Verizon customers suing over lack of bluetooth

[Fire14]

By Reuters
URL: http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1035_22-5535742.html


Verizon Wireless customers are suing the mobile service provider, claiming it is selling a cell phone with fewer Bluetooth short range radio features than they expected, the plaintiffs' lawyer said on Thursday
According to the lawsuit filed in California, Verizon Wireless, owned by Verizon Communications and Vodafone, excludes some common Bluetooth features in the v710 phone from Motorola.

Bluetooth allows wireless links, within about 10 meters, between gadgets such as phones, computers, printers and headsets. The links are free when the devices are not connected to a cellular network at the same time.

Michael Kelly, the Kirtland & Packard lawyer who filed the suit, said his clients expected Verizon to provide all the Bluetooth features Motorola includes in its v710 products.

But since Verizon Wireless doesn't enable Bluetooth for uses such as photograph transfers between the v710 phone and other gadgets, the lawsuit claims it is forcing users to use its network for functions that would be free on Bluetooth.

"Our allegation is that it's probably more than a coincidence that the functions that are disabled can be replaced by Verizon functions for which you pay extra," Kelly said. He wants class-action status for the suit, which was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court.

Both Verizon Wireless and Motorola noted that it is common practice for mobile service providers to determine the features included in phones they sell. Motorola also added that Bluetooth doesn't always involve free wireless connections.

"Nobody in the industry has ever said that Bluetooth would always be cost-free," Motorola spokesman Alan Buddendeck said on Thursday. "It will vary from operator to operator."

Verizon Wireless said its customers can connect the v710 phone with a Bluetooth headset or laptop computer, while using its cellular network.

Telecom analyst Ed Snyder said service providers' decisions to exclude new features on phones could stunt innovation. However, lawsuits based on these moves are not likely to succeed unless false advertising is involved, he said.

"The fact that people build Lamborghinis that'll go 180 miles an hour and the dealer you buy it from is offering a smaller engine ... doesn't mean you have the right to sue the dealer," Snyder argued.

Story Copyright © 2005 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved.

[Fathead]

This is horribly frivolous.

[LowTech]

This is horribly frivolous.

maybe...but it'll bring attention to what Verizon Wireless is doing. Hopefully it'll cause Verizon to change it ways in order to keep from getting too much bad press.

[Bugwart]

IMHO, this argument has no technical merit. If BT were the only way to exchange information, then the argument have some merit, but since there are options other than BT (IRDA, USB, etc.); it is without merit.

Who is forcing the plaintiffs to use Verizon? Unless they were forced to use Verizon, AND suffered some loss by not having BT on VZW phones (which they were forced to use), how can they make such a ridiculous claim?

[twopiece]

maybe...but it'll bring attention to what Verizon Wireless is doing. Hopefully it'll cause Verizon to change it ways in order to keep from getting too much bad press.

I don't think this will happen.

Happy Customers=Loss of Revenue from GIN

[wgray8231]

IMHO, this argument has no technical merit. If BT were the only way to exchange information, then the argument have some merit, but since there are options other than BT (IRDA, USB, etc.); it is without merit.

Who is forcing the plaintiffs to use Verizon? Unless they were forced to use Verizon, AND suffered some loss by not having BT on VZW phones (which they were forced to use), how can they make such a ridiculous claim?

I agree. Sure, I think VZW shouldn't have disabled some of the BT features, but they had the right.

[Fire14]

I don't think they should be disabling it either, But i think there argument could be that you get a discount for the phone via there substity then they can do what they want with the software. Now if you paid full retail for the phone they it shouldn't be disabled.

[AprilFool]

IMHO, this argument has no technical merit. If BT were the only way to exchange information, then the argument have some merit, but since there are options other than BT (IRDA, USB, etc.); it is without merit.

Of course nobody is forcing people to stay with Verizon. However, I would like to point out that Verizon is repeatedly demonstrating their desire to prevent the user from getting any of their content out of the phone without going through Verizon. They want to OBEX over IRDA or BT. Whether your cable is USB or proprietary you will be prevented from moving your audio/video/stills over it. If your phone has a memory card slot they want the handset supplier to prevent you from using it to transfer files.

The suit is without technical merit and if one is happy with Verizon service (I am) then they can choose to stay with them. If they want freedom they need to go with another wireless provider.

[jones]

This is horribly frivolous.

VZW disabled the features so users would have to send the data over the wireless network and pay a fee.
WHY DISABLE IT?

[wgray8231]

Of course nobody is forcing people to stay with Verizon. However, I would like to point out that Verizon is repeatedly demonstrating their desire to prevent the user from getting any of their content out of the phone without going through Verizon. They want to OBEX over IRDA or BT. Whether your cable is USB or proprietary you will be prevented from moving your audio/video/stills over it. If your phone has a memory card slot they want the handset supplier to prevent you from using it to transfer files.

The suit is without technical merit and if one is happy with Verizon service (I am) then they can choose to stay with them. If they want freedom they need to go with another wireless provider.

I can move audio and pics back and forth over my generic USB cable. VZW didn't disable that.

