Tom's Guide > Forum > Mobility Networks > Cingular > Verizon sued for crippling Bluetooth in Motorola v710

Verizon sued for crippling Bluetooth in Motorola v710 - Page 2

Forum Mobility Networks : Cingular - Verizon sued for crippling Bluetooth in Motorola v710

TomsGuide.com: Over 800,000 questions and answers to address all your high-tech questions. Sign up now! Its free!
Word :    Username :           
 

Last message on previous page:
Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular,alt.cellular,alt.cellular.verizon (More info?)

 

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 16:34:41 -0700, "Quaoar" <quaoar@tenthplanet.net>
wrote:

>Jack Zwick wrote:
>> One can not transfer files (such as pictures taken) with the bluetooth
>> as configured in the Verizon model of the Motorola v710..
>> Upset users are suing:
>>
>> <http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1293&e=1&u=/nm/20050113
>> /tc_nm/telecoms_verizonwireless_lawsuit_dc&sid=95573419>
>
>This, of course, is going nowhere at high speed.

People need to wake the eff up and start voting with their DOLLARS.
VZW is a gigantic, arrogant company, an won't change until it loses
enough customers to competitors like Cingular who have a clue re:
Bluetooth and other features that customers want.

--
Friends don't let friends shop at Best Buy (except to buy loss leaders for resale on eBay).
(See http://tinyurl.com/6efhd)

Reply to Anonymous
Sponsored Links
Register or log in to remove.

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

 

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 12:31:47 -0500, Justin wrote
(in article <slrncuiks3.817.nospam@debian.dns2go.com> ):

> Subject: Re: Verizon sued for crippling Bluetooth in Motorola v710
> From: Justin <nospam@insightbb.com>
> Date: Today 12:31 PM
> Newsgroups: alt.cellular.cingular, alt.cellular, alt.cellular.verizon
>
> SinghaLvr wrote on [Sat, 15 Jan 2005 02:18:17 -0500]:
>> On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 00:26:18 -0500, John Navas wrote
>> (in article <_P1Gd.2030$m31.23836@typhoon.sonic.net> ):
>>
>>>
>>>> Verizon is a lot more secretive than Microsoft.
>>>
>>> Say what?! LOL
>>
>> We know what Microsoft is planning on releasing in 2007.
>
> No, we know what their PR dept is telling us they may release in 2007.
>

How is that different than what the company is planning to release? (I did
purposly put the word "planning" in my statement.)
(As in plan, as in plans often change ....)

I'm not sure where we disagree.

VZW seems far more secretive about their plans, at least in so far as phone
releases go. They seem to be a wee-bit more forthcoming about their network
plans.

Reply to Anonymous

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

 

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 10:25:29 -0800, Scott en Aztlán
<slothkills@NOyahooSPAM.com> wrote:

>People need to wake the eff up and start voting with their DOLLARS.
>VZW is a gigantic, arrogant company, an won't change until it loses
>enough customers to competitors like Cingular who have a clue re:
>Bluetooth and other features that customers want.

Well, aside from the "power to the people" rhetoric, I agree. If you
don't like VZW's Bluetooth implementation...go to Cingular. Or
T-Mobile. Or whoever. Suing a cell phone company because you weren't
smart enough to research your purchase properly is nuts.

But Cingular, oddly enough, is also a "gigantic, arrogant company".
So is T-Mobile. You don't get warm, friendly, personal service out of
a major company.

Reply to Anonymous
- 0 +

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

 

SinghaLvr wrote on [Sat, 15 Jan 2005 13:28:25 -0500]:
> On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 12:31:47 -0500, Justin wrote
> (in article <slrncuiks3.817.nospam@debian.dns2go.com> ):
>
>> Subject: Re: Verizon sued for crippling Bluetooth in Motorola v710
>> From: Justin <nospam@insightbb.com>
>> Date: Today 12:31 PM
>> Newsgroups: alt.cellular.cingular, alt.cellular, alt.cellular.verizon
>>
>> SinghaLvr wrote on [Sat, 15 Jan 2005 02:18:17 -0500]:
>>> On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 00:26:18 -0500, John Navas wrote
>>> (in article <_P1Gd.2030$m31.23836@typhoon.sonic.net> ):
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Verizon is a lot more secretive than Microsoft.
>>>>
>>>> Say what?! LOL
>>>
>>> We know what Microsoft is planning on releasing in 2007.
>>
>> No, we know what their PR dept is telling us they may release in 2007.
>>
>
> How is that different than what the company is planning to release? (I did
> purposly put the word "planning" in my statement.)
> (As in plan, as in plans often change ....)

Microsoft announces products they KNOW they can't release by a certain
date. That's how.

Reply to Justin
- 0 +

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

 

It will happen. One day Verizon will be cower to the competition and have to
start dumping it's employee's first (there's no loyalty to them anyway) and
then start practically giving away their service. History tells us people,
big brother Verizon will eventually fall and have to speak to the masses.
I'm am longing for that day, which will happen maybe in 2005 I'm told.

