|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Cingular cell phone service > March 2006 > Disabled Bluetooth Question
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Disabled Bluetooth Question
|
|
|
| I know why providers disable the various Bluetooth options on different
phones, but I'm wondering if it's possible to restore the full Bluetooth
functionality. In my case, I have a Moto MPX220 and a Treo 650. I'm not
asking for detailed instructions...just want to know if this is commonly
done.
| |
| Wirelessjuan 2006-03-15, 11:48 pm |
| BT is not crippled on either one of those devices so I'm not sure what
you are talking about. If you are trying to send files from one device
to another it can be done extremely easy with the MPX220 and the Treo
650 (read the manual) or visit
https://onlinecare.cingular.com/device-support/index.do
| |
|
|
"Wirelessjuan" <wirelessjuan@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1142478475.778266.284120@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> BT is not crippled on either one of those devices so I'm not sure what
> you are talking about. If you are trying to send files from one device
> to another it can be done extremely easy with the MPX220 and the Treo
> 650 (read the manual) or visit
> https://onlinecare.cingular.com/device-support/index.do
>
It was my understanding that certain features such as Object Push are
disabled. I had an issue with the 220 when I first got it and my remark to
the Cingular tech was "I thought only Verizon crippled their devices". His
response was..."oops".
| |
| Michael 2006-03-16, 11:48 pm |
|
"Ric" <no@way.com> wrote in message news:zuTRf.1561$ny.530@fe10.lga...
>I know why providers disable the various Bluetooth options on different
>phones, but I'm wondering if it's possible to restore the full Bluetooth
>functionality.
I'd appreciate your thoughts on why a provider would do this. For example,
it seems Verizon and Alltel sell a Motorola V710 that only has BT available
for a headset, while other phones they sell have full BT functionality, i.e.
phone-phone-PC file xfer. Alltel's V710 is more expensive than their Nokia
6255i, but the Nokia has full BT capability. This makes no sense. I'm
beginning to think its the phone manufacturers, not the cell companies, that
choose to provide less than complete features.
mike
| |
| John Navas 2006-03-17, 2:48 am |
| [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <BepSf.73$OP3.43@fe03.lga> on Thu, 16 Mar 2006 21:32:05 -0500, "Michael"
<mkr@charter.invalid> wrote:
>"Ric" <no@way.com> wrote in message news:zuTRf.1561$ny.530@fe10.lga...
>
>I'd appreciate your thoughts on why a provider would do this. ...
Security. (Google "Bluejacking".)
Piracy. (File sharing.)
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| subdude 2006-03-17, 5:48 pm |
| On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 04:21:46 GMT, John Navas
< spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> graced us with:
>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <BepSf.73$OP3.43@fe03.lga> on Thu, 16 Mar 2006 21:32:05 -0500, "Michael"
><mkr@charter.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>Security. (Google "Bluejacking".)
>Piracy. (File sharing.)
John, you left out an important reason...
Revenue Generation. (To get you to use a proivider's paid wireless
service) <G>
subdude
| |
|
|
>
> Security. (Google "Bluejacking".)
> Piracy. (File sharing.)
Baloney...The manufacturers have every reason to provide phones with as many
features as possible to maximize sales. They don't care about security or
content licenses one bit...that someone else's problem. It's the Providers
who are nickel and diming you by disabling functions that they, in turn, can
charge you for. They don't want you swapping ring tones, photos or apps with
your friends via Bluetooth when they can get you to pay for each and every
download from their network.
| |
| John Navas 2006-03-17, 5:48 pm |
| [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <3PASf.3$3z.1@fe09.lga> on Fri, 17 Mar 2006 10:44:02 -0500, "Ric"
<no@way.com> wrote:
>
>Baloney...The manufacturers have every reason to provide phones with as many
>features as possible to maximize sales. They don't care about security or
>content licenses one bit...that someone else's problem. It's the Providers
>who are nickel and diming you by disabling functions that they, in turn, can
>charge you for. They don't want you swapping ring tones, photos or apps with
>your friends via Bluetooth when they can get you to pay for each and every
>download from their network.
