Verizon sued for crippling Bluetooth in Motorola v710 - Page 3
Forum Mobility Networks : Cingular - Verizon sued for crippling Bluetooth in Motorola v710
Last message on previous page:
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <onqlu019fl2dlna20g2331fpt0j4p8rnmo@4ax.com> on Sun, 16 Jan 2005 17:34:19
-0500, Mike <inundated9@yahoo.com> wrote:
>The key issue here, in any "lawsuit", is if VZW runs into any problems
>with the Bluetooth people by advertising "Bluetooth" with a subset of
>the entire feature set. If the people who own the trademark don't
>care, why should anyone else? If they don't care, it's YOUR fault for
>not finding out the facts, which were readily available before the
>phone was even released.
>...
>I repeat - do all things which support Bluetooth have to have all
>possible services? Is the licensing set up that way?
No and no. However:
The Bluetooth Special Interest Group, which establishes the Bluetooth
profiles, sympathized with frustrated v710 users.
"The Bluetooth SIG is very disappointed in this implementation
decision and believes many consumers who purchased this phone for the
Bluetooth capabilities are frustrated and confused as a result," said
Michael Foley, executive director of the SIG. "Users have realistic
expectations that Bluetooth-enabled mobile phones will work with
their other Bluetooth enabled devices including cars, headsets, PCs,
printers, PDAs, etc.," he said.
"While we on the technical side understand that certain profiles must
be implemented to enable various usage scenarios, we shouldn't expect
consumers, for example, to realize their phone does not have the OBEX
or file-sharing profile. They just know they want to send a picture
from their camera phone to their PC and can't. And they don't know
why."
The Bluetooth SIG this year plans to publish a "best of breed" list
for Bluetooth-equipped mobile phones and other devices, Foley said.
"These documents will outline the profiles that the SIG (based on
consumer expectations) would expect in a best-of-breed device and the
profiles that would be expected in a basic device. The intent is to
set the bar and match the expectations of consumers with the features
implemented by manufacturers," Foley said.
"To give a snap shot, the SIG suggests a basic mobile phone with
Bluetooth technology include the following profiles: hands-free,
headset, device ID, file transfer, object exchange, service
discovery, dial-up networking and serial port. ...
<http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1751567,00.asp>
However, that hasn't happened yet.
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <K-ednfgH3tm0snbcRVn-gQ@comcast.com> on Sun, 16 Jan 2005 19:21:10 -0800,
"Joel Kolstad" <JKolstad71HatesSpam@Yahoo.Com> wrote:
>"Mike" <inundated9@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:jd4mu0t5506p1m6flesjhhq253dv435nif@4ax.com...
>> And the subject header, at its face, is wrong. If the Bluetooth
>> program doesn't require a manufacturer to include a certain group of
>> profiles, they're not "crippling" it. They're only offering a subset.
>
>True, the term 'Bluetooh' should be dropped.
By that standard, there would be virtually no Bluetooth devices. I personally
don't know of any handset that supports all 13 Bluetooth 1.1 profiles -- do
you?
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <0001HW.BE10E4A20008C90BF04075B0@nntp.charter.net> on Mon, 17 Jan 2005
03:42:26 -0500, SinghaLvr <singhalvr@charter.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 20:21:01 -0500, Mike wrote
>(in article <jd4mu0t5506p1m6flesjhhq253dv435nif@4ax.com> ):
>> I found this off of the 710's page, two links off of the underlined
>> "Bluetooth" link on the main 710 page.
>>
>> Note:
>>
>> ----------
>>
>> # Which profiles does Verizon Wireless currently support?
>> Verizon Wireless currently supports three Bluetooth profiles:
>>
>> · Headset - for connecting Bluetooth headsets
>>
>> · Hands-Free - for connecting hands-free car kits
>>
>> · Dial-up Networking (DUN) - to allow the handset to be used as a
>> modem
>>
>> Now, again, I don't know if this was recently added, or was up when
>> the phone was introduced.
>
>It looks kinda rushed. For example: Every paragraph is numbered "1."
Check your browser -- paragraphs are numbered properly for me, both in Mozilla
Firefox 1.0 and IE 6.
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <10uivv32ekeqdee@news.supernews.com> on Sat, 15 Jan 2005 12:41:06 -0800,
John <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>John Navas wrote:
>> If Bluetooth works (and it does) then it's not disabled (and it isn't).
>> Unless Verizon Wireless specifically promises features that aren't delivered,
>> then there is NO CASE.
>
>Just by mentioning the word "Bluetooth" makes Verizon liable.
>Bluetooth IS a method for wireless data exchange with a computer.
I personally don't know of any handset that supports all 13 Bluetooth 1.1
profiles -- do you?
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 18:39:40 GMT, John Navas
<spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> "To give a snap shot, the SIG suggests a basic mobile phone with
> Bluetooth technology include the following profiles: hands-free,
> headset, device ID, file transfer, object exchange, service
> discovery, dial-up networking and serial port. ...
Well, they'll never be happy with VZW...because VZW will likely never
enable file transfer or OBX.
Perhaps VZW needs to change their advertising, indeed...to indicate
you can connect to the Internet via your PDA or PC, wirelessly... (*
using Bluetooth technology).