Anyway, Cingular is a large corporate mogul also...but they services and
products are much better and they don't cripple any of their hardware at
all. Swap a SIM card and you're up and working. Not to mention the many
times I've indicated Cingular's (GSM) available phone list.

Hey, will GSM outlast TDMA? Or vice-versa?

"Scott en Aztlán" <slothkills@NOyahooSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:ltniu0hr3pq8dlipvtqhko6ca5qjcdcont@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 16:34:41 -0700, "Quaoar" <quaoar@tenthplanet.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Jack Zwick wrote:
> >> One can not transfer files (such as pictures taken) with the bluetooth
> >> as configured in the Verizon model of the Motorola v710..
> >> Upset users are suing:
> >>
> >>
<http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1293&e=1&u=/nm/20050113
> >> /tc_nm/telecoms_verizonwireless_lawsuit_dc&sid=95573419>
> >
> >This, of course, is going nowhere at high speed.
>
> People need to wake the eff up and start voting with their DOLLARS.
> VZW is a gigantic, arrogant company, an won't change until it loses
> enough customers to competitors like Cingular who have a clue re:
> Bluetooth and other features that customers want.
>
> --
> Friends don't let friends shop at Best Buy (except to buy loss leaders for
resale on eBay).
> (See http://tinyurl.com/6efhd)

Reply to Xman
- 0 +

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 <34ootcF49nudjU1@individual.net> on Thu, 13 Jan 2005 20:25:00 -0600,
> "Shaolin Superfly" <shaolinsuperfly@yinyang.com> wrote:
>
>
>>"Scott Stephenson" <scott.stephensonson@adelphia.net> wrote in message
>>news:4aGdnTR22pLFtnrcRVn-3A@adelphia.com...
>>
>>><glaabtom@netscape.net> wrote in message
>>>news:1105665280.454644.233640@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>>I just looked on the VerizonWireless site and on the V710 page it
>>>
>>>states, "And with Bluetooth® wireless technology, you can make
>>>hands-free, eyes-free calls, and connect to your PC or PDA whenever and
>>>wherever you want."
>>>
>>>
>>>>Since PCs and PDAs are not generally recognized as voice devices, it
>>>
>>>certainly seems that VZW is touting data capabilities. They don't say
>>>you can "connect your PC/PDA to the internet," they say you can
>>>"connect [your phone] to your PC or PDA". Connect _from_ where? The
>>>internet? Not likely.
>>>
>>>
>>>I can connect to my computer with my non-BT phone. It's not needed to
>>>connect and/or transfer data between the two.
>>
>>
>>But VZW advertises the ability to connect with Bluetooth then disables those
>>features in the phone.
>
>
> 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.

Reply to john

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

 

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 15:34:19 -0500, xman@thedripper.com wrote
(in article <10uivid23o0mee@corp.supernews.com> ):

> Anyway, Cingular is a large corporate mogul also...but they services and
> products are much better and they don't cripple any of their hardware at
> all. Swap a SIM card and you're up and working. Not to mention the many
> times I've indicated Cingular's (GSM) available phone list.

as you correctly point out .... there's really nothing wrong with being a
"big gigantic" company. It's when that same company is arrogant that things
go bad. (Wal-Mart is a terrific example of this .... )

Reply to Anonymous

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

 

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 15:17:45 -0500, Justin wrote
(in article <slrncuiuj8.817.nospam@debian.dns2go.com> ):

>>>
>>> No, we know what their PR dept is telling us they may release in 2007.
>>>
>>
>> How is that different than what the company is planning to release? (I did
>> purposly put the word "planning" in my statement.)
>> (As in plan, as in plans often change ....)
>
> Microsoft announces products they KNOW they can't release by a certain
> date. That's how.
>

Perhaps ... but we still know what they are planning to release ....
eventually.

Your interpretation of Microsoft's business practices also doesn't change
what I wrote.

Reply to Anonymous

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

 

What is wrong with "Wally World"? I purchase everything there :-)


"SinghaLvr" <singhalvr@charter.net> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BE0EEA8800166513F02845B0@nntp.charter.net...
> On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 15:34:19 -0500, xman@thedripper.com wrote
> (in article <10uivid23o0mee@corp.supernews.com> ):
>
>> Anyway, Cingular is a large corporate mogul also...but they services and
>> products are much better and they don't cripple any of their hardware at
>> all. Swap a SIM card and you're up and working. Not to mention the many
>> times I've indicated Cingular's (GSM) available phone list.
>
> as you correctly point out .... there's really nothing wrong with being a
> "big gigantic" company. It's when that same company is arrogant that
> things
> go bad. (Wal-Mart is a terrific example of this .... )
>
>

Reply to Anonymous

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

 

"John" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:10uivv32ekeqdee@news.supernews.com...

>
> Just by mentioning the word "Bluetooth" makes Verizon liable.
> Bluetooth IS a method for wireless data exchange with a computer.

But wireless data exchange with a computer is only one possible example. BT
is much more than that, and the Verizon site did clearly show me which
Bluetooth functions were available on Verizon phones.

