Talk:Bluetooth/Archive 2007

message: When were the various specs released?
Also, what is the throughput of 1.0, 1.0b, and 1.1, respectively?  This article doesn't mention it until 1.2.  This is typical of other references on the web-- they're very vague about it.  Another site  mentions that 1.0/1.0b is 460kpbs and was increased to 721kbps in 1.1.  Is this correct?
--Paleozogt 04:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vital missing information 

message: I suggest that the section on Bluetooth Profiles be moved to it own page "Bluetooth profile" as it unnecessary clutters the Bluetooth page, and then could be expanded as well without distracting from the core of Bluetooth itself. Comments? -- Warpedshadow 22:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done in September 2006 (but under "profile" and not "profiles". I changed your link accordingly). -Lwc4life 11:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bluetooth Profiles - own page? 

message: Hello!  I'm a new Wikipedia editor who's done a lot of research on Bluetooth for audio streaming versus for phone headset use and found that it's difficult to find out the consumer reality vis-a-vis A2DP and mobile devices such as MP3 players and Pocket PC's.  It took me forever to figure out what works, what doesn't, what I need, and what I need to do.  I wanted a heaset that (a) worked as a phone headset with my Pocket PC Phone (Pocket PC 2003 SE), (b) worked as headphones with audio streaming directly from the Pocket PC, and (c) worked as headphones for non-Bluetooth devices.  It's quite difficult to understand the differences between the three, and there is probably demand out there for some good information.  (Incidentally, I settled with the Plantronics Pulsar 590 Cordless Headset and was able to use it for direct audio streaming after installing a software patch on my Pocket PC.  I am quite happy with it.)
Does this type of information fit here (or anywhere)?  I know it's helpful because there's just no good resource out there to explain in simple terms to consumers why, for instance, they can't listen to streaming audio on their Bluetooth headset, or why they need an adapter even when their mobile device is Bluetooth- (but not A2DP-) ready.
I wrote the following for a product review.  It's written from a first-person point of view, so the format is inappropriate for Wikipedia, but would a more encyclopedia-type version be helpful somewhere in this or another article?
BLUETOOTH AUDIO STREAMING PRIMER
First, a little background on Bluetooth audio streaming for the tech-impaired. Bluetooth is a wireless technology that, unlike infrared, does not require line-of-sight access (meaning that you can keep your MP3 player or phone in your pocket or even in the other room) and, unlike WiFi, is merely a local connection for interaction between two of your personal devices. It has most commonly been used for mobile phone headsets, allowing someone to use such a headset without cords, something that greatly increases usability (as those who've used a corded headset can attest).
I'm on my second Pocket PC Phone (now called Windows Mobile Phone) and have long wanted to have not only cordless access to the phone, but cordless access to the music too. It would seem that if the former can be done, the latter should be a no-brainer. Unfortunately, in fact, almost NO Bluetooth headsets can be used for this purpose. There are "Bluetooth headphones" out there that not only have no phone functionality but also don't connect directly with your device but rather with a separate adapter you must connect to the audio port of your device, which partially defeats the entire purpose.
It boils down to Bluetooth "profiles," and the profile used for phone communication is different than the one for audio streaming (known as "A2DP"). What I wanted was a single headset that (a) could communicate directly with my Pocket PC as a phone headset, (b) could communicate directly with my Pocket PC as headphones to listen to music or for watching videos, and (c) could communicate with my non-Bluetooth MP3-player via the audio port.
THIS headset DOES accomplish all three of these things...with one caveat. The device you're using to stream audio MUST be Bluetooth enabled WITH the A2DP profile in order to stream directly to the headphones without having to pass through a separate go-between device.
As of March 2006, only a few Pocket PC's, MP3 players, and other mobile devices have this A2DP profile; most Bluetooth phones (mine included) only allow for phone-headset use. Thus, I had to find and download a patch for my Pocket PC's Bluetooth stack to add this functionality. Fortunately, this solution worked easily and flawlessly, which is important given that unofficial patches in general (for other needs/devices) have caused me headaches more often than not.
If you are using a Pocket PC 2003 Second Edition and it uses the "Widcomm/Broadcom Bluetooth stack," search on "Broadcom Bluetooth Stack Patch for PDA2k Pocket PC Phones" in a web search-engine and the first link or two will allow you to download this patch. You CANNOT use this patch if you have the Microsoft Bluetooth Stack.
How do you know which stack you have? Turn off Bluetooth by clicking on it and selecting "Turn Bluetooth Off." If you see a red X in the lower right-hand corner, you have the Widcomm/Broadcomm stack. If you see a line through the Bluetooth icon, you have the Microsoft stack and cannot use this patch—in other words, no audio streaming for you!
Windows Mobile 5.0 will, beginning soon, have built-in A2DP functionality; otherwise, implementation is spotty across the market. And don't buy a Windows Mobile 5.0 device expecting that you can download an update to give you A2DP. It's up to each manufacturer whether to release such an update, as Windows Mobile is specific to the design of the device, and you may end up out of luck.
Any thoughts?
Cory Fryling 05:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bluetooth Audio Streaming for Headsets 

