BLUETOOTH It's Time for Wireless Carriers to Shed Their Tech-Phobia By Rob Pegoraro Sunday, April 3, 2005; Page F07 Some tech-conscious cell phone shoppers have a new complaint: Verizon Wireless can't hear them now, and that's not good. What are they trying to say to that carrier? They'd like to use PalmOne's sleek Treo 650 "smartphone," which Sprint has been selling since December. They'd like more phones that use Bluetooth wireless -- and they don't want Verizon disabling parts of that feature for its own purposes. Some just want a full set of phones that are only phones, without the digital cameras banned at their workplaces. Verizon isn't the only target of these complaints -- other carriers have done the same things. But customers who don't like the phones their carrier sells can often only switch to another service that may have worse coverage. Despite immense advances in technology, we face the same basic constraints that our grandparents did when choosing what color of rotary-dial phone to get from the Bell System: You can only buy what the phone company wants to sell. When cell phones were used only for talking, this might not have mattered much. Now phones are the equivalent of handheld computers -- but unlike computers, they don't arrive in everybody's stores at the same time and with all their promised features intact. There's no better example of this than carriers' iffy support for Bluetooth wireless, a technology that lets a cell phone quickly beam data to and from other nearby devices -- other phones, handheld organizers, printers or computers. Eight years after its unveiling, despite growing customer interest and increasingly widespread Bluetooth support in computers, many carriers still give Bluetooth the back of their hand. At worst, they'll offer it only on one or two token phones, and with its more useful features disabled. Neither Sprint nor Verizon, for example support file transfer via Bluetooth. So instead of sending your camera phone's pictures to your computer via Bluetooth, you're expected to e-mail them to yourself, running up airtime and picture-messaging charges along the way. Other convenient Bluetooth features, such as wireless address-book synchronization or the option to use a phone as a wireless modem with a Bluetooth-enabled laptop, are also often absent or shut off. It's as if some carriers regard this technology as little more than a way to sell you a $50 Bluetooth headset instead of a $10 corded model. If you could buy your phone from a source besides your carrier -- somebody with no vested interest in steering you to expensive data services -- this wouldn't be a problem. But that's a difficult-to-impossible task in the U.S. market. For one thing, carriers sell phones at a subsidized price that they recoup over a long stream of monthly bills. Unsubsidized models cost more, hundreds of dollars extra in some cases. For another, about half of the market can't even pay extra to use a phone their carrier doesn't sell. Verizon, the second-largest carrier in the United States, will at least allow customers to use makes and models of phones similar to those that it offers. Sprint, the third-biggest, won't permit even that. Both say that they do this to maintain the quality of their service, although any cell phone sold must already pass testing from government and industry bodies. These firms can exert that level of control because they don't use a system employed by the other nationwide carriers, Cingular, T-Mobile and Nextel. Those firms all sell phones that store a customer's account data on a tiny subscriber identity module (SIM) card that can be moved from one phone to another. This SIM card is a core feature of the technology Cingular and T-Mobile use, GSM (shorthand for global system for mobile); Nextel, which uses a different system called iDEN, saw fit to adopt the SIM card as well. Customers can use this to expand their choice in various ways. They don't have to choose one model of phone; they can purchase a powerful but bulky phone to carry around the office, then buy a lighter, flashier model to wear in the evening. Or they can take their phones from one carrier to another -- once, that is, they undo the locks that Cingular and T-Mobile place to prevent another carrier's SIM card from functioning. T-Mobile will unlock a phone after the first 90 days of a contract; Cingular will do so once a contract has ended and a customer is moving to another carrier. Customers can unlock phones on their own, but the procedure can be tricky. (This isn't a factor with Nextel, as no other major carrier uses iDEN.) Sprint and Verizon phones use a different wireless standard called CDMA, but there's no reason their phones could not employ a similar subscriber-identity card. Industry developers came up with that exact thing back in 2001, called the removable user identity module (R-UIM), with the same size and shape as a SIM card. A few carriers in Asia now sell phones using these cards -- but in the United States, Sprint and Verizon seem to think that R-UIM spells "ruin" for their businesses and have declined to adopt it. So their subscribers can eat only what these companies put on their plates. This tension is only going to get worse, as the price and features of such phones as the Treo 650 and comparable Windows Mobile devices increase. How long will people spending hundreds of dollars for these gadgets consent to having their use of them dictated by their carrier? It might be a long time. AT&T's lock on landline phone hardware lasted for decades, until in 1968 the Federal Communications Commission ruled that Ma Bell could not forbid the use of other companies' hardware on its lines. Among other unanticipated benefits, that helped open the Internet to anybody with a phone line. What might we be passing up now?
Bluetooth should not be Disabled For the Following Reasons: There are lots of different ways that electronic devices can connect to one another. For example: * Many desktop computer systems have a CPU unit connected to a mouse, a keyboard, a printer and so on. * A personal digital assistant (PDA) will normally connect to the computer with a cable and a docking cradle. * A TV will normally connect to a VCR and a cable box, with a remote control for all three components. * A cordless phone connects to its base unit with radio waves, and it may have a headset that connects to the phone with a wire. * In a stereo system, a CD player and other audio devices connect to the receiver, which connects to the speakers. When you use computers, entertainment systems or telephones, the various pieces and parts of the systems make up a community of electronic devices. These devices communicate with each other using a variety of wires, cables, radio signals and infrared light beams, and an even greater variety of connectors, plugs and protocols. The art of connecting things is becoming more and more complex every day. We sometimes feel as if we need a Ph.D. in electrical engineering just to set up the electronics in our homes! In this article, we will look at a completely different way to form the connections, called Bluetooth. Bluetooth is wireless and automatic, and has a number of interesting features that can simplify our daily lives.