I still stand by all the points I've made up to now, though. If you
dropped $400 on the v710 and were "surprised" by the lack of file
transfer or OBEX, you weren't researching your purchase very much.
Mike
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 13:45:52 -0500, John Navas wrote
(in article <AJTGd.2350$m31.29871@typhoon.sonic.net> ):
>
> Check your browser -- paragraphs are numbered properly for me, both in
Mozilla
> Firefox 1.0 and IE 6.
Hmm .... today it looks fine. (Using the same browser as I used last night.)
... someone fixed the web-site. :-)
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)
I was never a Walmart shopper a while ago...so I'm only use to the current
scenario. The store is never clean, it's always hot and smelly. I'll never
even consider those bathrooms since I do see what kind of the most people
shop there.
And don't get the panties all bunched up because of being off topic. It's
not a law or going to incur a death or anything like that. People need to
relax and not be so uptight about things like that. Don't like it? Scroll on
down and don't read it.
"SinghaLvr" <singhalvr@charter.net> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BE10E18100080D57F04075B0@nntp.charter.net...
> On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 15:29:52 -0500, xman@thedripper.com wrote
> (in article <10uljm2n1rfoca0@corp.supernews.com> ):
>
> > Since most people are cheap in this world...that's why Wal-Mart is such
a
> > success. I'm not saying their products are bad, but they are usually
less
> > expensive then other stores. Hey, I'll drop by a Wal-Mart and pick up
some
> > items if I'm near one. Knowing when you're shopping around in that
store,
> > you are probably getting the best price around is nice I guess.
>
> (getting off topic a bit)
>
> I used to like them. As of the past 2-3 years though the store's quality
has
> really diminished. Not the products per se, but the customer service, the
> quality of the employees, the cleanliness of the stores, heck, even the
crowd
> of shoppers have changed.
>
> I'm tired of not finding anyone that can help when you have a question.
> (Usually about a price.) I'm tired of waiting in a 20 minute line because
2
> registers are open out of 75 registers. I'm tired of going into the rest
> rooms and feeling like I should notify the CDC.
>
> I gave up. I go to the competition now, and yes I pay a bit more, but I
> don't feel like I'm shopping in a dump anymore either. :-)
>
>
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)
"Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:jzwick3-8BCBF3.04425817012005@news1.west.earthlink.net...
> In article <10umnprs3mkpt7f@corp.supernews.com>, <xman@thedripper.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Not sure what that article says about mass layoffs....have you even read
the
> > content of the original articles or you're just chiming in because you
feel
> > good to be part of small group of people that love to try and prove
people
> > wrong and get off on it or some thing? Anyway, the content of that press
has
> > nothing to do with what we're talking about at all.
>
>
> http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynew [...] 586948.htm
>
>
> Have you read it? It tells what a lousy employer Comcast it.
>
> And if you followed USENET convention and didn't Toppost, you might have
> more credibility.
Jesus...do people READ at all? There was nothing to the fact I was saying
Comcast was or was not a lousy employer. Please, if you're going to post
responses please KNOW WHAT THE HELL YOU ARE RESPONDING TO! If you can't
understand it or this...then don't even waste your time.
This better for your own person posting preferences?
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)
Once again, cutting contractors is not laying off people per the CONTEXT of
what we were talking about. Since you didn't care to comprehend that you're
just posting for the hell of it of what your opinion is about cutting
contractors out. A contractor is NOT an employee of Comcast. It's a
contractor/consultant. When their contract is up they go away. The word
"contract" is even in the word contractor. What does it take for some to
understand?
"SinghaLvr" <singhalvr@charter.net> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BE10E20700082CD4F04075B0@nntp.charter.net...
> On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 21:30:44 -0500, xman@thedripper.com wrote
> (in article <10um8qnlpcc2u00@corp.supernews.com> ):
>
> > Cutting contractors isn't laying off people.
>
> Tell that to the contractor. Once large contracts goes away so do their
> jobs.
>
>
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)
Scott Stephenson wrote on [Mon, 17 Jan 2005 16:41:54 -0700]:
>
> <xman@thedripper.com> wrote in message
> news:10uoeap6mo1dqda@corp.supernews.com...
>> I'll never
>> even consider those bathrooms since I do see what kind of the most people
>> shop there.
>>
>
> Wow- that is certainly an elightened approach to people. I had a '50's
> flashback for a second- maybe not that specific, but the idea that people
> still turn their nose down at 'those people' (regardless of the race or
> economic situation of the people in discussion)
What about the fact that the toilets at wally world are always
disgusting because PIGS use them and can't be bothered with any sort of
hygiene? What about THOSE people?
> shopped at WalMart for years- not out of necessity, but out of convenience.
Wal Mart is an evil corporation that preys on their own employees, local
businesses and businesses.
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)
<xman@thedripper.com> wrote on [Mon, 17 Jan 2005 17:25:57 -0500]:
> Once again, cutting contractors is not laying off people per the CONTEXT of
> what we were talking about. Since you didn't care to comprehend that you're
> just posting for the hell of it of what your opinion is about cutting
> contractors out. A contractor is NOT an employee of Comcast. It's a
> contractor/consultant. When their contract is up they go away.
