetooth devices in the US.
> Certainly they are available at every computer or office-supply or
> consumer electronics store that I've visited recently.
>
> If you are expecting Bluetooth to become a competitor to 802.11, it's
> not going to happen anymore than keyboard cables are going to become
> competitors to network cables. They aren't the same. They don't do
> the same thing, they aren't supposed to do the same thing, why are
> you having trouble with this?
>
> Bluetooth is not wifi, wifi is not Bluetooth, you can do things with
> Bluetooth that are very difficult or impossible with wifi, you can do
> things with wifi that are very difficult or impossible with
> Bluetooth, the two are _not_ in competition, and pretending that they
> are shows a marked misunderstanding of both products.
>
> I think you will find that network cables outsell keyboard cables by
> a wide margin. By your reasoning this would indicate that networks
> are replacing keyboards. Do you see what's wrong with that
> assessment?
>
>>>> I've been lucky: my 2nd generation Ericsson BT headset finally
>>>> works well enough to use with my K700, where my T610 & T39 before
>>>> it didn't - all being the same make! If vendors don't delay getting
>>>> BTv2 EDR devices into shops, WiFi may thankfully not get a look in.
>>>> IMO, BT standards bodies should also consider channel bonding to up
>>>> the b/w even further (or up the b/w by more elegant means).
>>>
>>> Why? Bluetooth is not aimed at any market that requires high
>>> bandwidth.
>>
>> It certainly wasn't originally & EDR will only help BT now. I bet
>> anyone designing something like BT now would consider even EDR's b/w
>> borderline.
>
> Why? I certainly see no need for EDR for any use to which I would
> put a Bluetooth device. I don't see why one would _want_ to stream
> video via Bluetooth unless someone wants to make video goggles that
> connect to a cell phone or some such.
>
>>>> It would be very ironic if BT fails & the even
>>>> lower power & b/w industrial ZigBee radio standard takes off albeit
>>>> in an entirely different market. Maybe BT's problem is that it
>>>> falls into a b/w deadzone of being too little, too late & too
>>>> unreliable. It is technically feasible to get BT to handshake
>>>> faster & stream reliably but this has to be sorted pretty quickly.
>>>
>>> I think you are assuming that Bluetooth is intended to be a
>>> replacement for Ethernet or something. It's not. It's intended
>>> market is and was the same one as the Apple desktop bus and in that
>>> market it works well enough.
>>
>> I think that BT's market is just too narrow & I don't have problems
>> with your technical assessment but do feel you underplay many
>> people's less than satisfactory experience of this technology. Like
>> yourself, I've had far less problems getting it to work than many
>> have had. I'm also less confident of BT's longevity than you seem to
>> be. I hope I'm wrong.
>
> The state of the art in electronics and computer science has been
> changing rapidly for decades, and the end is not coming soon.
> Bluetooth is a transient technology, just as 802.11 is a transient
> technology, and PCI, and AGP, and IDE, and Arcnet and CRT displays
> and the rest. I don't see why you find this disturbing. Yes,
> something is going to replace Bluetooth. It may be an improved
> Bluetooth or it may be 802.15 or it may be something else. So what?
> For now it does what I want it to do and I'll worry about tomorrow
> when it comes.

I think I'll agree to disagree even if you don't & am left wondering if you
are not arguing for its own sake. I am aware of the differences between IEEE
802.11x & BT but that's not my point!

--
Thank people in advance? Thanking or cursing them afterwards at least
gives some feedback!
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 7:45:30 AM

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

Paul,

I think that you are very much missing the point and misunderstanding
BT and Wifi in your analysis.

What is the purpose of Bluetooth? What do people do with it? Ignoring
the chipset size/cost/power issue, would Wifi actually solve any of
those problems? Very, very few of the features of Bluetooth's higher
level protocols are part of Wifi.

How do you discover a device over Wifi and send a picture to somebody?
Are there any commonly accepted standards for this? Rendezvous/IP
ZeroConf will begin to do this for the base TCP/IP layer, but not for
the higher level protocols.

How will the Wifi chipset be configured? ad-hoc mode on a particular,
global channel we all agree on? Can't do standard base station mode
because we don't have a base station most of the time. This also means
of course that you can't concurrently do Wifi peer to peer for picture
uploading / etc and Wifi to your base station for a 'net connection. I
like using BT and Wifi at once on my PDA - I can use my headset and my
Wifi 'net connection together.

