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-F20548.02001619012005@news.west.cox.net> on Wed, 19 Jan 2005
02:00:16 -0700, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

>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.

Making sense is a matter of opinion, not fact -- my opinion is that XP SP2
should support the headset profile because I'd like to use my Bluetooth
headset with Skype. Other Bluetooth stacks support the headset profile.
Should I sue Microsoft?

--
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-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-76AB8F.01572019012005@news.west.cox.net> on Wed, 19 Jan 2005
01:57:20 -0700, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

>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.

Correct, your sarcasm notwithstanding.

--
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 <michelle-A1EAD2.01504019012005@news.west.cox.net> on Wed, 19 Jan 2005
01:50:40 -0700, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

>In article <onqlu019fl2dlna20g2331fpt0j4p8rnmo@4ax.com>,
> Mike <inundated9@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> 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. ...

Then those people may want to avoid the V710. There is no perfect product.
I wish my Sony Ericsson had a speakerphone. There's a speaker on the back,
and I think it "should" have been supported as a speakerphone. Grounds for
another 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 <p8yHd.2776$m31.34857@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> I wish my Sony Ericsson had a speakerphone. There's a speaker on the
> back, and I think it "should" have been supported as a speakerphone.
> Grounds for another class action lawsuit?

Depends. Did they say it has a speakerphone? Did they say it has a
speaker?

--
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 <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 <k5yHd.2774$m31.34834@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.
>
> Correct, your sarcasm notwithstanding.

For that matter, the phone doesn't have to support being able to make a
call directly from its internal phone book, or, come to think of it, it
doesn't have to support making or receiving phone calls.

--
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 <T0yHd.2771$m31.34784@typhoon.sonic.net>,
John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> >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?

You can't transfer pictures using a cable. Transflash costs extra
money--both for the card and for the card reader. Further, transflash
doesn't allow you to connect the phone directly to the computer.

> >> 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?

Because that means you can't buy something else; there is nothing else
available that has bluetooth and works with Verizon.

> It's well known that CDMA is late to the Bluetooth party, one of the
> drawbacks of CDMA.

No, it's not a drawback of CDMA; CDMA works with Bluetooth.

--
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-6887CB.13432119012005@news.west.cox.net> on Wed, 19 Jan 2005
13:43:21 -0700, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

>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?

Life's a bitch, and you're not entitled to Bluetooth from Verizon. If you
don't like Verizon phones, then don't deal with Verizon. And don't tell me
you have to, because you don't.

--
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-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-30FA36.13331419012005@news.west.cox.net> on Wed, 19 Jan 2005
13:33:14 -0700, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

>In article <p8yHd.2776$m31.34857@typhoon.sonic.net>,
> John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> I wish my Sony Ericsson had a speakerphone. There's a speaker on the
>> back, and I think it "should" have been supported as a speakerphone.
>> Grounds for another class action lawsuit?
>
>Depends. Did they say it has a speakerphone? Did they say it has a
>speaker?

Yes, and I think that implied speakerphone as much as you think Bluetooth
implied OBEX, so my lawsuit is just as potent as yours 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?)

[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>