Then why don't they disable cable transfers? In other words, your dark
theory, delicious as it is, doesn't fit the available facts.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
|
>
> Then why don't they disable cable transfers?
A spontaneous Bluetooth transfer of content, on the fly is what worries
providers the most. They see millions of young folks swapping tones and
wallpapers on the street and cringe. It's a huge market they can exploit for
a buck. Cable transfers simply don't present the potential loss of income
that Bluetooth does.
| |
| John Navas 2006-03-17, 5:48 pm |
| [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <F5CSf.1$0_6.0@fe11.lga> on Fri, 17 Mar 2006 12:12:08 -0500, "Ric"
<no@way.com> wrote:
>
>A spontaneous Bluetooth transfer of content, on the fly is what worries
>providers the most. They see millions of young folks swapping tones and
>wallpapers on the street and cringe.
Piracy.
>It's a huge market they can exploit for
>a buck. Cable transfers simply don't present the potential loss of income
>that Bluetooth does.
But IR does, and it's not disabled.
The bottom line is that the financial case for this is weak. Much more likely
are security and piracy concerns.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-03-17, 5:48 pm |
| [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In < u0kl1213778nkfcghfct
jssug6hqcliqtf@4ax.com> on Fri, 17 Mar 2006 15:06:32
GMT, subdude < subdude2REMOVETOREPL
Y@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 04:21:46 GMT, John Navas
>< spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> graced us with:
>
>
>John, you left out an important reason...
>
>Revenue Generation. (To get you to use a proivider's paid wireless
>service) <G>
I left it out intentionally. Conspiracy theories notwithstanding, I doubt
that was a significant factor.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| Michael 2006-03-17, 11:48 pm |
| "John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:uPqSf.572974$qk4.18709@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <BepSf.73$OP3.43@fe03.lga> on Thu, 16 Mar 2006 21:32:05 -0500,
> "Michael"
> <mkr@charter.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> Security. (Google "Bluejacking".)
> Piracy. (File sharing.)
>
John, I'm afraid neither explains why for $109 I can get a phone with full
BT, and for $129 I get a phone with BT brain-dead, from the same provider.
I'm still thinking that the disfunction is originated at the phone
manufacturer, not the service provider.
mike
| |
| Scott 2006-03-17, 11:48 pm |
|
"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:aoCSf.576226$qk4.488799@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In < u0kl1213778nkfcghfct
jssug6hqcliqtf@4ax.com> on Fri, 17 Mar 2006
> 15:06:32
> GMT, subdude < subdude2REMOVETOREPL
Y@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> I left it out intentionally. Conspiracy theories notwithstanding, I doubt
> that was a significant factor.
>
And yet the inclusion of a paid feature allows a user to use the two areas
you posted as being the true reasons. That would make them an insignificant
factor.
| |
| DecaturTxCowboy 2006-03-17, 11:48 pm |
| John Navas wrote:
> Piracy.
Your dark theory, delicious as it is, doesn't fit the available facts.
| |
|
| > I'm still thinking that the disfunction is originated at the phone
> manufacturer, not the service provider.
Don't the various providers order their phones pre loaded by the
manufacturer with their specified ROM ?
| |
| subdude 2006-03-18, 5:48 pm |
| On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 17:31:51 GMT, John Navas
< spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> graced us with:
>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In < u0kl1213778nkfcghfct
jssug6hqcliqtf@4ax.com> on Fri, 17 Mar 2006 15:06:32
>GMT, subdude < subdude2REMOVETOREPL
Y@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>I left it out intentionally. Conspiracy theories notwithstanding, I doubt
>that was a significant factor.
Well, (removing tinfoil hat <G> ) I *can* tell you that it was a major
factor in Verizon's disabling BT and Cable xfers of images on their
smartphone entries a few years ago - I've mentioned it before as the
main reason I came to Cingular in the first place. At the time, the
ONLY way to get images off the phone was via Verizon's PAID MMS
service. So I respectfully disagree that it's not a significant
factor, although I can't say this is the case in this particular
thread (having come late to the party).
subdude
| |
| Don Udel \(ETC\) 2006-03-20, 5:48 pm |
|
"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:kmCSf.576217$qk4.285566@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
> But IR does, and it's not disabled.