OBEX isn't a technology for transfer; just a set of protocols to use for transfer. OBEX is used on top of some hardware like IR. That's like comparing the TCP/IP protocol stack with Ethernet or Token Ring.

[wgray8231]

VZW disabled the features so users would have to send the data over the wireless network and pay a fee.
WHY DISABLE IT?

VZW disabled the features so users would have to send the data over the wireless network and pay a fee.

That was easy.

[Fathead]

It's ridiculous to sue over this. It's suing over a feature on a phone. A FEATURE ON A CELL PHONE. Are we going to sue them next because they disabled some built in games on some models of phones? Or better yet, let's sue Verizon because Sprint offers Vision at $15, and Verizon could offer the same service at the same price, but doesn't.



If Verizon sold the phones under the pretense that they had every bluetooth functionality known to man, had it on all their advertising, and then pulled this, then it would be valid. But they didn't. They sold a phone that had bluetooth for headsets and wireless modems. End of story.

[AprilFool]

I can move audio and pics back and forth over my generic USB cable. VZW didn't disable that.

They (not just VZW but other carriers too) want this disabled in future handsets because they think they are losing money here.

OBEX isn't a technology for transfer; just a set of protocols to use for transfer. OBEX is used on top of some hardware like IR. That's like comparing the TCP/IP protocol stack with Ethernet or Token Ring.

I meant to say "They want to disable OBEX... " Sorry for the typo.

Fool

[WirelessBeachBum]

That's why you are likely not to see to many wifi/ wireless phones because with voip becoming so prevelant, why not connect to wifi and make a call with it?

Sure the technology is available, but it's not going to be hitting that many phones.

[AprilFool]

That's why you are likely not to see to many wifi/ wireless phones because with voip becoming so prevelant, why not connect to wifi and make a call with it?

Sure the technology is available, but it's not going to be hitting that many phones.

Exactly dear fellow beach bum. Not a huge draw among the carriers. T-Mobile may be a bit different since they have their hotspot footprint that may allow them to be a bit different in this regard... but we'll see.

I bet Euro-peeons will get VOIP terminals sooner because the wireless carriers are not such a prevalent sales channel as in the good old US of A.

TheFooliac

[Fire14]

That's why you are likely not to see to many wifi/ wireless phones because with voip becoming so prevelant, why not connect to wifi and make a call with it?

Sure the technology is available, but it's not going to be hitting that many phones.

Like this with Vonage? Also there is another unit that allows connecting via Bluetooth to use your Landline phone to make & recieve calls and for $9.99 a month it's unlimited. A co-worker had gotten the unit & was plauged with problems, they even sent him 2 additional units & it never worked right but once it is then it will be a threat to wireless companies.

Vonage® And UTStarcom Partner To Introduce Portable WI-FI Handset

Affordable F-1000 Handset Offers Users Portable Voice over IP Service for Home, Office and Hot Spots

LAS VEGAS CES, January 4, 2005 – Vonage, the leading broadband phone company, and UTStarcom Inc., a global leader in IP-based, end-to-end networking solutions and services, today announced a partnership to introduce a portable Wi-Fi handset, the F-1000, configured with Vonage’s Voice over IP (VoIP) phone service. This product, which will offer mobility across 802.11b networks, will be available nationwide to Vonage subscribers during the spring/summer 2005.


“Recognizing the need for consumers and small businesses to have a myriad of options when communicating with family, friends and business associates, Vonage is excited to partner with UTStarcom to offer its subscribers a Wi-Fi handset,” stated Jeffrey A. Citron, chairman and CEO of Vonage Holdings Corp.


“More important, UTStarcom’s Wi-Fi portable handset bundled with Vonage’s VoIP service will lead the way in modernizing telecommunications as we know it, as now customers will have the option of mobile VoIP service.”


The Vonage and UTStarcom relationship enables consumers and small businesses to have more flexibility when it comes to making phone calls.


Further, this collaboration offers retailers a groundbreaking opportunity to increase sales and expand into a new category, capitalizing on Vonage’s leadership in broadband telephony and UTStarcom’s leadership in next-generation telecommunications solutions.

(For more information on UTStarcom’s F1000 handset, see the companion announcement, "UTStarcom Unveils Its First Portable Wi-Fi Handset," also released today.)

“UTStarcom has historically been an innovator of disruptive technologies that alter the way people communicate,” said Hong Lu, chief executive officer at UTStarcom. “Our successful Personal Access System (PAS™) solution, with more than 36 million users worldwide, is a perfect example of a disruptive technology that filled a void for reliable, low-cost wireless service in emerging markets in Asia and Latin America. Similarly, we believe our new SIP-enabled Wi-Fi handset disrupts the mobile communications landscape as it allows users to take advantage of the rapid growth of Wi-Fi worldwide. Vonage subscribers can use our new handset as a replacement to their fixed-line phone at home should they have Wi-Fi access, or as a complementary means of communication outside of the home when they are in range of a Wi-Fi hotspot. UTStarcom is committed to working with Vonage to expand the reach of VoIP communications worldwide.”

“Together, Vonage and UTStarcom are working toward revolutionizing the telecommunications industry,” Citron added.