Or even before....
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)
"Justin" <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:slrncuomja.l4q.nospam@debian.dns2go.com...
> Scott Stephenson wrote on [Mon, 17 Jan 2005 17:37:00 -0700]:
> >
> > "Justin" <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote in message
> > news:slrncuomap.l4q.nospam@debian.dns2go.com...
> >> Scott Stephenson wrote on [Mon, 17 Jan 2005 17:30:05 -0700]:
> >> > Great- another moron heard from.
> >>
> >> Ah, Good for you. Dipshit.
> >
> > No- good for you. You were able to spell "dipshit."
>
> I can spell it, you can be it. Isn't that special now.
It is special- but I think you cheated. Have you been asking Mommy to help
you with the big words again?
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)
John Navas wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <10uivv32ekeqdee@news.supernews.com> on Sat, 15 Jan 2005 12:41:06 -0800,
> John <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>>John Navas wrote:
>
>
>>>If Bluetooth works (and it does) then it's not disabled (and it isn't).
>>>Unless Verizon Wireless specifically promises features that aren't delivered,
>>>then there is NO CASE.
>>
>>Just by mentioning the word "Bluetooth" makes Verizon liable.
>>Bluetooth IS a method for wireless data exchange with a computer.
>
>
> I personally don't know of any handset that supports all 13 Bluetooth 1.1
> profiles -- do you?
>
I don't know of ANY headset other than V710 that intentionally inhibits
transfer of files via Bluetooth. Do you?
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)
"Justin" <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:slrncuooqm.l4q.nospam@debian.dns2go.com...
>
> It's not a stereotype if that is what you witness EVERY time you've ever
> been to a WalMart restroom, no matter in what city or state now, is it?
I don't have the energy or patience to explain. If you want to believe that
evey WalMart is like that, go ahead. If you'll sleep better knowing that
you got the last word in here, go for it. You go ahead and believe as you
will- my condolences to everybody who deals with you on a daily basis.
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 18:41:54 -0500, Scott Stephenson wrote
(in article <EIednbFs09C70HHcRVn-iA@adelphia.com> ):
> Wow- that is certainly an elightened approach to people. I had a '50's
> flashback for a second- maybe not that specific, but the idea that people
> still turn their nose down at 'those people' (regardless of the race or
> economic situation of the people in discussion) is awfully pathetic. I've
> shopped at WalMart for years- not out of necessity, but out of convenience.
> Unlike you, I find no need to flash 'status' to everyone I meet. We're all
> aware that you are living the fat life in NJ, paying more for goods and
> services than they are worth. Given that, I wouldn't trade places under any
> circumstances. Your comments above show just how shallow and egotistical
> people will become, and how much a little luck jades a person's perception
> of reality.
I was wondering how long it would be before this came up. <sigh>
It's not like racism here. I (think) he's bashing the shirtless fools that
come into the store with barefoot kids to buy a case of beer. Can't buy
shoes for the kid, but has to get the beer ... there's a real man!
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 19:15:33 -0500, Justin wrote
(in article <slrncuol95.l4q.nospam@debian.dns2go.com> ):
>
> Scott Stephenson wrote on [Mon, 17 Jan 2005 16:41:54 -0700]:
>>
>> <xman@thedripper.com> wrote in message
>> news:10uoeap6mo1dqda@corp.supernews.com...
>>> I'll never
>>> even consider those bathrooms since I do see what kind of the most people
>>> shop there.
>>>
>>
>> Wow- that is certainly an elightened approach to people. I had a '50's
>> flashback for a second- maybe not that specific, but the idea that people
>> still turn their nose down at 'those people' (regardless of the race or
>> economic situation of the people in discussion)
>
> What about the fact that the toilets at wally world are always
> disgusting because PIGS use them and can't be bothered with any sort of
> hygiene? What about THOSE people?
Nor can the store bother to clean them.
I remember reading a few years back how Wal-Mart prided itself on making very
young folks managers. 20somethings and 30somethings. Perhaps, in their
haste, they skipped the part in training where they learned to clean up for
their customers.
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)
"SinghaLvr" <singhalvr@charter.net> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BE11D1EF00057692F04075B0@nntp.charter.net...
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 18:41:54 -0500, Scott Stephenson wrote
> (in article <EIednbFs09C70HHcRVn-iA@adelphia.com> ):
>
> > Wow- that is certainly an elightened approach to people. I had a '50's
> > flashback for a second- maybe not that specific, but the idea that
people
> > still turn their nose down at 'those people' (regardless of the race or
> > economic situation of the people in discussion) is awfully pathetic.
I've
> > shopped at WalMart for years- not out of necessity, but out of
convenience.
> > Unlike you, I find no need to flash 'status' to everyone I meet. We're
all
> > aware that you are living the fat life in NJ, paying more for goods and
> > services than they are worth. Given that, I wouldn't trade places under
any
> > circumstances. Your comments above show just how shallow and
egotistical
> > people will become, and how much a little luck jades a person's
perception
> > of reality.
