Verizon sued for crippling Bluetooth in Motorola v710 - Page 4

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 <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>

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

In article <l42tu0dqbbkiqthe4nk76eqgobra0bg4m9@4ax.com>,
Mike <inundated9@yahoo.com> 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.

It can, but only with a USB cable. That doesn't help with my car,
though. I guess the problem is that with bluetooth, they can't disable
one without disabling the other.

> 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.

Actually, that's one issue that doesn't affect me because I don't have
any data other than address book and calendar information to exchange
with my computer--and I can do that with the USB cable.

> I still don't have a lot of sympathy for folks who bought the phone
> and didn't do research.

And sometimes the research turns up wrong answers--such as an update to
fix the problem that was supposed to have been released two months ago.

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <michelle-DFD013.01581719012005@news.west.cox.net> on Wed, 19 Jan 2005
01:58:17 -0700, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

>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?

What part of that is meaningful?

As I wrote, different devices support different profiles, and currently there
is no standard set of profiles for any device.

--
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-29F96A.01553419012005@news.west.cox.net> on Wed, 19 Jan 2005
01:55:34 -0700, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

>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.

That's a matter of personal opinion, not fact, and thus no basis for a class
action lawsuit.

--
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 <l42tu0dqbbkiqthe4nk76eqgobra0bg4m9@4ax.com> on Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:21:25
-0500, Mike <inundated9@yahoo.com> wrote:

>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. ...

Perhaps concern over "bluesnarfing" and/or "bluejacking".

--
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?)

In article <f6yHd.2775$m31.34659@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.
>
> That's a matter of personal opinion, not fact, and thus no basis for
> a class action lawsuit.

What is opinion? That some profiles make sense for a phone?

--
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 <h3yHd.2772$m31.34653@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> >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.
>
> Making sense is a matter of opinion, not fact

yeah, it is a matter of opinion that blue tooth mouse should or should
not support a headset profile or that a blue tooth phone should or
should not support a mouse profile.

But arguing that it is a matter of opinion and not fact is totally
irrelevant as to whether a matter is grounds for a lawsuit. Lawsuits
are all matters of opinions.

--
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 <4VxHd.2770$m31.34653@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> >> * 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.

What part of "there are no other Bluetooth phones available from
Verizon" 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?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <michelle-A8EA32.13341219012005@news.west.cox.net> on Wed, 19 Jan 2005
13:34:12 -0700, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

>In article <f6yHd.2775$m31.34659@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.
>>
>> That's a matter of personal opinion, not fact, and thus no basis for
>> a class action lawsuit.
>
>What is opinion? That some profiles make sense for a phone?

That some profiles are required as a matter of law, a patently silly
proposition.

--
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-1FDC89.13390519012005@news.west.cox.net> on Wed, 19 Jan 2005
13:39:05 -0700, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

>In article <h3yHd.2772$m31.34653@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> >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.
>>
>> Making sense is a matter of opinion, not fact
>
>yeah, it is a matter of opinion that blue tooth mouse should or should
>not support a headset profile or that a blue tooth phone should or
>should not support a mouse profile.
>
>But arguing that it is a matter of opinion and not fact is totally
>irrelevant as to whether a matter is grounds for a lawsuit. Lawsuits
>are all matters of opinions.

There is no grounds for a class action lawsuit. Zero. Zilch. Nada. I'm
willing to bet it doesn't even get certified. Care to put your money where
your mouth, er opinion is? ;-)

--
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 Wed, 19 Jan 2005 13:57:56 -0500, John Navas wrote
(in article <U4yHd.2773$m31.34681@typhoon.sonic.net> ):

>>> Really? Bluetooth headsets can do data transfer?
>>
>> What part of "phone and computer" don't you understand?
>
> What part of that is meaningful?
>
> As I wrote, different devices support different profiles, and currently there
> is no standard set of profiles for any device.

Yet we still can't think of a modern bluetooth phone that does NOT support
data transfer.

(One may exist, but I've yet to see it)

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <0001HW.BE146CEB0000E6B1F04885B0@nntp.charter.net> on Wed, 19 Jan 2005
20:00:43 -0500, SinghaLvr <singhalvr@charter.net> wrote:

>On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 13:57:56 -0500, John Navas wrote
>(in article <U4yHd.2773$m31.34681@typhoon.sonic.net> ):
>
>>>> Really? Bluetooth headsets can do data transfer?
>>>
>>> What part of "phone and computer" don't you understand?
>>
>> What part of that is meaningful?
>>
>> As I wrote, different devices support different profiles, and currently there
>> is no standard set of profiles for any device.
>
>Yet we still can't think of a modern bluetooth phone that does NOT support
>data transfer.
>
>(One may exist, but I've yet to see it)

How is that relevant?

