Verizon customers suing over lack of bluetooth

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.

 

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 don't think this will happen.

Happy Customers=Loss of Revenue from GIN

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

That was easy.

 

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.

 

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

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

Fool

 

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

 

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.

 

Frivolous and ignorantly stupid as well...

 

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!"

 

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...

 

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?

 

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...

 

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...

 

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.

 

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?