>
> I was wondering how long it would be before this came up. <sigh>
>
> It's not like racism here.
I totally agree that race is not the issue here. I may disagree with Killer
on many things, but I would never accuse him of racism based on the posts I
have read. In fact, at no point does he make a statement about the people
actually shopping in the stores- only the people using the bathrooms.
>I (think) he's bashing the shirtless fools that
> come into the store with barefoot kids to buy a case of beer. Can't buy
> shoes for the kid, but has to get the beer ... there's a real man!
Funny- I have never seen any of those at any WalMart I have been in.
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)
In article <slrncuolah.l4q.nospam@debian.dns2go.com>,
Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
> <xman@thedripper.com> wrote on [Mon, 17 Jan 2005 17:25:57 -0500]:
> > Once again, cutting contractors is not laying off people per the CONTEXT of
> > what we were talking about. Since you didn't care to comprehend that you're
> > just posting for the hell of it of what your opinion is about cutting
> > contractors out. A contractor is NOT an employee of Comcast. It's a
> > contractor/consultant. When their contract is up they go away.
>
> Or even before....
I guess he didn't see the Simpson's on Sunday. Homer has been rewarded
by being made a consultant at Springfield Electric.
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 21:00:15 -0500, Scott Stephenson wrote
(in article <eqadnVarbbMJ8HHcRVn-qQ@adelphia.com> ):
>
>> I (think) he's bashing the shirtless fools that
>> come into the store with barefoot kids to buy a case of beer. Can't buy
>> shoes for the kid, but has to get the beer ... there's a real man!
>
> Funny- I have never seen any of those at any WalMart I have been in.
>
I have. Sadly.
(Let me be clear .... I don't blame wal-mart for this.)
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)
"SinghaLvr" <singhalvr@charter.net> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BE11E5D50003950FF04075B0@nntp.charter.net...
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 21:00:15 -0500, Scott Stephenson wrote
> (in article <eqadnVarbbMJ8HHcRVn-qQ@adelphia.com> ):
>
> >
> >> I (think) he's bashing the shirtless fools that
> >> come into the store with barefoot kids to buy a case of beer. Can't
buy
> >> shoes for the kid, but has to get the beer ... there's a real man!
> >
> > Funny- I have never seen any of those at any WalMart I have been in.
> >
>
> I have. Sadly.
>
> (Let me be clear .... I don't blame wal-mart for this.)
>
Understood. But unless I had commented on your 'sightings', you would have
been fine with letting others assume through implication and the tone of
this thread that you did blame WalMart. I'm sure you didn't mean it that
way.
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 22:06:54 -0500, Scott Stephenson wrote
(in article <0OydnZhlvNas4HHcRVn-oQ@adelphia.com> ):
> Subject: Re: Verizon sued for crippling Bluetooth in Motorola v710
> From: "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net>
> Date: Today 10:06 PM
> Newsgroups: alt.cellular.cingular, alt.cellular, alt.cellular.verizon
>
>
> "SinghaLvr" <singhalvr@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:0001HW.BE11E5D50003950FF04075B0@nntp.charter.net...
>> On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 21:00:15 -0500, Scott Stephenson wrote
>> (in article <eqadnVarbbMJ8HHcRVn-qQ@adelphia.com> ):
>>
>>>
>>>> I (think) he's bashing the shirtless fools that
>>>> come into the store with barefoot kids to buy a case of beer. Can't
> buy
>>>> shoes for the kid, but has to get the beer ... there's a real man!
>>>
>>> Funny- I have never seen any of those at any WalMart I have been in.
>>>
>>
>> I have. Sadly.
>>
>> (Let me be clear .... I don't blame wal-mart for this.)
>>
>
> Understood. But unless I had commented on your 'sightings', you would have
> been fine with letting others assume through implication and the tone of
> this thread that you did blame WalMart. I'm sure you didn't mean it that
> way.
>
>
You are correct. I had unintentionally conveyed the wrong message. (The
problems of rushing through a thought). What I wanted to convey wasn't so
much that there are various (dare I say it) "types" of people who frequent
Wal-Mart, but rather that the store doesn't do anything to clean up after
these folks. I go to many other stores where at least the place is clean and
orderly.
(Also: Things generally have prices on them in other stores ... but that's a
different problem.)
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <10uoeap6mo1dqda@corp.supernews.com> on Mon, 17 Jan 2005 17:16:52 -0500,
<xman@thedripper.com> wrote:
>I was never a Walmart shopper a while ago...so I'm only use to the current
>scenario. The store is never clean, it's always hot and smelly. I'll never
>even consider those bathrooms since I do see what kind of the most people
>shop there.
In other words, you're a real bigot.
>And don't get the panties all bunched up because of being off topic. It's
>not a law or going to incur a death or anything like that. People need to
>relax and not be so uptight about things like that. ...
Nonsense.
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <0001HW.BE118EEB0001C0C5F03055B0@nntp.charter.net> on Mon, 17 Jan 2005
15:48:59 -0500, SinghaLvr <singhalvr@charter.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 13:45:52 -0500, John Navas wrote
>(in article <AJTGd.2350$m31.29871@typhoon.sonic.net> ):
>
>>
>> Check your browser -- paragraphs are numbered properly for me, both in
>Mozilla
>> Firefox 1.0 and IE 6.