--
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?)

"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:f6yHd.2775$m31.34659@typhoon.sonic.net...
>
> That's a matter of personal opinion, not fact, and thus no basis for a
class
> action lawsuit.
>
> --
Isn't that last statement a lay opinion itself? And if so, what makes it any
better than another's opinion? And if you saying it to point out that
opinions are not germane to the argument, why add another?

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news6EHd.2885$m31.35783@typhoon.sonic.net...

>
> Courts issue findings of fact and rulings of law.

Based on personal interpretation of the law- the Supreme Court rules and the
justices issue their written "Opinions" of the issue and how this influenced
their ruling.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <ydqdncKyjqR9jHLcRVn-sQ@adelphia.com> on Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:06:06 -0700,
"Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:

>"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news6EHd.2885$m31.35783@typhoon.sonic.net...
>
>> Courts issue findings of fact and rulings of law.
>
>Based on personal interpretation of the law- the Supreme Court rules and the
>justices issue their written "Opinions" of the issue and how this influenced
>their ruling.

Whatever you say, Scott Stephenson ESQ.

--
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?)

"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:fkFHd.2903$m31.35972@typhoon.sonic.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <cPqdnQth08l9jnLcRVn-tw@adelphia.com> on Wed, 19 Jan 2005
19:14:38 -0700,
> "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> >"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
> >news:AfEHd.2891$m31.35626@typhoon.sonic.net...
> >>
> >> In <DeCdnZpZbKDVknLcRVn-qw@adelphia.com> on Wed, 19 Jan 2005
18:55:02 -0700,
> >> "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:f6yHd.2775$m31.34659@typhoon.sonic.net...
> >> >>
> >> >> That's a matter of personal opinion, not fact, and thus no basis for
a class
> >> >> action lawsuit.
> >>
> >> >Isn't that last statement a lay opinion itself? And if so, what makes
it any
> >> >better than another's opinion? And if you saying it to point out that
> >> >opinions are not germane to the argument, why add another?
> >>
> >> I have professional experience in class action law. Do you? Is that
also
> >> part of your music expertise?
> >
> >Where did I offer anything but an observation that you, not a member of
the
> >bar, offered an opinion after discounting another lay opinion? I didn't
> >realize that any type of expertise was required to identify something
like
> >that. You need to calm down- you are getting too emotional about this.
>
> In short, you have zero experience, yet you presume to challenge those
that
> do, in a rude and childish manner. Speaks for itself.
>

So your claim not to be a lawyer was incorrect? Or are you saying that your
opinion is not a lay opinion? I'm confused here- in another thread, you
offer that no opinion is valid in arguing the merits of a particular set of
laws, but here it is acceptable for you to do so. And you do this as a lay
person, which is what you chide others for when offering their own opinions.
Are you really so egotistical to believe that your opinion trumps anybody
else's?

BTW- what credentials (or lack of) are you referencing when you claim I have
zero experience? Some of us actually don't feel the need to boast of our
experiences or credentials.

One other thing- the only rude and childish remarks seem to be contained in
your responses to me. I have been very controlled and measured with my
responses. Is this because I have actually blown a few holes in the aura
that is Navas? I can think of no other reason for the juvenile responses to
me.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:48:05 -0500, John Navas wrote
(in article <p5EHd.2884$m31.35523@typhoon.sonic.net> ):

>>
>> Yet we still can't think of a modern bluetooth phone that does NOT support
>> data transfer.
>>
>> (One may exist, but I've yet to see it)
>
> How is that relevant?

(Playing devils advocate)

If every phone prior to the V710 supported file transfer do you not think
that such a profile would become a de-facto "standard issue" in the eyes of a
majority of the buying public?

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <0001HW.BE14A408000DD167F03055B0@nntp.charter.net> on Wed, 19 Jan 2005
23:55:52 -0500, SinghaLvr <singhalvr@charter.net> wrote:

>On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:48:05 -0500, John Navas wrote
>(in article <p5EHd.2884$m31.35523@typhoon.sonic.net> ):
>
>>> Yet we still can't think of a modern bluetooth phone that does NOT support
>>> data transfer.
>>>
>>> (One may exist, but I've yet to see it)
>>
>> How is that relevant?
>
>(Playing devils advocate)
>
>If every phone prior to the V710 supported file transfer do you not think
>that such a profile would become a de-facto "standard issue" in the eyes of a
>majority of the buying public?