Reply to Anonymous

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

 

Can you get Cell Phones there? :)

Mij Adyaw wrote:
> What is wrong with "Wally World"? I purchase everything there :-)
>
>
> "SinghaLvr" <singhalvr@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:0001HW.BE0EEA8800166513F02845B0@nntp.charter.net...
>> On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 15:34:19 -0500, xman@thedripper.com wrote
>> (in article <10uivid23o0mee@corp.supernews.com> ):
>>
>>> Anyway, Cingular is a large corporate mogul also...but they
>>> services and products are much better and they don't cripple any of
>>> their hardware at all. Swap a SIM card and you're up and working.
>>> Not to mention the many times I've indicated Cingular's (GSM)
>>> available phone list.
>>
>> as you correctly point out .... there's really nothing wrong with
>> being a "big gigantic" company. It's when that same company is
>> arrogant that things
>> go bad. (Wal-Mart is a terrific example of this .... )

Reply to Anonymous

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

 

John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:EE5Gd.2060$m31.24334@typhoon.sonic.net:

> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <Xns95DF24A39B73Bdmm2002dmm2002dmm@140.99.99.130> on Sat, 15 Jan
> 2005 08:36:06 GMT, "David M. Moore"
> <davmooDEATH@TOgibbousmoonSPAMMERS.com> wrote:
>
>>That comes straight out of the description for the V710 on Verizon's
>>own website...http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/store/controller?
>>item=equipmentUpgrade&action=viewPhoneDetail&selectedPhoneId=1570
>
> All I get at that URL is:
>
> Upgrading our website
>
> We are improving our web site to serve you better
>
> We're currently upgrading our website and apologize for the
> inconvenience. Please visit us again soon.

Then try:

http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/store/controller?
item=phoneFirst&action=viewPhoneDetail&selectedPhoneId=1570

The first link I gave I was logged in to my Verizon Wireless account and
was following the links for "upgrade your phone", and that may make a
difference. The new link above was arrived at by following links from
their front door at www.verizonwireless.com to their description of the
V710. You may have to at least enter your zipcode. And with the
exception of some slight formatting, it says the exact same thing in the
first paragraph that I quoted in my original post.


>
> It could simply mean (say) a modem connection.
>

Yes, it could. But Verizon needs to clearly state that. That I am aware
of, and please correct me if I am wrong on this, Verizon is the only
carrier that limits Bluetooth usage on a phone. Their limitation is not
what is common and expected in the industry. This would be, in my
opinion, like Nissan fixing their new cars so the gas tank can only be
filled at a Nissan dealership by a Nissan employee for an additional
charge, but they never bother to clearly state that anywhere before they
make the sale. The average consumer who is knowledgeable about cars is
going to assume that you can use any brand of gasoline and can use self-
serve because that is what is common in the industry.

Is it "illegal"? No, probably not, and I really don't expect the
plantiffs in the lawsuit against Verizon Wireless to win. And I even
think "unethical" is probably too strong a word to describe what Verizon
is doing. But I do think "misleading" hits the nail squarely on the
head, and they need to clearly state in their product descriptions what
can and cannot be done with Bluetooth on that particular product
offering.


David

Reply to Anonymous

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

 

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 16:03:54 -0500, Peter Pan wrote
(in article <34tepvF4f6bajU1@individual.net> ):

>
> Can you get Cell Phones there? :)

You used to could ....
BellSouth used to have Kiosks in the stores. I'm not sure if Cingular still
does. It's been a while since I've been in there.

Reply to Anonymous

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

 

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 16:50:35 -0500, David M. Moore wrote
(in article <Xns95DFABB156DACdmm2002dmm2002dmm@140.99.99.130> ):

> When the others can give me that same degree of
> performance, then I'll consider switching.

Just curious ... (I really don't know the answer to these...)

1) Are you in a VZW Analog or Digital area?

2) If Digital, doesn't Sprint roam on VZW towers, so they would work also, or
are there other issues with Sprint's service?
(If the answer to #1 is analog then disregard # 2)

Reply to Anonymous

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

 

SinghaLvr <singhalvr@charter.net> wrote in
news:0001HW.BE0F05BD001CC590F05095B0@nntp.charter.net:

> 1) Are you in a VZW Analog or Digital area?

My area (southcentral Indiana, US) is digital.

> 2) If Digital, doesn't Sprint roam on VZW towers, so they would work
> also, or are there other issues with Sprint's service?
> (If the answer to #1 is analog then disregard # 2)

That I cannot answer. All I know for sure is that three friends who have
Sprint have constant trouble making calls in this area, and I don't.


David

Reply to Anonymous

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

 

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 17:55:02 -0500, David M. Moore wrote
(in article <Xns95DFB643ADF0Bdmm2002dmm2002dmm@140.99.99.130> ):

> Subject: Re: Verizon sued for crippling Bluetooth in Motorola v710
> From: "David M. Moore" <davmooDEATH@TOgibbousmoonSPAMMERS.com>
> Date: Today 5:55 PM
> Newsgroups: alt.cellular.cingular, alt.cellular, alt.cellular.verizon
>
> SinghaLvr <singhalvr@charter.net> wrote in
> news:0001HW.BE0F05BD001CC590F05095B0@nntp.charter.net:
>
>> 1) Are you in a VZW Analog or Digital area?
>
> My area (southcentral Indiana, US) is digital.
>
>> 2) If Digital, doesn't Sprint roam on VZW towers, so they would work
>> also, or are there other issues with Sprint's service?
>> (If the answer to #1 is analog then disregard # 2)
>
> That I cannot answer. All I know for sure is that three friends who have
> Sprint have constant trouble making calls in this area, and I don't.