>
> The bottom line is that the financial case for this is weak. Much more
> likely
> are security and piracy concerns.
>
> --
> Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
Or SD cards in their many incarnations. Very easy to move files via the
cards and they are not disabled.
Don
| |
| John Navas 2006-03-21, 5:48 pm |
| [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In < otao12l1b0ncltnggdr9
nn0feds9rv248k@4ax.com> on Sat, 18 Mar 2006 15:51:38
GMT, subdude < subdude2REMOVETOREPL
Y@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 17:31:51 GMT, John Navas
>< spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> graced us with:
>
[color=darkred]
>
>Well, (removing tinfoil hat <G> ) I *can* tell you that it was a major
>factor in Verizon's disabling BT and Cable xfers of images on their
>smartphone entries a few years ago ...
Proof?
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-03-21, 5:48 pm |
| [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <4pNSf.3357$CQ.1617@fe10.lga> on Fri, 17 Mar 2006 19:09:14 -0500, "Ric"
<no@way.com> wrote:
>
>Don't the various providers order their phones pre loaded by the
>manufacturer with their specified ROM ?
Yep.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-03-21, 5:48 pm |
| [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <dvmd7u03ib@enews3.newsguy.com> on Mon, 20 Mar 2006 09:13:11 -0500, "Don
Udel \(ETC\)" <donudel@ellijay.com> wrote:
>"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
>news:kmCSf.576217$qk4.285566@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
[color=darkred]
>Or SD cards in their many incarnations. Very easy to move files via the
>cards and they are not disabled.
Surely you know that it's not nice to spoil a newsgroup flame with facts! ;)
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
|
|
|
| Scott 2006-03-21, 11:48 pm |
|
"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:vRYTf.15377$bn3.4446@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> What part of "proof" do you not understand?
>
Probably a different part than you- Cowboy is at least providing facts and
not ignoring the call for them.
| |
| Scott 2006-03-21, 11:48 pm |
|
"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:wXVTf.14918$bn3.1781@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> Surely you know that it's not nice to spoil a newsgroup flame with facts!
> ;)
>
That would put him one up on you.
Of course, your agreement with his post shows how clueless you were in
GUESSING the reasons for BT limitations.
Moron.
| |
| subdude 2006-03-22, 5:48 pm |
| On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 16:31:23 GMT, John Navas
< spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> graced us with:
>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In < otao12l1b0ncltnggdr9
nn0feds9rv248k@4ax.com> on Sat, 18 Mar 2006 15:51:38
>GMT, subdude < subdude2REMOVETOREPL
Y@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>Proof?
Proof - Here you go.
I went to a Verizon Company store to pick out a smartphone with a
camera a little over 2 years ago. The particular phone in question
had BT as a feature.
I asked the salesman if I could download images from the internal
camera, he said no - images on that particular phone could only be
tranferred by two means - using the optional data cable kit and
software, or by using the MMS paid service.
The manufacturer of the phone had listed the phone on their website as
using a Widcomm BT stack with a fully implemented set of profiles,
including BT OBEX and File Transfers. You could also do transfers
from the IR port.
When I showed the webpage to the salesman, he confirmed that in
Verizon's version of the ROM - *both* of those features were disabled.
In fact the only way you could transfer an image from the phone was
either buying the optional data kit and software or paying for the
premium MMS service and mailing the images to yourself - even though
this phone with a ROM from the manufacturer worked just fine as
reported by other non Verizon users.
There's no other viable reason these features (and ONLY these
features) were removed from the manufacturers ROM by Verizon except to
get you to pay more, and as I came to find out from researching
through user groups for PDAs and Smartphones, this was not an uncommon
practice for Verizon.
And as I have mentioned many times before, this is what led me to
Cingular.
subdude
| |
| John Navas 2006-03-22, 5:48 pm |
| [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In < 6kp2229dk6r4r4bhc200
1m017v2psd9d8n@4ax.com> on Wed, 22 Mar 2006 15:15:18
GMT, subdude < subdude2REMOVETOREPL
Y@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 16:31:23 GMT, John Navas
>< spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> graced us with:
>
[color=darkred]
>
>Proof - Here you go.