Not as a matter of legal obligation.

--
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 Thu, 20 Jan 2005 02:57:48 -0500, John Navas wrote
(in article <0wJHd.2933$m31.36396@typhoon.sonic.net> ):

>>>
>>> How is that relevant?
>>
>> (Playing devils advocate)
>>
>> If every phone prior to the V710 supported file transfer do you not think
>> that such a profile would become a de-facto "standard issue" in the eyes of
>> a
>> majority of the buying public?
>
> Not as a matter of legal obligation.

Perhaps for a Jury?

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:HwJHd.2934$m31.36640@typhoon.sonic.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <vcudnTNYrtkYuHLcRVn-hw@adelphia.com> on Wed, 19 Jan 2005
20:29:56 -0700,
> "Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> >If you feel that my statement was wrong, feel free to point out the
errors-
> >...
>
> Been there; done that.
>
> --
No you haven't- all you've done is snipe. I even googled it- nothing from
you. You're acting like a child- actually more like Jack in his Phillippe
days. You make mistakes and can't admit it.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:3YKdnXWzws2Rym3cRVn-3A@adelphia.com...
>
> "John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
> news:0wJHd.2933$m31.36396@typhoon.sonic.net...
> > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
> >
> > In <0001HW.BE14A408000DD167F03055B0@nntp.charter.net> on Wed, 19 Jan
2005
> > 23:55:52 -0500, SinghaLvr <singhalvr@charter.net> wrote:
> >
> > >On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 20:48:05 -0500, John Navas wrote
> > >(in article <p5EHd.2884$m31.35523@typhoon.sonic.net> ):
> > >
> > >>> Yet we still can't think of a modern bluetooth phone that does NOT
> support
> > >>> data transfer.
> > >>>
> > >>> (One may exist, but I've yet to see it)
> > >>
> > >> How is that relevant?
> > >
> > >(Playing devils advocate)
> > >
> > >If every phone prior to the V710 supported file transfer do you not
think
> > >that such a profile would become a de-facto "standard issue" in the
eyes
> of a
> > >majority of the buying public?
> >
> > Not as a matter of legal obligation.
> >
>
> Let me guess- your experience as an expert witness allows this to be a
valid
> opinion. Or did your experience as an expert witness apply to copyright
> law? Just whart was the area of expertise that qualified you as an expert
> witness? Can I guess that it was neither of the above?
>
>

Wait- I may have answered my own question. You were called as an expert to
compare computer code and only to compare computer code. 1986? SEA and
PKWARE? A far cry from the legal opinions you feel obligated to give in
your role as a former expert witness. Certainly not the type of expert to
be giving 'expert' opinions on either copyrights or truth in advertising.
That would make my prior statement accurate- it was neither of the above.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

SinghaLvr wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 09:10:49 -0500, Peter Pan wrote
> (in article <359sfcF4hhdcgU1@individual.net> ):
>
>> Newsgroups: alt.cellular.cingular, alt.cellular, alt.cellular.verizon
>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How is that relevant?
>>>>>
>>>>> (Playing devils advocate)
>>>>>
>>>>> If every phone prior to the V710 supported file transfer do you
>>>>> not think that such a profile would become a de-facto "standard
>>>>> issue" in the eyes of a
>>>>> majority of the buying public?
>>>>
>>
>> Sorry to burst your bubble, but only about 1/2 of the phones with
>> bluetooth capability support file transfer. No way is your statement
>> even close to reality.
>
> Which ones do not?
> (It was an honest question)

There are many phones, some do/some don't/some specifically say what they
ma/may not support. Best I can suggest is to go to a phone search website...
Go to the site http://www.phonescoop.com
on the left hand side are a list of functions.. Click on "Phone Finder"

There is a huge menu of things to limit a search...

Pick what you want to see (you will be limited to only 20 are shown) ((If
you don't pick a carrier, you get more than can be displayed))

A list of phones is displayed, and you can click on each one to read the
specifics about it.