Interesting ....

Thanks for the info.

Reply to Anonymous
- 0 +

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

 

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 22:13:05 GMT, "David M. Moore"
<davmooDEATH@TOgibbousmoonSPAMMERS.com> wrote:

>Is it "illegal"? No, probably not, and I really don't expect the
>plantiffs in the lawsuit against Verizon Wireless to win. And I even
>think "unethical" is probably too strong a word to describe what Verizon
>is doing. But I do think "misleading" hits the nail squarely on the
>head, and they need to clearly state in their product descriptions what
>can and cannot be done with Bluetooth on that particular product
>offering.

I'd agree with that, but I wouldn't call their current
literature/advertising "misleading" at all. I saw it, and I wasn't
mislead. I bought the phone strictly for what it does - connect
wirelessly with the Internet via Bluetooth, for my laptop and PDA. It
does that quite well.

Would I have been disappointed if I knew about Bluetooth's ability to
transfer files, contacts, etc. and found out after buying it that
VZW's implementation didn't support that? Perhaps. But if I already
KNEW Bluetooth could do that, wouldn't you think I'd make sure the
phone could do that before I plunked down the $400 I did to buy it out
of contract?

If you know about Bluetooth, chances are you have a myriad of
resources, online and otherwise, to find out about this. A quick trip
to the v710's description on PhoneScoop, for one, would have answered
the question, even before the phone was released. And you know...you
could always ask the VZW sales person - "I need to do this, this and
this with Bluetooth on the phone, can it do that?" If they'd have
answered "yes" for file transfer, etc., then I'd understand if you
were ticked off.

But I don't understand if you didn't take the time to do the research
before you bought the phone.

Mike

Reply to Mike

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

 

Mike <inundated9@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:j28ju0llleom6ib0jqspa70lub2rscq4fb@4ax.com:

> But I don't understand if you didn't take the time to do the research
> before you bought the phone.

I cannot speak, obviously, for anyone else in this thread. But research
about its Bluetooth capabilities, or lack of them, is precisely why I have
*not* bought this phone. And I must agree with you that anyone who claims
to know the capabilities of Bluetooth but can't do simple research on the
net really doesn't have a whole lot to beef about if they already bought
the phone.

If it would merely support transfering the phonebook between itself and a
PDA wirelessly, I'd buy the V710 right now. But that was the only feature
I'm interested in. I don't need the camera, don't care about ringtones,
etc and so on. So if the V710 will not transfer the phonebook wirelessly,
there are numerous other phones that will meet the rest of my needs for
considerably less in price.


David

Reply to Anonymous

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

 

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 18:04:29 -0500, Mike wrote
(in article <j28ju0llleom6ib0jqspa70lub2rscq4fb@4ax.com> ):

[snipped]
> And you know...you
> could always ask the VZW sales person - "I need to do this, this and
> this with Bluetooth on the phone, can it do that?" If they'd have
> answered "yes" for file transfer, etc., then I'd understand if you
> were ticked off.
>

Some sales folks WILL do just this ... lie or tell you what they do not know.
I've seen/heard/experienced it.

> But I don't understand if you didn't take the time to do the research
> before you bought the phone.

No argument. I usually take what the salesman says with a grain of salt.

Reply to Anonymous
- 0 +

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

 

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 23:28:16 GMT, "David M. Moore"
<davmooDEATH@TOgibbousmoonSPAMMERS.com> wrote:

>If it would merely support transfering the phonebook between itself and a
>PDA wirelessly, I'd buy the V710 right now. But that was the only feature
>I'm interested in. I don't need the camera, don't care about ringtones,
>etc and so on. So if the V710 will not transfer the phonebook wirelessly,
>there are numerous other phones that will meet the rest of my needs for
>considerably less in price.

Good for you, and that's a smart move. The "you" in my other message
was a generic "you", and not aimed at you in specific. ;)

I just don't have a lot of sympathy for folks who spend $400 on a
phone and don't realize what it can actually do or not do, then
complain that the company misled them just because they thought
"Bluetooth" meant the phone did everything Bluetooth supports. (Is
there any Bluetooth device that guarantees it offers every service you
can get out of the protocol?)

No, you did the smart thing...you needed phonebook sync, you
researched, you found out the 710 didn't do it, and you didn't drop
the money on the phone. I researched, found out the 710 DID do what I
needed (and quite well), and bought it. You and I are the smart ones.
The whiners who say "WAA!! VZW MISLED ME!! IT SAYS BLUETOOTH!!" are
not. ;)

BTW, the 710 is a nice performer as a phone, with very solid RF
performance. I'm guessing the new Moto 265 has similar performance at
lower cost - no Bluetooth, etc.