message: I've added a bit to the Bluetooth vs Wi-Fi section, as well as cleaning the heading (it's not just companies that use this stuff).
* Some of the claims I find dubious (Wi-Fi isn't Ethernet??), and the blatant ease-of-use argument is plain missing. I've been working in IT for 10 years and I'd much rather use BT to transfer my business card to another person than set up a FTP, SMTP or perhaps SNMP server to handle the request? 
**Why no, Wi-Fi certainly isn't ethernet. Ethernet is defined by the IEEE 802.3 standard, with sub-standards per speed (10, 100, 1000, etc.) It has a very simple topology and utilizes electric signaling. Wi-Fi is the technologically unrelated 802.11 standard, with a more complex topology and, most importantly, electromagnetic signaling. The only reason you might think that Wi-Fi and ethernet are the same thing is if you use "ethernet" as a word meaning "networking equipment," which is no more accurate than saying you googled something on MSN. Nentuaby 22:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bluetooth vs Wi-Fi 

message: On 4th January, 2006, Google News pointed to http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2003506916_bluetooth030.html, which describes a dispute about Bluetooth patents. Patent number 7,149,191 (Johansson-Gardenfors, et al.) has 6 Suominen patents references, the earliest of which is 5,926,513 (Suominen; Edwin A. (Phoenix, AZ), Voboril; Charles J. (Fountain Hills, AZ)), filed January 27, 1997. According to Bluetooth, the specification was developed in 1994. If this is the earliest of the Ed Suominen patent that is referred to in the news article, Bluetooth may not be in as much hot water as the news article implies. Gringer 00:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patent Dispute 

message: I have 3 questions:
* The article doesn't make clear it if inside of a piconet the transfers between masters are slaves are made in both ways or if only the master can broadcast and the slave receive. (it says "data can be transferred between the master and 1 slave" but I don't know if that between means both ways)
Could a slave send data to its master? If so, does the slave exchange roles with its master when transmitting or doesn't need to?
* If there are only two devices, is there a master/slave configuration? or that scenario occurs only on piconets? If there are no master/slave how is each device identified? 
* Can a piconet have more than 1 device working as a master/slave connecting to another piconet? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.11.144.176 (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions about connections 

message: Audio Gateway in one service supported by BT. It is not mentioned in the article. I believe it should.
--Xerces8 09:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you talking about the audio distribution profiles? Bluetooth profiles are documented in the Bluetooth profile article, which currently includes Advanced Audio Distribution Profile (A2DP) and General Audio/Video Distribution Profile (GAVDP). -- intgr 14:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BT Audio Gateway 

message: I can't find any reference on the Internet regarding the Beauknit logo... at least, any reference that doesn't look like a recycled version of this article. Can anyone cite a reference on this? ---Ransom (208.25.0.2 23:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beauknit reference -- truth or myth? 

