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

I have just bought a bluetooth headset ("MSI BTHS",
http://www.msicomputer.co.uk/Produ [...] cat_id=82)
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

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

"Karlo Janos" <news3.20.beamer2@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
news35dgb$diq$1@domitilla.aioe.org...
>I have just bought a bluetooth headset ("MSI BTHS",
>http://www.msicomputer.co.uk/Products.aspx?product_id=703532&cat_id=82) 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!

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

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!

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=703532&cat_id=82)
>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

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

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

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

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!

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)

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!

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)

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

Thus spake J. Clarke:
<Snipped>
>> I contend that BT has been poorly i