| Author |
I did something naughty today! |
datta
Joined: Aug 24, 2006
Posts: 3
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2006-08-18 21:51:58, ZeKz wrote:
To connect with a phone that has BT does their BT need to be activated? I have a k790i. Is the BT active by default on that?
|
|
Probably not. It wasn't on my k800 and I belive most phones have it off as default. | |
|
wilson
Joined: Jun 15, 2005
Posts: 116
From: Tanzania
PM |
To my knowledge no one can bluejack you unless you accept to add a phone when asked/accept a file but no one can browse your phone content without being acknoledged.
|
dcbastable
Joined: May 01, 2006
Posts: 198
From: South East London
PM |
To rufocused; The Bluetooth function on your phone is a radio device that will connect to other such devices nearby. Most phones use BT v.2 (stangely enough this is the first version) which will connect to other devices within 10 metres (or 30 foot in the UK  ) so long as there are no thick walls in between. Some devices use BT v.1 (such as the original Motorola V3!!!) which can detect and connect to other compatible devices within 100 metres. The outdoor use of BT v.1 (100 metres) is strictly prohibited in some countries such as France.
'We are in the stickiest situation since Sticky the stick insect got stuck on a sticky bun' |
etaab
Joined: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: UK - South Yorkshire
PM |
I think you're a bit confused there mate. Bluetooth v2.0 isnt the first version, there was v1.0 and v1.1 and v1.2 before it, and possibly another version before the very first (beta).
What you're referring to is the Bluetooth class, not its version. Now if i remember correctly class 1 devices have ranges from 25m all the way up to 250m, class 2 is something like 3m - 10m, and class 3 is the weakest, with little range usually only 30cm - 3m.
Check me out on Instagram ! search for etaab ! |
dcbastable
Joined: May 01, 2006
Posts: 198
From: South East London
PM |
i stand corrected. you are right, i meant the class. i think the restrictions thing that some countries have are to do with national security. i remember that when the motorola v3 first came out (with that strange box) they had a disclaimer on it to that affect.
'We are in the stickiest situation since Sticky the stick insect got stuck on a sticky bun' |
etaab
Joined: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: UK - South Yorkshire
PM |
It doesnt really matter anyway IMO.
Motorola's Bluetooth implementation is so poor the bandwith of their devices is incredibly poor, and slow.
Also, due to Bluetooth relying on a "handshake" theory (where both devices must be able to talk to each other for the connection to work), 100m means nothing if you're attempting to connect to a phone with only a 10m range - you'd need to be around 10m from it anyway.
Unless of course you were to use a Yagi antenna.. 
Check me out on Instagram ! search for etaab ! |
simply__me
Joined: Oct 07, 2005
Posts: 126
From: Sydney
PM |
Oh.. i was under the impression that BT v.2 was better than v.1.. I guess thats why my friends v3 often catches more bluetooth devices when he searches in the same place i do.
but oh wells.. SE pwns motorola. |
etaab
Joined: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: UK - South Yorkshire
PM |
Umm, v2.0 is better.
Its just the V3 has better range, so it'll find more phone within 10m or more than other phones. The added range of the V3 wont mean it can bluejack phones 100m away, but it will have a more reliable signal with those nearby.
But still, its a missed opportunity for Motorola, because like i said their Bluetooth software built into their phones is rather poor by comparison of SE and Nokia.
Check me out on Instagram ! search for etaab ! |
Residentevil
Joined: Feb 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Raccoon City, USA
PM, WWW
|
I have not experienced a BT 2.x device. However, I like more and more reliable range with it.
Tough times don't last, tough people do!
Free Tibet |
jemuel
Joined: Sep 21, 2006
Posts: 124
From: PH
PM, WWW
|
I envy you guys! here in the philippines, I rarely find a BT device on my k608i. that's because most people still uses 2g phones, (the ones with the black and white screens) and you thought 7650's obsolete? you'd be famous for almost everybody if you have it here, (such a poor country...)
but once, i found a k700i when i was scanning, and to my dismay, i can't send the contact, thus blowing my only chance for bluejacking, and later found out that u can't sent contacts if it's in your sim card. |
Supa_Fly
Joined: Apr 16, 2002
Posts: > 500
From: Toronto, Ontario
PM, WWW
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-09-11 00:29:21, etaab wrote:
It doesnt really matter anyway IMO.