=====================================
For the specific search you asked about, I only looked at carrier (cingular
and verizon), bluetooth (required). For the alternative, data transfer
(required)
When you look at each phone, there is a section called features, and under
that you will see something like:
(non data transfer)
Features
.....
Bluetooth supports handsfree, headset, and dial-up-networking profiles
(carrier-dependent)

(data transfer allowed)
Bluetooth Class 2

========================================

The best suggestion I can make, is go to the source....rather than buy the
arguments from people with their own foibles.... I learned many years ago to
find out the *FACTS* and make up my own mind, don't be persuaded by people's
lies.

Want to know the absolute positive truth about bluetooth, rather than the
opinions of people here, and make up your own mind?

Again.. go to the source..... https://www.bluetooth.org/

See EXACTLY what they say and what they REQUIRE to use the bluetooth logo.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

SinghaLvr wrote:
>> See EXACTLY what they say and what they REQUIRE to use the bluetooth
>> logo.
>
> I'm actually in agreement with you. It's not required. I just have
> not seen any devices that currently support bluetooth and not file
> transfer. (Not recently anyway). We see quite a few devices at my
> workplace (long story, but we write software that utilizes bluetooth
> file transfer among other things) and so far I can't think of a
> device that's come through from any vendor that didn't support this
> functionality.
>
> I guess I'm more surprised that VZW would do something so different
> from most of the other vendors. Since you can still do file transfer
> with a USB cable they haven't prevented anything or protected any
> "contractual obligations", but they have raised the ire of at least a
> few of their customers. I'm not sure what the benefit will end up
> being to Verizion.

The point is there are a LOT of bluetooth phones out there that don't
support file transfer, and the bluetooth specs do not require it. In your
case, if the phone doesn't support it, why would you see them at work to
program file transfer? You only see the ones that CAN, rather than the ones
that CAN'T.


I happen to agree with the theory that just because one model has a feature,
doesn't mean every model has that same feature.. Think of the car ad's..
There is one I saw recently where it can have 8 passengers and lots of cargo
space in the trunk... Now a corvette is also a car, but guess what? no way
in heck you are gonna cram 8 people into a two seater corvette, and it
doesn't even have a trunk. Should Chevy be sued because it's corvette model
can't do what some other models do?

Sorry, happens to be a hot button for me, I sell and service both computers
and cellphones, and get really sick and tired of hearing people ask why
can't I do so and so, the ads say computers or cellphones can do that.. why
can't *this* piece of s* do what the other ones are advertised as
doing...Makes me want to hit the complainer up the side of the head....
(accck.. frustration... guess I'll stay on vacation for a while longer, at
least until I loose the urge to strangle someone

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

nospam wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 15:20:38 -0500, Peter Pan wrote
> (in article <35fqspF4l155vU1@individual.net> ):
>
>> The point is there are a LOT of bluetooth phones out there that don't
>> support file transfer,
>
> But no-one can name a single model that does not.

Funny, I specifically named how to find DOZENS of em....

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <35gv2gF4l71mrU1@individual.net>,
> "Peter Pan" <Marcs1102NOSPAM@HotmailNOSPAM.com> wrote:
>
>>>> The point is there are a LOT of bluetooth phones out there that
>>>> don't support file transfer,
>>>
>>> But no-one can name a single model that does not.
>>
>> Funny, I specifically named how to find DOZENS of em....
>
> Instead of saying how to find them, how about naming them?

Don't be an idiot..
The bluetooth specs are at www.bluetooth.org and they say absolutely nothing
about requiring file transfer..
Since the Moto v710 is CDMA, can anyone show a single CDMA phone with
bluetooth that allows file transfer? (hint, there are none, zero, nada,
zilch)
While there are GSM phones that do bluetooth FT, the discussion is about
Verizon, and there isn't a single current verizon phone that supports BT
file transfer. Seems sort of silly for anybody to assume that it will do
something that nothing else on Verizon does
there have been 4 Verizon BT phones..
2 current models (neither of which do file transfer)
Audiovox PPC-6600
Motorola V710

2 Discontinued models, phones have no native bluetooth, but clip on adapters
allow it.
Motorola Timeport 270c, and the Sony Ericsson T61c
.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

"Peter Pan" <Marcs1102NOSPAM@HotmailNOSPAM.com> wrote in
news:35h49vF4fp9atU1@individual.net:

> 2 Discontinued models, phones have no native bluetooth, but clip on
> adapters allow it.
> Motorola Timeport 270c, and the Sony Ericsson T61c


Both of which, when those adapters are attached, support file transfer via
Bluetooh. I happen to have a Verizon-branded T61c.


David