>[SNIP]
>There's no other viable reason these features (and ONLY these
>features) were removed from the manufacturers ROM by Verizon except to
>get you to pay more, ...
With all due respect, that's your own conclusion, not proof.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| DecaturTxCowboy 2006-03-22, 5:48 pm |
| John Navas wrote:
>
> With all due respect, that's your own conclusion, not proof.
While it may not be "proof" by *your* standards, its certainly
sufficient for a compelling argument. Its may not take a leap of logic
to look at the Widcomm specs and the Verizon specs and come to a
conclusion that Verizon sees a profit avenue.
Verizon's actual explanation was due to potential content licensing as
can be found in various online trade discussions with Verizon being quoted.
| |
| subdude 2006-03-23, 5:48 pm |
| On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 15:22:44 GMT, John Navas
< spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> graced us with:
>
>
>With all due respect, that's your own conclusion, not proof.
Proof of a "full and far reaching conspiracy to defraud customers"?
No of course not; if any of us could ever prove such a thing we
wouldn't waste time discussing it here...we'd sue the bastards <G>.
And I never claimed such a thing, but I can see where you'd draw that
conclusion.
It does prove however that it happened to *me*, the reasoning was
relatively clear and it cost Verizon a customer. That's all I've ever
claimed (multiple times in different posts) and all I ever intended to
prove.
Do you have any documentative and irrefutable *PROOF* otherwise? Of
course you don't, so what we're dealing with is logical arguments -
and I'd say mine is as good, if not better, than most.
The unit had a Widcomm stack which, with a factory fresh ROM,
supported the full profile. I fail to see a more compelling argument
for disabling these features, but I'm certainly open to your
explanations.
The ROM originally shipped with the features enabled, but turned off
by default, so security concerns are - to me - not a valid argument.
I imagine that perhaps Verizon could have developed some kind of
software that had problems if those features were enabled, but there
was no such software listed in the specs.
You (and others here) have considerably more experience with this
platform (I'm a PC and Network guy) so I'm sure I could have missed
something... Can you think of another reason John? What did I miss?
subdude
| |
|
| Ric wrote:
> Baloney...The manufacturers have every reason to provide phones with as many
> features as possible to maximize sales. They don't care about security or
> content licenses one bit...that someone else's problem. It's the Providers
> who are nickel and diming you by disabling functions that they, in turn, can
> charge you for. They don't want you swapping ring tones, photos or apps with
> your friends via Bluetooth when they can get you to pay for each and every
> download from their network.
The sole reason is revenue generation.
| |
| John Navas 2006-03-23, 5:48 pm |
| [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In < 4422ba23$0$95987$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net> on Thu, 23 Mar 2006 07:09:35
-0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>Ric wrote:
>
>
>The sole reason is revenue generation.
According to you. Security and piracy concerns are other possible reasons.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| subdude 2006-03-23, 11:48 pm |
| X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.640
X-No-Archive: yes
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 26
X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 22:03:42 GMT
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.cellular.cingular:64346
On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 17:23:26 GMT, John Navas
< spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> graced us with:
>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In < 4422ba23$0$95987$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net> on Thu, 23 Mar 2006 07:09:35
>-0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>According to you. Security and piracy concerns are other possible reasons.
OK, so let me ask you directly, would you agree that revenue
generation is as likely a reason as liability and security?
subdude
| |
| John Navas 2006-03-23, 11:48 pm |
| [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In < fm662256fbu0l0m0uh40
gm73o5qsr9hssk@4ax.com> on Thu, 23 Mar 2006 22:03:42
GMT, subdude < subdude2REMOVETOREPL
Y@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 17:23:26 GMT, John Navas
>< spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> graced us with:
>
>
>OK, so let me ask you directly, would you agree that revenue
>generation is as likely a reason as liability and security?