>
>Hmm .... today it looks fine. (Using the same browser as I used last night.)
> ... someone fixed the web-site. :-)
Uh huh.
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <10uop91n0cekk03@news.supernews.com> on Mon, 17 Jan 2005 17:23:45 -0800,
John <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>John Navas wrote:
>> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>>
>> In <10uivv32ekeqdee@news.supernews.com> on Sat, 15 Jan 2005 12:41:06 -0800,
>> John <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>John Navas wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>If Bluetooth works (and it does) then it's not disabled (and it isn't).
>>>>Unless Verizon Wireless specifically promises features that aren't delivered,
>>>>then there is NO CASE.
>>>
>>>Just by mentioning the word "Bluetooth" makes Verizon liable.
>>>Bluetooth IS a method for wireless data exchange with a computer.
>>
>>
>> I personally don't know of any handset that supports all 13 Bluetooth 1.1
>> profiles -- do you?
>>
>
>I don't know of ANY headset other than V710 that intentionally inhibits
>transfer of files via Bluetooth. Do you?
The V710 is a headset???
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 01:53:01 -0500, John Navas wrote
(in article <hn2Hd.2570$m31.31206@typhoon.sonic.net> ):
>>
>> Hmm .... today it looks fine. (Using the same browser as I used last
>> night.)
>> ... someone fixed the web-site. :-)
>
> Uh huh.
Yeah .... I just like to make things up to ruin your day.
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 01:57:20 -0500, John Navas wrote
(in article <kr2Hd.2572$m31.31161@typhoon.sonic.net> ):
>>>
>>>
>>> I personally don't know of any handset that supports all 13 Bluetooth 1.1
>>> profiles -- do you?
>>>
>>
>> I don't know of ANY headset other than V710 that intentionally inhibits
>> transfer of files via Bluetooth. Do you?
>
> The V710 is a headset???
Replace headset with "handset" or "mobile phone". But I'm pretty sure you
knew that. :-)
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <0001HW.BE122162000DD1E0F03055B0@nntp.charter.net> on Tue, 18 Jan 2005
02:13:54 -0500, SinghaLvr <singhalvr@charter.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 01:57:20 -0500, John Navas wrote
>(in article <kr2Hd.2572$m31.31161@typhoon.sonic.net> ):
>
>>>> I personally don't know of any handset that supports all 13 Bluetooth 1.1
>>>> profiles -- do you?
>>>
>>> I don't know of ANY headset other than V710 that intentionally inhibits
>>> transfer of files via Bluetooth. Do you?
>>
>> The V710 is a headset???
>
>Replace headset with "handset" or "mobile phone". But I'm pretty sure you
>knew that. :-)
I know lots of phones with different Bluetooth profile support. There is no
standard.
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 02:29:24 -0500, John Navas wrote
(in article <oV2Hd.2592$m31.31382@typhoon.sonic.net> ):
>
>>>>> I personally don't know of any handset that supports all 13 Bluetooth 1.1
>>>>> profiles -- do you?
>>>>
>>>> I don't know of ANY headset other than V710 that intentionally inhibits
>>>> transfer of files via Bluetooth. Do you?
>>>
>>> The V710 is a headset???
>>
>> Replace headset with "handset" or "mobile phone". But I'm pretty sure you
>> knew that. :-)
>
> I know lots of phones with different Bluetooth profile support. There is no
> standard.
But do you know any that inhibit transfer of files between the phone and the
bound PC?
(I am understandably curious ...)
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)
SinghaLvr wrote:
>>
>> I know lots of phones with different Bluetooth profile support.
>> There is no standard.
>
> But do you know any that inhibit transfer of files between the phone
> and the bound PC?
>
> (I am understandably curious ...)
Sure.. go to http://www.1800mobiles.com/bluetooth-data-suite.html
and it says:
Sure...
Bluetooth Cell Phone & PDA Data Suite
Product Details:
Versatile and efficient, Bluetooth Fone Data Suite frees a user from a
cable-surrounded environment and makes mobile office and mobile fun
possible. It enables a hassle-free (no need of changing cables to connect
different devices) and truly wireless connection to Internet/easy data
transmiting. Moreover, it makes synchronization with PDAs, Phonebook entries
updats, images transmit from PC, and net surfing with cell phone as wireless
modem lot easier and more fun.
Phonebook BI-way up/download phonebook between PC and mobile. Edit/Update
phone numbers and text entries. BI-way Import and Export CSV format phone
book file, *.csv, used by popular e-mail engines (i.e. MS Outlook and
Outlook Express)
Sounds great until you read the note)
Note:
Some functions may not activate if not supported by the mobile phone. Please
check the Supported phones and Features to find out the detailed support
INFO. The Bluetooth Fone Data Suite is specially designed to for Bluetooth
cell phones and PDAs. This product currently does not support Bluetooth
Keyboard, Mouse, Printer, LAN access and the file transfer between two PCs
over Bluetooth connection.
==========================================
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 03:03:21 -0500, Peter Pan wrote
(in article <353u6dF4h5lkjU1@individual.net> ):
>
> Sure.. go to http://www.1800mobiles.com/bluetooth-data-suite.html
> and it says:
> Sure...
> Bluetooth Cell Phone & PDA Data Suite
>
> Product Details:
I understand that in theory file transfer may not be supported. However, is
the V710 the first phone to actually NOT support that profile in a handset?
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)
In article <0001HW.BE12634A001D445EF03055B0@nntp.charter.net>,
SinghaLvr <singhalvr@charter.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 03:03:21 -0500, Peter Pan wrote
> (in article <353u6dF4h5lkjU1@individual.net> ):
>
> >
> > Sure.. go to http://www.1800mobiles.com/bluetooth-data-suite.html
> > and it says:
> > Sure...
> > Bluetooth Cell Phone & PDA Data Suite
> >
> > Product Details:
>
> I understand that in theory file transfer may not be supported. However, is
> the V710 the first phone to actually NOT support that profile in a handset?
File Transfer works great in my Motorola v600.
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)
SinghaLvr wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 03:03:21 -0500, Peter Pan wrote
> (in article <353u6dF4h5lkjU1@individual.net> ):
>
>>
>> Sure.. go to http://www.1800mobiles.com/bluetooth-data-suite.html
>> and it says:
>> Sure...
>> Bluetooth Cell Phone & PDA Data Suite
>>
>> Product Details:
>
> I understand that in theory file transfer may not be supported.
> However, is the V710 the first phone to actually NOT support that
> profile in a handset?
Nope.. Not at all.. As a matter of fact, in the original version of
bluetooth (version 1.0) I don't know of any, even in the original Version
1.1 only about 4 had that profile. Now there is about 14.. If there are 14
now, that means that before there were less than the 14 now, and THEY didn't
support it at that time.
In my opinion, the whole thing is really silly. That's like thinking all
cars should be able to hold 15 people, and several hundred pounds of stuff,
because something is called a "car", and there is one car out there that
does that.... ergo all cars should be able to do that too, or what I see in
my other interest (RV's and trailers) there is one "truck" being advertised
on TV now as having a tow rating of 19,250 LBS, therefore EVERY truck should
be able to tow that..
I'm sure you have heard of "junk medical lawsuits".. Why would anyone think
there aren't junk **** lawsuits also?
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)
Steve Sobol wrote:
> Tropical Haven wrote:
>
>> Yes, you can. They stock handsets from Cingular, T-Mobile, Nextel,
>> Virgin Mobile, Tracfone, and formerly AT&T Wireless (at least in this
>> area). I have also seen Sprint PCS handsets stocked in Wal-Marts, but
>> have not lately (maybe the plug was pulled on them, or each store is
>> slightly different, not ignoring companied d/b in locale).
>
>
> My experience is that Wal*Mart sells ONE carrier at each store. Maybe a
> few random prepaids, but only one postpaid. Our Wal*Mart here in Apple
> Valley, CA sells Cingular. The ones back where I grew up in Northeast
> Ohio vary; Cleveland Heights and Stow/Cuyahoga Falls sell Alltel, and I
> think the other ones sell Verizon.
>
> FYI.
>
Actually, one of our Wally's sells Alltel. The other ones are not
within the Alltel licensed area.
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)
> I'm sort of curious.. is Walmart actually selling them, or is the
> kiosk/provider just in the store? (ie do you make the check out to walmart
> or cingular/alltel etc when you buy one?)
In our Wal-Marts (Orlando/Tampa area) you pay the cost of the handset
(if any) to Wal-Mart. The phones are located in the electronics
department in the glass cases. I have, however, seen kiosks such as
T-Mobile authorized dealers, and "Cellular One" authorized dealers
inside other Wal-Marts. It again may depend upon the market.
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)
Walmart has some good deals on toilet paper some times!
"Justin" <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:slrncuol95.l4q.nospam@debian.dns2go.com...
> Scott Stephenson wrote on [Mon, 17 Jan 2005 16:41:54 -0700]:
> >
> > <xman@thedripper.com> wrote in message
> > news:10uoeap6mo1dqda@corp.supernews.com...
> >> I'll never
> >> even consider those bathrooms since I do see what kind of the most
people
> >> shop there.
> >>
> >
> > Wow- that is certainly an elightened approach to people. I had a '50's
> > flashback for a second- maybe not that specific, but the idea that
people
> > still turn their nose down at 'those people' (regardless of the race or
> > economic situation of the people in discussion)
>
> What about the fact that the toilets at wally world are always
> disgusting because PIGS use them and can't be bothered with any sort of
> hygiene? What about THOSE people?
>
> > shopped at WalMart for years- not out of necessity, but out of
convenience.
>
> Wal Mart is an evil corporation that preys on their own employees, local
> businesses and businesses.
>
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)
Wow! This thread has taken off. Now, I don't complain about being off
topic...I never have. It's actually a good thing if people feel strongly
about some thing they'll post away, but wow. And I have about 15 more
articles to read on the same thread! O well...American Idol time. Well, at
least just the auditions.
"Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:17Wdndr_B5YC-HHcRVn-pg@adelphia.com...