Many of the problems with BT relate to services and service
communication - higher level protocol issues. Switching to Wifi won't
do anything to ease those issues. It'll be at least as difficult to
redesign new Wifi-centric peer to peer protocols, and we'll need to add
in the complexity of figuring out how to do the physical layer as well.

Having your PDA and headset in ad-hoc mode, and then auto-switching
together to a base station could work - but again, more complexity and
synchronization.

As to the future, I don't have any personal, emotional attachment
inherent to Bluetooth. If Wifi can be made to do what Bluetooth does,
I'm fine with that. I just don't think that's going to happen until
802.11 is obsolete...
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 1:30:46 AM

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

Thus spake bb+graffiti.spam.gopigopi@andrew.cmu.edu:
> Paul,
>
> I think that you are very much missing the point and misunderstanding
> BT and Wifi in your analysis.
>
> What is the purpose of Bluetooth? What do people do with it? Ignoring
> the chipset size/cost/power issue, would Wifi actually solve any of
> those problems? Very, very few of the features of Bluetooth's higher
> level protocols are part of Wifi.
>
> How do you discover a device over Wifi and send a picture to somebody?
> Are there any commonly accepted standards for this? Rendezvous/IP
> ZeroConf will begin to do this for the base TCP/IP layer, but not for
> the higher level protocols.
>
> How will the Wifi chipset be configured? ad-hoc mode on a particular,
> global channel we all agree on? Can't do standard base station mode
> because we don't have a base station most of the time. This also means
> of course that you can't concurrently do Wifi peer to peer for picture
> uploading / etc and Wifi to your base station for a 'net connection. I
> like using BT and Wifi at once on my PDA - I can use my headset and my
> Wifi 'net connection together.
>
> Many of the problems with BT relate to services and service
> communication - higher level protocol issues. Switching to Wifi won't
> do anything to ease those issues. It'll be at least as difficult to
> redesign new Wifi-centric peer to peer protocols, and we'll need to
> add in the complexity of figuring out how to do the physical layer as
> well.
>
> Having your PDA and headset in ad-hoc mode, and then auto-switching
> together to a base station could work - but again, more complexity and
> synchronization.
>
> As to the future, I don't have any personal, emotional attachment
> inherent to Bluetooth. If Wifi can be made to do what Bluetooth does,
> I'm fine with that. I just don't think that's going to happen until
> 802.11 is obsolete...


I agree that WiFi is its present form, would be sledgehammer to crack a nut.
The point of BT or certainly one of its main points is ad hoc networking
that WiFi isn't designed for (& nor is ZigBee in its industrial transducer
market despite being similar to BT in other respects. BTLite is probably
dead now so ZigBee won't have that competition to worry about). It would
take vastly less effort to fine-tune BT than rewrite WiFi to fit the bill.

OK, I admit to writing more out of frustration than watertight technical
assessment. Although I've always been able to sort out BT related problems,
I did so more from reasonable technical savvy than any simplicity of BT
itself. I know a few people with BT enabled company notebooks who tried,
failed then walked away from BT & have heard more tales of woe than success
with this technology & that's ignoring this & other forums that will always
give a skewed view.

When Ericsson proposed BT, I was very excited by how it worked on paper &
jumped early with a T39, HBH-15 headset then Belkin dongle on Win XP. It all
worked well apart from inconsistent audio which my current SE K700i has
solved. I just feel very disappointed that such a brilliant idea has been
IMO, not implemented well enough. Many manufacturers didn't exactly embrace
BT & IIRC, Nokia were both late & adhered to the standard somewhat less than
they might have. I also note that Smartphones without BT are still being
launched which I find worrying as I do the general lack of BT from
Far-Eastern makers in general. However, your direct experience of wide
acceptance of BT in the States contradicts my impressions that it wasn't -
I'd go with someone's experience. That being the case, I now doubt that BT
will be replaced anytime soon. Lets hope that BT 2 will be adopted soon
which should solve the somewhat lengthy handshaking that currently is the
case.

Wireless or more accurately, radio technology in general has got one hell of
a future & GSM has been an amazingly successful example that's easy to use -
no coincidence. Perhaps designing a fairly secure ad hoc peer-to-peer
wireless network was more revolutionary that I thought!

--
Thank people in advance? Thanking or cursing them afterwards at least
gives some feedback!
!