No. If it were, then there would be much more crippling going on.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| DecaturTxCowboy 2006-03-23, 11:48 pm |
| subdude wrote:
> OK, so let me ask you directly, would you agree that revenue
> generation is as likely a reason as liability and security?
Verizon has gone on record as saying its a content licensing issue. I
posted some links on that.
| |
|
|
"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:m3FUf.613212$qk4.285966@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
> No. If it were, then there would be much more crippling going on.
Uh...no. Bluetooth is a selling point. To cripple it completely would be
self defeating. They want to sell phones by advertising they are Bluetooth
capable. They just don't want you to be able to do everything Bluetooth can
do. It's painfully obvious they do this because they see a profit potential
in downloads and full Bluetooth functionality threatens that. Your
overreaching provider talking points have long since gone over the edge into
absurdity.
| |
| John Navas 2006-03-23, 11:48 pm |
| [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <z5HUf.39$qP2.28@fe09.lga> on Thu, 23 Mar 2006 19:31:29 -0500, "Ric"
<no@way.com> wrote:
>"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
>news:m3FUf.613212$qk4.285966@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>
>Uh...no. Bluetooth is a selling point. To cripple it completely would be
>self defeating.
I meant other ways of connecting and other phones.
>They want to sell phones by advertising they are Bluetooth
>capable.
The great majority of the market only seems to care about Bluetooth for
headsets.
>They just don't want you to be able to do everything Bluetooth can
>do. It's painfully obvious they do this because they see a profit potential
>in downloads and full Bluetooth functionality threatens that.
Sorry, but I don't think that's at all obvious.
>Your
>overreaching provider talking points have long since gone over the edge into
>absurdity.
Trying to cast aspersions simply because people disagree with you only serves
to undermine your own credibility. I have no connection to any provider.
That's just the way I see it. Sorry.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2006-03-23, 11:48 pm |
| [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
In <U3GUf.4399$tN3.904@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net> on Thu, 23 Mar 2006
23:21:24 GMT, DecaturTxCowboy <forgetit@bummer.com> wrote:
>subdude wrote:
>
>Verizon has gone on record as saying its a content licensing issue. I
>posted some links on that.
In other words, piracy, as I wrote.
--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
|
"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:EFHUf.613966$qk4.143492@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <U3GUf.4399$tN3.904@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net> on Thu, 23 Mar 2006
> 23:21:24 GMT, DecaturTxCowboy <forgetit@bummer.com> wrote:
>
>
> In other words, piracy, as I wrote.
>
No- they are not one in the same. You are wrong.
| |
| DecaturTxCowboy 2006-03-24, 5:48 pm |
| John Navas wrote:
> In other words, piracy, as I wrote.
Piracy and content licensing are two different things. Try again.
| |
| subdude 2006-03-24, 5:48 pm |
| On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 22:12:34 GMT, John Navas
< spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> graced us with:
>[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In < fm662256fbu0l0m0uh40
gm73o5qsr9hssk@4ax.com> on Thu, 23 Mar 2006 22:03:42
>GMT, subdude < subdude2REMOVETOREPL
Y@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>No. If it were, then there would be much more crippling going on.
See, here's where we diverge. You're arguing that a large corporation
like Cingular is worried only about their customer's security and
actively preventing piracy.
I am arguing that they are, like any other major corporation in
America, interested in making as much profit as they can for their
officers and stockholders.
With al due respect John, I think the tinfoil hat may be on the wrong
head...<G>
You're reasoning is that there would be "much more crippling going
on", but what more could they cripple? Disable the headset profile
and you will not only eliminate the possibility of being able to sell
the add-on headset, but you'd likely be beaten out for the customer by
another provider - hands free in the car being the law in my
neighboring state of New Jersey, you'd eliminate all possibility of
selling the unit to anyone who drives.
I respectfully disagree; I believe the profit potential is as big, if
not a larger, motivator for them to disable the feature.
And as for Decatur's post saying that "Verizon has gone on record as
saying its a content licensing issue", remember that the cigarette
companies and fast food vendors said all kinds of things that we are
now learning were nothing more than a PR smoke screen for a profit
agenda.
subdude
|
|
|
|
|