Mike

Reply to Mike

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

 

John Navas wrote:

> I don't think so, so we'll just have to agree to disagree. Customization of
> phones by carriers is a well-established practice, and if you don't like the
> customization, don't buy the phone -- it's *really* that simple, and is how
> the market works.

I agree with this statement. The question is what the customer expectation was,
and whether they could reasonably have assumed they'd get the functionality
they're upset about not having. I guess we *will* have to disagree about that :)



--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"In case anyone was wondering, that big glowing globe above the Victor
Valley is the sun." -Victorville _Daily Press_ on the unusually large
amount of rain the Southland has gotten this winter (January 12th, 2005)

Reply to Anonymous

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

 

Mike wrote:

> As far as the phrase above...I'm with you. Nothing in that phrase
> implies you'd be able to transfer files. I "connect with my PC and
> PDA" with the v710 on a daily basis.

Ok, name one other reason you'd connect a PC or PDA to your phone! :)

--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"In case anyone was wondering, that big glowing globe above the Victor
Valley is the sun." -Victorville _Daily Press_ on the unusually large
amount of rain the Southland has gotten this winter (January 12th, 2005)

Reply to Anonymous

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

 

Steve Sobol wrote:
> Mike wrote:
>
>> As far as the phrase above...I'm with you. Nothing in that phrase
>> implies you'd be able to transfer files. I "connect with my PC and
>> PDA" with the v710 on a daily basis.
>
> Ok, name one other reason you'd connect a PC or PDA to your phone! :)

Duh... to use it as a modem maybe? Or as a phone and dial? Aren't you on
usenet? I'm using my PDA and Bluetooth at the moment, with my cell as a
modem...

Reply to Anonymous

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

 

Peter Pan wrote:
> Steve Sobol wrote:
>
>>Mike wrote:
>>
>>
>>>As far as the phrase above...I'm with you. Nothing in that phrase
>>>implies you'd be able to transfer files. I "connect with my PC and
>>>PDA" with the v710 on a daily basis.
>>
>>Ok, name one other reason you'd connect a PC or PDA to your phone! :)
>
>
> Duh... to use it as a modem maybe? Or as a phone and dial? Aren't you on
> usenet? I'm using my PDA and Bluetooth at the moment, with my cell as a
> modem...

Ok, now... what happens when you connect to the Internet with a modem and
read/write email, visit websites, or do just about anything besides sit with
your thumb up your ass?

(Yes, I'm being pedantic!!!)

--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"In case anyone was wondering, that big glowing globe above the Victor
Valley is the sun." -Victorville _Daily Press_ on the unusually large
amount of rain the Southland has gotten this winter (January 12th, 2005)

Reply to Anonymous

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

 

Steve Sobol wrote:
> Peter Pan wrote:
>> Steve Sobol wrote:
>>
>>> Mike wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> As far as the phrase above...I'm with you. Nothing in that phrase
>>>> implies you'd be able to transfer files. I "connect with my PC and
>>>> PDA" with the v710 on a daily basis.
>>>
>>> Ok, name one other reason you'd connect a PC or PDA to your phone!
>>> :)
>>
>>
>> Duh... to use it as a modem maybe? Or as a phone and dial? Aren't
>> you on usenet? I'm using my PDA and Bluetooth at the moment, with my
>> cell as a modem...
>
> Ok, now... what happens when you connect to the Internet with a modem
> and read/write email, visit websites, or do just about anything
> besides sit with your thumb up your ass?
>
> (Yes, I'm being pedantic!!!)

Fraid I don't understand... If I'm using outlook on my PDA, and files that
are attached are saved on the PDA, what's the phone got to do with it?
If I send mail, it is saved on the device I write the mail on (the PDA....
*NOT* the cellphone)

Come to think of it, I can't think of a single thing that I do on the pda
when online has anything whatsoever to do with the phone.

And actually Steve, that's sort of funny, remember the Kyocera 2325 I got
from you? *That's* the cell phone I am using... :)

Reply to Anonymous
- 0 +

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

 

On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 23:10:01 -0800, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
wrote:

>>>Ok, name one other reason you'd connect a PC or PDA to your phone! :)
>>
>>
>> Duh... to use it as a modem maybe? Or as a phone and dial? Aren't you on
>> usenet? I'm using my PDA and Bluetooth at the moment, with my cell as a
>> modem...
>
>Ok, now... what happens when you connect to the Internet with a modem and
>read/write email, visit websites, or do just about anything besides sit with
>your thumb up your ass?
>
>(Yes, I'm being pedantic!!!)

I guess...and I don't get it. :)

Mike

Reply to Mike

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

 

Peter Pan wrote:

> Fraid I don't understand... If I'm using outlook on my PDA, and files that
> are attached are saved on the PDA, what's the phone got to do with it?
> If I send mail, it is saved on the device I write the mail on (the PDA....
> *NOT* the cellphone)

My point was, when you use the phone as a modem, its sole purpose is to
transfer data.