I do agree that Verizon needs to produce a small line of good quality wireless phones without a camera or a handset that has an option to have camera or not. Yelling at Verizon won't help yelling at LG, Samsung, UTStarCom, Motorola, Nokia and others. I understand why Verizon tries to cripple most Bluetooth functions. I do not agree that they should do it just because they are not going to make lots of $$$$$ in Get-It-Now. I could see this bluetooth class action suite to go either way. Verizon has never been anti-bluetooth or R-UIM they are just anti-someone else getting are money. issed:
A friend just bought a new Motorola phone from VZW (not sure of the model, but it has a camera), and also bought a Bluetooth wireless headset, but has been having some trouble getting Bluetooth to work. If VZW disabled Bluetooth, then why did they sell her a headset? This might explain why it doesn't work!
I think Verizon is a solid company. Its coverage throught the US is second to none. However, I believe the focus at Verizon is on coverage rather than handsets with the most contemporaneous technology. Today, Bluetooth as relatively limited applications. As the technology expands and becomes more of a standard bearer, then Verizon will find away to adapt. Until then, it wll suffer the loss of customers, including those with relationships that date back to the old Bell Atlantic days. I recently purchased a 2005 automobile with Bluetooth capabilities. Unfortunately, the model available from Verizon was not one of the models suggested by the manufacturer. Why? because the Verizon Bluettoth phone cannot transfer data from the handset to the vehicle phone memory. Sure, it cost me $175 to discontinue my service with Verizon but it was a price I had to pay in order to maximize the phone capabilities in a $65,000 automobile. I did consider simply reducing my plan until my contract expiration date. Under our Family Share plan that would cost me $200 over the remaining term. Much easier to simply eat the charge now. When Verizon looses the Class Action lawsuit [or it appears it will losse], that will be another reason for the senior executives at Verizon to make their equipment more contemporaneous with the market.
If they lose it, which is greatly in question, all it will do is make them post in easy to understand terms that bluetooth on their phones is limited to certain profiles.
If they enable it, it's another thing that they must support...and why enable it if it's not going to bring in revenue and going to cost you extra to support. There are also other reasons it's not enabled, for example RIM did not enable that profile because the feel it is a security risk. (this is the same reason that RIM has not enabled the IR port on the Blackberry's). Bluetooth has been around for awhile, however there are still issues with devices pairing etc. if you want to sync your phones address book just buy a data cable already. terrance, I'm not feeling much pain about you having to pay a $175 ETF....if you have a 65k car I imagine that $175 would not be that big of a deal. And as for car kits the Jabra SP100 works pretty good and you can pick it up for about $100.
Cell phone carriers are public entities that serve the public in exchange for a fee. Like all businesses, these carriers will provide a unqiue service [or series of services] only when they believe it is advantageous. The lack of Bluetooth capable phones from Verizon reduces their penetration of a lucrative market - purchasers of automobiles equipped with bluetooth capabilities. Yes, most of these manufacturers can include a permanent handset that functions with the vehicle. However, this often requires an additional telephone number and service. The math suggests it would be far more cost effective to simply pay any early termination fees. One of the difficulties with the OnStar system, whcih Verizon services, is an additional telephone number [and bill] for hands free service. OnStar did introduce an option to include the phone number of a Verizon Family Share plan Verizon would not credit customers with the unused minutes they purchased through OnStar. I seek no solace for paying the Early Termination Fee. Rather, my point was the economics suggested it was better to eat that fee now instead of waiting. If the contract had less than 18 months remaining, it would have caused me to perhaps consider some other options since the Early Termination Fee would exceed the potential outlay to Verizon. At the end of the day, it becomes a relatively simple matter to resolve - maximizing the dollar outaly for cellular service.
You are confusing the US with Cuba, North Korea and a few other communist holdouts. No cell phone carriers in the US are public entities, rather they are private companies whose goal is to make a profit for their share holders. Chunghwa Telecom here is a public entity, but it is really the exception.
VZW phones with BT can still use headsets. The real problem is that VZW hasn't released enough phones with even limited BT. I bought a cable for my phone, so I'm not complaining about the BT disable. More variety would be nice.
Verizon Wireless is a subsidiary of Verizon whose share trade on a public exchange. It is subject to regulations adopted by the Federal Communications Commission and the state agencies managing utilities in the several states. Both of these entities have an obligation to act on behalf of the public. When Verizon Wireless wants to purchase another wireless company or obtain additional spectrum, it must obtain the approval of one or more governmental agencies. Yes, they are profit motivated, like most businesses, but they still have an obligation to the public.
WBB, maybe the reason terrence can afford a $65,000 car is because he cares about things like $175 ETFs. Watch your pennies and the dollars will take care of themselves. And I bought a Jabra SP100. It worked like crap. I sent it back. Useless piece of junk. The Moto BT speakerphone isn't much better, but at least it works in a moving car.
Verizon will never disable bluetooth. They are never anti-bluetooth. They will always be anti-some else getting money when would could have got it on GET-IT-NOW. It is as simple as that :nopity:
