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.