>
> "Justin" <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote in message
> news:slrncuooqm.l4q.nospam@debian.dns2go.com...
>
> >
> > It's not a stereotype if that is what you witness EVERY time you've ever
> > been to a WalMart restroom, no matter in what city or state now, is it?
>
> I don't have the energy or patience to explain. If you want to believe
that
> evey WalMart is like that, go ahead. If you'll sleep better knowing that
> you got the last word in here, go for it. You go ahead and believe as you
> will- my condolences to everybody who deals with you on a daily basis.
>
>
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)
I've lost the "topic" of this whole thread anyway. Some thing about
contractors? I have no idea and only remember barely on how it even got
started. Short term memory loss might be a good thing!
"Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:jzwick3-B8CA5A.20033017012005@news1.west.earthlink.net...
> In article <slrncuolah.l4q.nospam@debian.dns2go.com>,
> Justin <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
> > <xman@thedripper.com> wrote on [Mon, 17 Jan 2005 17:25:57 -0500]:
> > > Once again, cutting contractors is not laying off people per the
CONTEXT of
> > > what we were talking about. Since you didn't care to comprehend that
you're
> > > just posting for the hell of it of what your opinion is about cutting
> > > contractors out. A contractor is NOT an employee of Comcast. It's a
> > > contractor/consultant. When their contract is up they go away.
> >
> > Or even before....
>
> I guess he didn't see the Simpson's on Sunday. Homer has been rewarded
> by being made a consultant at Springfield Electric.
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)
<xman@thedripper.com> wrote in message
news:10uroppqdrbgg5f@corp.supernews.com...
> Forgot about the customer? Well, I'm not sure where you live but here in
NJ
> every company has forgotten about the customer. Where ever you go, it's
just
> about volume, volume, and volume. I really would pay more for products and
> services for better support and customer satisfaction. I don't think I've
> walked into a company or a store in the last 5 years that the people
working
> there had a good knowledge about what they sold or even wanted to work
> there. It's funny...all you gotta do is look at some one's face to see if
> they've been there too long and can't wait to go home.
>
Is it the companies or the current crop of new hires? Could it be that the
companies are forced to make up in volume what they can't sell with quality
service because the nomadic XBox generation has hit the work force? Think
about it- anybody that can actually remember what a slide rule is for seems
to have a much different outlook on employment and career. The attitude
these days is that the paycheck is a basic entitlement and little or no
effort is required to get it. I did the retail thing for years- loved it.
Owned my own store for a while. The kids that I hired and worked with had a
much different attitude- they actually wanted to learn the job and found
helping people fun. Before I left the east coast, that work ethic was
already disappearing.
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 23:34:00 -0500, xman@thedripper.com wrote
(in article <10uroppqdrbgg5f@corp.supernews.com> ):
> Forgot about the customer? Well, I'm not sure where you live but here in NJ
> every company has forgotten about the customer. Where ever you go, it's just
> about volume, volume, and volume. I really would pay more for products and
> services for better support and customer satisfaction. I don't think I've
> walked into a company or a store in the last 5 years that the people working
> there had a good knowledge about what they sold or even wanted to work
> there. It's funny...all you gotta do is look at some one's face to see if
> they've been there too long and can't wait to go home.
We have several stores here that still have customer focus. It's pretty nice
actually.
In the retail segment we have two Target stores that do a fantastic job. We
have an Ace Hardware up the road that is more expensive than Home Depot and
Lowes, but I'll go to Ace first. Why? A person always greats me at the
door, asks me what I want and takes me right to it. (He also asks me what
I'm working on and then tells me that I'm buying the wrong stuff ... he's
usually right.) We have a local JC Penney store where the person in the Mens
department knows me by name. I've been shopping there for 5 years, but kind
of infrequently.
So, no, not all businesses are strictly focused on volume.
My philosophy (in my own business): Do everything in your power to obtain
and RETAIN a customer. Everything else (profit, growth, return) will happen
automatically.
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 23:59:16 -0500, Scott Stephenson wrote
(in article <54ydnYiNLfZjdXDcRVn-iw@adelphia.com> ):
> My commute to work is about an
> hour.
So you are one of those environmental terrorists!! Wasting gas! Funding
the middle east! Polluting the Earth for future generations! Spitting
toxins in to the air! Why? So you can live cheaper! EVIL PERSON!
<grin>
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)
SinghaLvr wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 23:59:16 -0500, Scott Stephenson wrote
> (in article <54ydnYiNLfZjdXDcRVn-iw@adelphia.com> ):
>
>> My commute to work is about an
>> hour.
>
> So you are one of those environmental terrorists!! Wasting gas!
> Funding the middle east! Polluting the Earth for future generations!
> Spitting toxins in to the air! Why? So you can live cheaper! EVIL
> PERSON!
>
> <grin>
Interesting... How do you know he doesn't commute on a bike?
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)
In article <onqlu019fl2dlna20g2331fpt0j4p8rnmo@4ax.com>,
Mike <inundated9@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >What marketers don't say can be deemed as misleading as what they do
> >say. The V710 was advertised as Bluetooth with no disclaimers
> >concerning its severe limitations. The features crippled are
> >significant. Not just file transfer but even basic synching of
> >contacts or a calendar is disabled. A judge and/or the court of
> >public opinion will decide the issue.