message: I've added the section Bluetooth#Computer Requirements - please someone inspect it. Just remember there's no Bluetooth without a dongle... -Lwc4life 11:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bluetooth dongle 

message: How many can Bluetooth devices can I use in the same time? Does it matter which specific Bluetooth dongle I have or only which Bluetooth version is it made of? -Lwc4life 11:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multi-link 

message: I removed the line "The name "Blue Tooth" can be attributed to the infamous altercation between young Jarmsie Davis and J. Beard in Autumn, 2003." 
It is not only irrelevant (it was in the section "Bluetooth Profiles"), but it also completely contradicts the section "Origin of the Name and Logo"
ElementC 21:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of innaccuracy 

message: I have removed the reference to gaming consoles at the bottom (not the top), simply because I believe it's not important for this article, and the information is in the wrong section (Nintendo and Sony are simply using Bluetooth technology, they are ot part of the consortium.) Also, the information does not make any citations.
Information about these consoles and their respective controllers should be in their own articles, and not in the general Bluetooth article just because they utilize the technology.--Coolbho3000 18:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't mention games consoles. 

message: This article doesn't seem to explain the difference (and relative merits and problems) between Bluetooth and Wi-Fi very well - specifically that Bluetooth is more analogous to USB and Personal Area Networks (and the smaller range associated with those technologies) whereas Wi-Fi is more analogous to Ethernet and Local Area Networks (and the greater range). Anyone object to rewriting that section? Sbiki 18:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bluetooth vs. Wi-Fi in networking 

message: I would like to see a more prominent link to the Bluetooth profiles page.  Currently, it's only referenced as a "See other" link at the bottom. Kquainta> 18:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a support forum. No, Bluetooth does not cost anything since it doesn't go through the provider. -- intgr #%@! 04:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bluetooth Profiles link? 

message: Is the bluetooth signal digital or analogue, and how is the radio wave modulated - FM or AM? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 122.148.47.124 (talk) 23:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Digital. Neither. Or rather, it is GFSK modulated, so it is a kind of FM, but that name is most often used for the analog use of the modulation tech. Mossig 10:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basic stuff 

message: I added a reference for the information on bluetooth's range, and I also provided references for some other uncited information.
I'm working on a device with a class 2 bluetooth chip, so I needed to clear up a few things regarding the range, and I figured in the meantime I might as well contribute to this article.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by John2kx (talk • contribs) 
:Thanks! Note that I reverted your answers.com reference since it's a Wikipedia mirror, and thus not a reliable source. -- intgr #%@! 20:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  references 

message: The article claims there are two BT stacks for linux, but then mention only one.
--Xerces8 07:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two or one linux stack ? 

message: The article overall tends to read like it was written by someone who speaks Japanese with a lot of the word "a" being omitted -- not that that's a major problem, it just makes the text not flow cleanly.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by FredricRice (talk • contribs) 21:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Un-needed commas, bad grammar 

message: I am surprised that there is no mention of the term "interoperability" which is the key to Bluetooth
I am actively doing research on this field, and I will consider adding a section pretty soon.
:Likely because Bluetooth isn't particularly "interoperable" or "universal," which is the most serious flaw with the technology. With USB, the OS simply needs the appropriate drivers. With Bluetooth, you must have a bluetooth receiver and stack which support the appropriate profiles for your device, and you must have drivers for the bluetooth device. In some cases, the applications you are using must be compatible with the bluetooth stack you've chose, as well. This is the reason that, while relatively common in cellphones and other devices which are developmentally static, Bluetooth is rarely implemented in desktop and laptop computers. 66.167.51.233 07:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I am surprised that there is no mention of the term "interoperability" which is the key to Bluetooth 

message: I just can't get it out of my head, why would something like this be called bluetooth. What puzzles me more is that there was a tv series in english, which was supposedly takin place in France during WWII, and the english was supposed to be french. Most characters were french but there were few british agents, and they all speaked english. But british characters were speaking realy lausy english. There was an english spy who cold her self blueteath which could actualy be bluetooth in "poor french".
Is there any connection beetwen this name and inteligence? 
Or, if not, why is it called bluetooth?
mimosveta
: Actually, it's already in the article, buried way down at the bottom under "Origin of the name and the logo". Seems like it should be mentioned in a few words (e.g., "named for King Herald Bluetooth of Denmark") in the lead section, possibly with a link to the appropriate section. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name Of It 

message: Somewhere (was a very quick fix and i dont remember exactly where, so check edits if you want) it said "code name Seattle" and linked to the page of Seattle, WA.  I removed this link because it seemed fairly irrelevant to link to the city.
76.200.119.77 (talk) 01:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick link fix