[danny boi]

Taken from VZW's Website:


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


The website goes on to talk "about" bluetooth offering bluetooth facts but never makes mention that file sharing was ever allowed.

Some people like to sue. They feel that since they pay their monthly bill to a carrier, the carrier must base all their policies around them. I think they forget that they pay a bill for the service used just like they pay for gasoline to make their cars run. Neither VZW or your local gas station really owe you anything. Don't like VZW's bluetooth? Don't use it.

I don't think people should sue just because they thought something was supposed to be a certain way. Adults have the responsibility to make their own choices good or bad.

When it boils down to it, we live in a world where the blame game runs rampent. It's always somebody else's fault.

[azcellphonejunkie]

This is horribly frivolous.

Frivolous and ignorantly stupid as well...

[Fathead]

If my rates go up I'm going to sue the class.

[ZaphodB]

If my rates go up I'm going to sue the class.

Where I come from, that's called "good money after bad". Besides, you can't file against a class, only plaintiffs can be a class

Agreed, though, the suit is stupid. "I <don't have time to|am too stupid to> RTFM, so I'm going to sue!"

[jones]

If you bought an advertised AM/FM Radio
and there was no FM
but there's AM Stations,
to some it's OK
to others it's NOT.

[azcellphonejunkie]

If you bought an advertised AM/FM Radio
and there was no FM
but there's AM Stations,
to some it's OK
to others it's NOT.

Ahhh, now there is a very good point! I know I would be upset, but would just take the phone back or sell it and buy a new one versus making a big legal stink about it...

[MOTOhooligan]

Ugh... for a minute there I thought I was losing my mind because I swore I posted in this thread but it was the thread about this subject in the Moto forum. Good, I'm not crazy... or am I?

Fixing this "issue" is very, very, very, very simple. Unlock your phone. Don't sue, that's stupid, it will take forever, cost a lot and won't accomplish anything... duh.

[azcellphonejunkie]

Ugh... for a minute there I thought I was losing my mind because I swore I posted in this thread but it was the thread about this subject in the Moto forum. Good, I'm not crazy... or am I?

Fixing this "issue" is very, very, very, very simple. Unlock your phone. Don't sue, that's stupid, it will take forever, cost a lot and won't accomplish anything... duh.

Unlock a CDMA phone? What are you referring to?

[MOTOhooligan]

Unlock a CDMA phone? What are you referring to?

Unlocking the phone so that the "locks" Verizon put on the phone no longer function. You would be able to use the BT & USB capabilities if the "locks" were removed. I have also heard about an hacked firmware version that "unlocks" the BT and USB capabilities.

[azcellphonejunkie]

Unlocking the phone so that the "locks" Verizon put on the phone no longer function. You would be able to use the BT & USB capabilities if the "locks" were removed. I have also heard about an hacked firmware version that "unlocks" the BT and USB capabilities.

Must have missed that one in the earlier threads, I have never heard of Verizon putting locks on the phones...

[MOTOhooligan]

That's why the BT, etc. won't work the way the people want it to. Verizon's firmware version prevents these things so that people have to use a paid Verizon service to transfer photos, etc.

[azcellphonejunkie]

That's why the BT, etc. won't work the way the people want it to. Verizon's firmware version prevents these things so that people have to use a paid Verizon service to transfer photos, etc.

Sounds like more of a firmware change than anything to me. I would just get the cable and do the flash and flex to take care of any locks they had on the technology...

[Fathead]

Verizon advertised a bluetooth phone. They didn't say it had every profile.


The best analogy is that Verizon advertised a radio. Just a radio. People bought it and then found it was only FM. No AM. Now they want to sue.

[bobolito]

That's precisely the problem: Verizon advertised a bluetooth phone. They didn't say it had every profile. They should've clarified this since every other Bluetooth phone in the planet doesn't have such Bluetooth limitations (except LG PM-325 which Sprint blocked its Bluetooth abilities in a similar manner).

The issue here is about deceptive advertising, customer satisfaction and expectations. With all the hype about Bluetooth on GSM phones, people with CDMA carriers wanted the same features. This is basically the problem. They heard Verizon was selling a Bluetooth phone and naturally, they expected they could do all the things GSM phones with Bluetooth can do, which is a very reasonable assumption especially when Verizon made no statement in any shape or form that most Bluetooth features were disabled. Unfortunately, they found out the hard way (because it is not documented anywhere) that most Bluetooth features were disabled in the V710. So, of course they are upset about this and they have the right to be. Most people who bought the V710 was most likely because of the Bluetooth feature and if they were looking for a phone with Bluetooth in the first place is because they KNEW ahead of time all the things Bluetooth can do. However, these customers were deceived by Verizon's ludicrous policy. I think it is about time someone raised the voice about these unfair limitations. Even if they have no case in court, it is a good thing they did this.

Come to think of it, CDMA carriers all tend to side together in making decisions like these. They seem to be more restrictive about phone features than GSM carriers for some reason. As I stated before, Sprint crippled the LG PM-325 Bluetooth capabilities just like Verizon handicapped the V710.

Nobody is forcing these customers to stay with Verizon. Of course not! Who said that the Early Termination Fee was a way to force customers to stay with the same carrier?