Motorola's Bluetooth implementation is so poor the bandwith of their devices is incredibly poor, and slow.
Also, due to Bluetooth relying on a "handshake" theory (where both devices must be able to talk to each other for the connection to work), 100m means nothing if you're attempting to connect to a phone with only a 10m range - you'd need to be around 10m from it anyway.
Unless of course you were to use a Yagi antenna..
|
|
> Um I'd like to DISPUTE this information.
If a BT device is Class 1 with support up to 100M not 250( although specific brands have augmented this 100meter range); ANYTHING regardless of BT class SHOULD be able to communicate with the HOST being a Class 1 device.
Case in point: Moto RAZR's are CLASS 1 devices, and headsets work within that range (albeit radio interference from Food Microwaves, or in a SEA of WiFi devices; but even the latter has been perfected). Furthermore, a company at the FOREFRONT of HOST Ad-Hoc/Server devices was RedM. Many MANY years ago they were the FIRST to setup & manufacture Server devices. A Solid search here on Esato SHOULD show the mettle of my words. back in the day when the T36m was seriously new they were doing their thang.
UPDATE: it seems Esato has LOSSED the data I was talking about. I was searching posts & news articles back in 2001 early 2002 yet unable to find it.
So here is websearch results....
Red-M Powers the World's Biggest Bluetooth Public Network At Bluetooth Congress 2001
http://www.mobic.com/oldnews/2001/06/red3.htm
http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2001sep/bpd20010904007660.htm
Red-M first to enable 3G mobile services with Bluetooth
June 4, 2001
http://www.3gnewsroom.com/3g_news/jun_01/news_0723.shtml
Quote:
| Red-M, a supplier of Bluetooth networking product solutions, today announces the next step in its strategy of providing mobility using Bluetooth technology. For the first time, Red-M is showing the delivery of 3G mobile services using an in-building Bluetooth network to a range of mobile devices. The system illustrates the potential of converged data, voice and video wireless communications and the ability of Bluetooth to provide these services in local environments such as public concourses, offices and homes. |
|
Red-m to deploy wireless trains
http://www.belfast.net/News/ShowDetails.asp?ID=181&NM=Red%2Dm+to+deploy+wireless+trains
And most related to my rebuttal ...
http://www.wirelessweek.com/toc-newsat2/2001/20010606.html [i]
Quote:
| Bluetooth networking company Red-M says it is behind the Bluezone network at the Bluetooth Congress 2001 event taking place this week in Monte Carlo, Monaco. Bluezone is the largest Bluetooth-based public access system built, Red-M says, enabling access to Internet data from handheld devices and PCs available at the show. |
|
Lastly for your BT kiddies ....
Some of Red-M's acheivements!
[i] http://www.infosyncworld.com/news/n/1767.html
Quote:
| Joyce Putscher, Director/Principal Analyst for Bluetooth technology at In-Stat/MDR, commented: "Red-M was the very first company to demonstrate a voice call over Bluetooth, and this was one of the reasons why it won the first ever innovation award at the Bluetooth Congress in June 2000. Incorporating its voice expertise in Genos demonstrates the potential of the technology and sends a very strong signal to the industry. Red-M has grasped the genuine needs of customers by integrating 802.11 wireless LAN and Bluetooth in Genos, and enabling a range of in-building mobile voice and data applications. I believe this is an extremely compelling proposition for operators." |
|
|AppleTV2|iPhone 12Mini 256GB|iPad Pro 256GB| Previously ...  K750|Z500|Z520|K700|K790i|K850i, :Ericsson: T18z|T28World|T36m x3|T68m (Ericsson, not the rebranded T68i). |
etaab
Joined: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: UK - South Yorkshire
PM |
What exactly is your point ? all you have provided is lots of links to RedM - correct me if im wrong but what has that got to do with Motorola's mobile phones and their poorer than other brands Bluetooth software and implementation ? Even if RedM are involved with Motorola, they certainly havent brought anything to Motorola’s products.
Also, Bluetooth classes arent an exact science. The specified ranges are only there as a guide as to the capabilities of the Bluetooth device based on certain factors (hardware used; size of the Bluetooth antenna, battery capacity in relation to power output, software used; Bluetooth version, various Bluetooth stacks, various Bluetooth software used by differing manufacturers). They are in no way concrete rules which determine a Bluetooth devices range of communication.