>
> The features crippled were not significant to me...I don't need them.
>
> The two things the v710 does do over Bluetooth, use of a wireless
> handset or speaker, and access to the Internet, I DO use and do work
> fine. I never had any intent on transferring files, ringtones, or
> even contacts or calendars to my 710.
But they may be significant to other people. For instance, they
crippled the feature that would allow uploading contacts to a bluetooth
equipped automobile such as the Acura, and the Prius, with
voice-activated navigation systems; those vehicles also have BT
connectivity with phones.
--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)
In article <QFTGd.2349$m31.30014@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> By that standard, there would be virtually no Bluetooth devices. I
> personally don't know of any handset that supports all 13 Bluetooth
> 1.1 profiles -- do you?
That is a bogus argument; some of those profiles don't make sense for a
phone. The ones being complained about do make sense for a phone.
"You can use your phone with the Bluetooth functions of your automobile,
but we won't let you upload the phone's phonebook to the car."
"You can take photographs with your phone, but we won't let you transfer
those photographs to your computer unless you use our expensive relay
system." (This applies both to bluetooth and USB connections.)
--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)
In article <g5TFd.1894$m31.22094@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> Since most Bluetooth devices don't support all profiles and features,
> there can't be implied functionality, and thus there is NO CASE.
Yeah, the phone doesn't support the keyboard and mouse profiles, so it
doesn't have to support data-transfer profiles. Heck, it doesn't even
have to support headset or handsfree profiles.
--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)
In article <z7TFd.1896$m31.22073@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >I would have otherwise assumed that I could do file transfers between phone
> >&
> >computer. It's been a natural part of bluetooth since ... well, since I
> >knew
> >about bluetooth anyway. ...
>
> Really? Bluetooth headsets can do data transfer?
What part of "phone and computer" don't you understand?
--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)
In article <H7VFd.1922$m31.22438@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> I disagree. Bluetooth support varies from device to device. If you
> want a specific function, then you have an obligation to see if that
> function is supported. It's not the responsibility of the seller to
> anticipate your expectations. Windows XP SP2 doesn't support the
> Bluetooth headset profile. Is Microsoft liable? 
Your standard is
> unrealistic and unworkable.
Yeah, because equipment that do not support profiles that make no sense
for them to support, they shouldn't be expected to support profiles that
do make sense for them to support.
--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)
In article <UJ1Gd.2026$m31.23853@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> I have no idea what Verizon has in mind, but I suspect it has more to
> do with the very real risks of "bluesnarfing" and "bluejacking" than
> with curtailing user choice.
It has more to do with "We can make more money by forcing users to send
their photos over our network than to allow them to connect directly to
their computers."
> Regardless, if you don't like the limitations, then buy something
> else! No one is being forced to buy the V710.
What other Bluetooth models are available from Verizon?
--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)
In article <5yTGd.2346$m31.29997@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> In other words:
> * If you don't like the V710, don't buy it.
> * If you don't like Verizon's phones, use a different carrier.
If there were any other carrier that had a usable signal at my home, I
would.
--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 01:50:40 -0700, Michelle Steiner
<michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
>But they may be significant to other people. For instance, they
>crippled the feature that would allow uploading contacts to a bluetooth
>equipped automobile such as the Acura, and the Prius, with
>voice-activated navigation systems; those vehicles also have BT
>connectivity with phones.
Agreed. And I do wonder why the contacts can't be transferred, even to
a PC. I understand the lack of file transfer, in the VZW "Get it Now"
business model - and quite frankly expected that even before I started
researching the phone.
I still don't have a lot of sympathy for folks who bought the phone
and didn't do research.
Mike
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <michelle-BB832C.02080219012005@news.west.cox.net> on Wed, 19 Jan 2005
02:08:02 -0700, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
>In article <5yTGd.2346$m31.29997@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> In other words:
>> * If you don't like the V710, don't buy it.
>> * If you don't like Verizon's phones, use a different carrier.
>
>If there were any other carrier that had a usable signal at my home, I
>would.
If you don't like the V710, don't buy it. Verizon offers a selection of other
phones.
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)
[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <michelle-AD59C1.02045619012005@news.west.cox.net> on Wed, 19 Jan 2005
02:04:56 -0700, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
>In article <UJ1Gd.2026$m31.23853@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> I have no idea what Verizon has in mind, but I suspect it has more to
>> do with the very real risks of "bluesnarfing" and "bluejacking" than
>> with curtailing user choice.
>
>It has more to do with "We can make more money by forcing users to send
>their photos over our network than to allow them to connect directly to
>their computers."
Really? What's stopping you from using cable or Transflash?
>> Regardless, if you don't like the limitations, then buy something
>> else! No one is being forced to buy the V710.
>
>What other Bluetooth models are available from Verizon?
How is that relevant? It's well known that CDMA is late to the Bluetooth
party, one of the drawbacks of CDMA.
--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>
There are 10 identified and unidentified users. To see the list of identified users, Click here.
Please mind
You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months.
If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.