--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"In case anyone was wondering, that big glowing globe above the Victor
Valley is the sun." -Victorville _Daily Press_ on the unusually large
amount of rain the Southland has gotten this winter (January 12th, 2005)

Reply to Anonymous

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

 

Mike wrote:

>>Ok, now... what happens when you connect to the Internet with a modem and
>>read/write email, visit websites, or do just about anything besides sit with
>>your thumb up your ass?
>>
>>(Yes, I'm being pedantic!!!)

> I guess...and I don't get it. :)

The whole argument is about the data transfer capabilities of BT - the whole
point of using a phone as a modem is to transfer data. The whole point of using
a phone for any other reason, when hooked up to a PC or PDA, is also to
transfer data.

--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"In case anyone was wondering, that big glowing globe above the Victor
Valley is the sun." -Victorville _Daily Press_ on the unusually large
amount of rain the Southland has gotten this winter (January 12th, 2005)

Reply to Anonymous
- 0 +

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

 

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.


"SinghaLvr" <singhalvr@charter.net> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BE0EEA8800166513F02845B0@nntp.charter.net...
> On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 15:34:19 -0500, xman@thedripper.com wrote
> (in article <10uivid23o0mee@corp.supernews.com> ):
>
> > Anyway, Cingular is a large corporate mogul also...but they services and
> > products are much better and they don't cripple any of their hardware at
> > all. Swap a SIM card and you're up and working. Not to mention the many
> > times I've indicated Cingular's (GSM) available phone list.
>
> as you correctly point out .... there's really nothing wrong with being a
> "big gigantic" company. It's when that same company is arrogant that
things
> go bad. (Wal-Mart is a terrific example of this .... )
>
>

Reply to Xman
- 0 +

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

 

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.

Reply to Jim
- 0 +

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

 

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 15:33:26 -0500, Jim <jim@none.no> 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.

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.

And anyone who has Internet access, and is posting here, who's upset
about this...has no leg to stand on. The ONLY people who have that
leg are the folks who were misled by sales representatives that the
phone was able to do those things. And even then, it's not all that
difficult to find out otherwise.

I repeat - do all things which support Bluetooth have to have all
possible services? Is the licensing set up that way?

Mike

Reply to Mike

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

 

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).

TH

Peter Pan wrote:
> Can you get Cell Phones there? :)
>
> Mij Adyaw wrote:
>
>>What is wrong with "Wally World"? I purchase everything there :-)
>>
>>
>>"SinghaLvr" <singhalvr@charter.net> wrote in message
>>news:0001HW.BE0EEA8800166513F02845B0@nntp.charter.net...
>>
>>>On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 15:34:19 -0500, xman@thedripper.com wrote
>>>(in article <10uivid23o0mee@corp.supernews.com> ):
>>>
>>>
>>>>Anyway, Cingular is a large corporate mogul also...but they
>>>>services and products are much better and they don't cripple any of
>>>>their hardware at all. Swap a SIM card and you're up and working.
>>>>Not to mention the many times I've indicated Cingular's (GSM)
>>>>available phone list.
>>>
>>>as you correctly point out .... there's really nothing wrong with
>>>being a "big gigantic" company. It's when that same company is
>>>arrogant that things
>>>go bad. (Wal-Mart is a terrific example of this .... )
>>
>
>

Reply to Anonymous

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

 

"Mike" <inundated9@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:onqlu019fl2dlna20g2331fpt0j4p8rnmo@4ax.com...
> 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?

Umm... the people who own the trademark presumably only care that, at a
technical level, the Bluetooth protocol is implemented. They certainly
don't care about which particular profiles a company might choose to
implement in their product.

> 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.

This doesn't fly. A court will look at the advertisements and the lawyers
will argue about how a 'reasonable' individual would have interpreted them.
I can see it going either way...

> And anyone who has Internet access, and is posting here, who's upset
> about this...has no leg to stand on. The ONLY people who have that
> leg are the folks who were misled by sales representatives that the
> phone was able to do those things.

I doubt a court would accept this; it's easy to demonstrate that many buying
decisions are made based on print advertisements, not what a salesperson
says, assuming one is even consulted.

> I repeat - do all things which support Bluetooth have to have all
> possible services?

Of course not. But again, the issue the court would address is... 'what
services would a reasonable person expect to find in a phone that advertises
itself as supporting Bluetooth?' The end.

---Joel Kolstad

Reply to Anonymous

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

 

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.

--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"In case anyone was wondering, that big glowing globe above the Victor
Valley is the sun." -Victorville _Daily Press_ on the unusually large
amount of rain the Southland has gotten this winter (January 12th, 2005)

Reply to Anonymous

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

 

> Good for you, and that's a smart move. The "you" in my other message
> was a generic "you", and not aimed at you in specific. ;)
>
> I just don't have a lot of sympathy for folks who spend $400 on a
> phone and don't realize what it can actually do or not do, then
> complain that the company misled them just because they thought
> "Bluetooth" meant the phone did everything Bluetooth supports. (Is
> there any Bluetooth device that guarantees it offers every service you
> can get out of the protocol?)
>
> No, you did the smart thing...you needed phonebook sync, you
> researched, you found out the 710 didn't do it, and you didn't drop
> the money on the phone. I researched, found out the 710 DID do what I
> needed (and quite well), and bought it. You and I are the smart ones.
> The whiners who say "WAA!! VZW MISLED ME!! IT SAYS BLUETOOTH!!" are
> not. ;)

However, isn't the fact that Motorola sells its V710's directly with the
data [of the phone] sharing that's making the big deal?