A class 1 device with a range of 100m will struggle to communicate with a class 2 device with a range of 10m if they are spaced far enough apart. Bluetooth relies on the weakest link of the chain for communication to be possible, which is usually the device with the lowest Bluetooth class or range. We all know usually a class 2 device will still be able to communicate with another class 2 device even if they’re spaced 20m apart, it all depends on conditions. The actual class of the device is simply a guide to illustrate optimal use of the devices capabilities. I myself have sent items via Bluetooth from a K700i to a S700i in the past, almost 50m apart - well in excess of the stated 10m class 2 range made by SE. My point is, Bluetooth communication relies on a two way handshake by both devices, if they are not able to make than handshake communication cannot be made. We have however heard of people who’ve managed to extend a Bluetooth devices range far beyond the manufacturers stated range and class, such as the bluesniper, where a technique of being able to communicate with a class 2 10m range phone could be bluesnarfed over 1km away. But, its not really relevant when we’re talking about mobile phones which have many times smaller antennas which are simply unable to transmit or receive radio signals out of their design.
The point of my post above was to clarify the Bluetooth classes and simplify their functioning. If you want to over complicate the matter in an attempt to play forum-prove-me-wrong so be it.
Check me out on Instagram ! search for etaab ! |
jack77777
Joined: Apr 11, 2006
Posts: > 500
From: uk/england.
PM |
etaab dont forgrt to check the nokia forum on zedge  |
Supa_Fly
Joined: Apr 16, 2002
Posts: > 500
From: Toronto, Ontario
PM, WWW
|
Etaab, My point was to dispute that a) bluetooth doesnt look for the weakest link to communicate; that doesnt make any sense because if its weak then connections would drop prematurely. b) that a Class 1 device (I've already stated that ranges can & usually be increased) will communicate with a Class 2 device as its radio is more "sensitive" in receive mode that it can pick up the Class 2 device.
I havent been to Red-M's site in years so when I was digging for information to prove their history/experience with class 1 access points in a piconet; I couldnt find anything substantial direct from them, as their marketing/product model has changed over the years. The links I provided from my Google search was to highlight their successes when bluetooth was in its earliest conception (when only Ericsson phones or Palm device had add-on sleds).
I wasnt just arguing Motorola's V3 device, just stating it as an example of a class 1 device able to work within a 100m (un clustered, non contested, and not in a heavy metal lined building - I shouldve been more clear) with a Class 2 device such has a headset or a Car.
Again I heavily doubt and have found nothing on bluetooth.org, bluetooth.com or Ericsson's site stating connections will favour the "weakest" link as you stated above. with almost 2400 hops a second, a weak link will be unstable.
I've done my best to substantiate what I've stated, refutably agreed, but I've tried with links.
Anyway I still think Moto's products for phones sucks. I'd like to see what we can do with WideBand Bluetooth implementation when it debuts.
|AppleTV2|iPhone 12Mini 256GB|iPad Pro 256GB| Previously ... K750|Z500|Z520|K700|K790i|K850i, :Ericsson: T18z|T28World|T36m x3|T68m (Ericsson, not the rebranded T68i). |
etaab
Joined: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: UK - South Yorkshire
PM |
I never said Bluetooth looks for the weakest link to communicate, I said successful connection between two Bluetooth devices relies on two way communication between the two, which relies directly on the weakest device of the two being able to talk to and hear the other device. Like you’ve said yourself, a connection would drop if the weakest Bluetooth device wasn’t able to communicate with the other. Bluetooth like other types of wireless connections relies on both devices being able to talk to each other, if only one device can hear the other, and not both ways the connection would never happen in the first place.
As for your point B, I agree completely, I never said different Bluetooth classes would not be able to communicate (which it sounds like your saying), or that they’d struggle. Of course a class 1 device will have a more reliable connection with a class 2 device, but then it doesn’t also mean that you could use a class 2 10m ranged Bluetooth headset 100m away from your class 1 100m ranged phone. Its simply not that simple.
I think you’ve misunderstood my points regarding Bluetooth communication, since you seem to be saying the exact same things as myself but with a little more umm, what appears to be confusion to me.
Check me out on Instagram ! search for etaab ! | |
|
Access the forum with a mobile phone via esato.mobi
|
Posted: 2006-08-24 01:30
K750|Z500|Z520|K700|K790i|K850i, :Ericsson: T18z|T28World|T36m x3|T68m (Ericsson, not the rebranded 