That would be like buying a Nissan from the corporate website that
allows you to use any brand of gasoline at any station. But if you buy
the Nissan from a dealer, John Doe Nissan, that you can only use
gasoline from Nissan dealers.

I did my research, as well. I work in marketing, and we wanted camera
phones to eliminate the need for cameras AND phones. While we do not
need high quality pictures, we would be downloading them frequently.
For this reason, we chose to formally go with AT&T Wireless plans. Part
of the reason was that Verizon does not excel *in this area*, and
therefore is not as strong as the other carriers. However, the main
reason was the standardization of Bluetooth(R) in the rest of our field
equipment.

TH

Reply to Anonymous
- 0 +

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

 

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 16:23:07 -0800, "Joel Kolstad"
<JKolstad71HatesSpam@Yahoo.Com> wrote:

>> I repeat - do all things which support Bluetooth have to have all
>> possible services?
>
>Of course not. But again, the issue the court would address is... 'what
>services would a reasonable person expect to find in a phone that advertises
>itself as supporting Bluetooth?' The end.

I'm a reasonable person (hah), and I didn't expect contact sharing or
file transfer. And I'm reasonably tech literate. Even before I found
out the phone didn't support these profiles, I didn't expect them to
be included.

Note: I just found this on VZW's site - an FAQ on Bluetooth. I don't
know if it was up when the 710 was first released.

http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c [...] D=190#1249

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.

---------

I guess A) I just don't know what the point of the suit is (what are
they asking for? What kind of suit is it?) and B) I'm not usually a
fan of class action lawsuits. They tend to generate more income for
the lawyers than remedies for those who are suing.

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.

Reply to Mike

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.

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?)

Reply to Anonymous
- 0 +

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

 

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 20:21:01 -0500, Mike wrote:

<snip>
>
> I guess A) I just don't know what the point of the suit is (what are
> they asking for? What kind of suit is it?) and B) I'm not usually a
> fan of class action lawsuits. They tend to generate more income for
> the lawyers than remedies for those who are suing.
>
> 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.

I agree with you that, I too am not a fan of lawsuits/lawyers. But
sometimes, even if there is no monetary gain to the consumer, just bringing
an issue or concern to the public eye is good. In the V710 case, we're not
talking life/death issues but rather truth in advertising (by what is said
or what is not said when marketing products to consumers).

Reply to Jim

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

 

"Mike" <inundated9@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:jd4mu0t5506p1m6flesjhhq253dv435nif@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 16:23:07 -0800, "Joel Kolstad"
> <JKolstad71HatesSpam@Yahoo.Com> wrote:
>>Of course not. But again, the issue the court would address is... 'what
>>services would a reasonable person expect to find in a phone that
>>advertises
>>itself as supporting Bluetooth?' The end.
> I'm a reasonable person (hah), and I didn't expect contact sharing or
> file transfer.

Hey, don't say that in a public forum -- if there's a class action lawsuit
you might be entitled to some damages just be claiming you were, indeed,
misled by the advertising, no proof necessary! :-)

But seriously, different people have different expectations from
advertising. That's why some court will probably get to decide what the
'average reasonable person' would have reasonably interpreted from the
advertisements, recognizing that there's plenty of variation even within
that group.

> I guess A) I just don't know what the point of the suit is (what are
> they asking for?

Realistically I expect that the thing most of them would get (and probably
what they really want) is to be let out of their contracts without early
termination fees. Some might hope to get damages out of Verizon, but I
think that'd be a REAL long shot.

> 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.

Reply to Anonymous

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

 

Peter Pan wrote:

>>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.
>
> 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?)

Alltel corporate owns and operates the Alltel kiosk in the Cleveland Heights,
Ohio Wal*Mart. I'm not sure about any of the otheres but I assume they are not
run by Wal*Mart, but rather by the carrier or an authorized reseller.


--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"In case anyone was wondering, that big glowing globe above the Victor
Valley is the sun." -Victorville _Daily Press_ on the unusually large
amount of rain the Southland has gotten this winter (January 12th, 2005)

Reply to Anonymous

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

 

In article <10um8qnlpcc2u00@corp.supernews.com>, <xman@thedripper.com>
wrote:

> Cutting contractors isn't laying off people. I've been with Comcast for 12
> years now and haven't heard anything of the sort from internal news/memos or
> outside. Please backup your claim if you're going to make one like that.
> %100 of the time those things hit the papers and media...so it shouldn't be
> hard.
>
>

Nice try, you must be THE LAST one to know then..

http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynew [...] 586948.htm

Reply to Anonymous
- 0 +

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

 

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 19:46:22 -0800, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
wrote:

>Alltel corporate owns and operates the Alltel kiosk in the Cleveland Heights,
>Ohio Wal*Mart. I'm not sure about any of the otheres but I assume they are not
>run by Wal*Mart, but rather by the carrier or an authorized reseller.

The Alltel kiosks I've seen in other Northeast Ohio Wal-Mart stores
looked like they were run by the company. I've never seen a VZW kiosk
in WM...

Mike

Reply to Mike

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

 

Richard Ness wrote:
> Mikey,
>
> The discussion isn't about Comcast.

Comcast, huh? This is the next incarnation of Killer Madness, who also claimed
to work for a cable company and ranted about Verizon like a loon. Oh, happy
day! Killer's back!

--
JustThe.net - Apple Valley, CA - http://JustThe.net/ - 888.480.4NET (4638)
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / sjsobol@JustThe.net / PGP: 0xE3AE35ED

"In case anyone was wondering, that big glowing globe above the Victor
Valley is the sun." -Victorville _Daily Press_ on the unusually large
amount of rain the Southland has gotten this winter (January 12th, 2005)

Reply to Anonymous
- 0 +

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

 

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.

"Jack Zwick" <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:jzwick3-17639B.21565116012005@news1.west.earthlink.net...
> In article <10um8qnlpcc2u00@corp.supernews.com>, <xman@thedripper.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Cutting contractors isn't laying off people. I've been with Comcast for
12
> > years now and haven't heard anything of the sort from internal
news/memos or
> > outside. Please backup your claim if you're going to make one like that.
> > %100 of the time those things hit the papers and media...so it shouldn't
be
> > hard.
> >
> >
>
> Nice try, you must be THE LAST one to know then..
>
> http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynew [...] 586948.htm

Reply to Xman

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

 

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. :-)

Reply to Anonymous

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

 

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.

Reply to Anonymous

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

 

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 17:44:37 -0500, Tropical Haven wrote
(in article <41EAEE56.2080003@example.net> ):

> However, I have heard of certain areas
> in the U.S. where Verizon users get great signal everywhere, but cannot
> make a phone call due to network traffic (fast busy signal).

I never knew what that was before. :-)

Reply to Anonymous

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

 

On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 20:21:01 -0500, Mike wrote
(in article <jd4mu0t5506p1m6flesjhhq253dv435nif@4ax.com> ):

>
> I'm a reasonable person (hah), and I didn't expect contact sharing or
> file transfer. And I'm reasonably tech literate. Even before I found
> out the phone didn't support these profiles, I didn't expect them to
> be included.
>
> Note: I just found this on VZW's site - an FAQ on Bluetooth. I don't
> know if it was up when the 710 was first released.
>
>
http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c [...] AQ_TOPIC&t

> opicID=190#1249
>
> 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."

Reply to Anonymous

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

 

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.

Reply to Anonymous

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

 

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

In <Xns95DFAF1EEA02Edmm2002dmm2002dmm@140.99.99.130> on Sat, 15 Jan 2005
22:13:05 GMT, "David M. Moore" <davmooDEATH@TOgibbousmoonSPAMMERS.com> wrote:

>John Navas <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in
>news:EE5Gd.2060$m31.24334@typhoon.sonic.net:

>> It could simply mean (say) a modem connection.
>
>Yes, it could. But Verizon needs to clearly state that. That I am aware
>of, and please correct me if I am wrong on this, Verizon is the only
>carrier that limits Bluetooth usage on a phone. Their limitation is not
>what is common and expected in the industry. ...

The phone supports three Bluetooth profiles, as clearly stated by Verizon at
<http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/dispatcher?action=DISPLAY&item=_FAQ_TOPIC&topicID=190#1256>:
1. Headset
2. Hands-free
3. Dial-up networking

#3 does in fact "connect to your PC or PDA."

See also <http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/support/data.jsp>.

What missing is file-transfer, which isn't listed by Verizon, for the
following stated reason <http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1751567,00.asp>:

Verizon says it disabled the Bluetooth file-transfer capability
because it conflicted with contractual agreements it has with content
providers participating in its "Get It Now" application download
service offered with the v710.

"The v710 includes Get It Now, our virtual mall of games and
productivity tools that customers can download. The agreements we
have with our content providers preclude our allowing anyone to
download these applications beyond the phone. The open architecture
of Bluetooth could also allow customers to download Get It Now
applications beyond the phone," said Verizon Wireless spokesperson
Brenda Raney.

I fail to see any real basis for a lawsuit since: (a) this is disclosed; (b)
Bluetooth devices commonly support only certain Bluetooth profiles; (c)
consumers have an obligation to decide whether or not a given product fits
their requirements; and (d) subscribers aren't being forced to buy the V710.
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.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

Reply to Anonymous

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>

Reply to Anonymous
Tom's Guide > Forum > Mobility Networks > Cingular > Verizon sued for crippling Bluetooth in Motorola v710
Go to:

There are 7 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.

Add a reply Cancel
Google ads