Cellular forums Home > Archive > Cingular cell phone service > April 2006 > USB to Bluetooth cellphone speed?









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 USB to Bluetooth cellphone speed?
P Hoberg

2006-04-08, 5:48 am

I want to buy a USB bluetooth device to connect my Motorola V551 to my
laptop. I use a cable now. I use Datapilot to upload & download phone
numbers, pictures, ringtones, etc. I also use my 551 as my wireless modem
to access the internet. Is there a 1.1 vs. 2.0 issue I should be concerned
with? Will the $14.99 Q-Stor USB to IrDA device limit my thru-put? I'm not
concerned with distance between the laptop and the V551, just with speed.


John Navas

2006-04-08, 11:48 pm

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <djKZf.65$Jk2.48@fed1read03> on Sat, 8 Apr 2006 01:16:12 -0700, "P Hoberg"
< nospamphobergnospam@
att.net> wrote:

>I want to buy a USB bluetooth device to connect my Motorola V551 to my
>laptop. I use a cable now. I use Datapilot to upload & download phone
>numbers, pictures, ringtones, etc. I also use my 551 as my wireless modem
>to access the internet. Is there a 1.1 vs. 2.0 issue I should be concerned
>with? Will the $14.99 Q-Stor USB to IrDA device limit my thru-put? I'm not
>concerned with distance between the laptop and the V551, just with speed.

IrDA?

Bluetooth (any version) to USB (any version) won't limit your Internet speed
*if* you set the port speed high enough. See the FAQ below.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
P Hoberg

2006-04-08, 11:48 pm

Thanks, John. Ignore my IrDA (infrared? Duh!) question. I was just worried
that like USB 1.0 vs. 2.0, there is some bluetooth standard I should worry
about. I've always used the 1.0 USB port on my laptop because my 2.0 USB PC
card caused problems I couldn't get around, and I believed any USB speed was
much faster than what the serial port on the phone was capable of. I just
found "The first generation of Bluetooth permits exchange of data up to a
rate of 1 Mbps per second" via Google, so unless USB 1.0 is a limitation,
I'll just get the cheapest adapter Fry's or MicroCenter sells. You helped
me get "MEdiaNetUnlimited" working as my internet modem a few months ago
(thanks again), so I think my phone's speed is set correctly.

"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:zPQZf.706647$qk4.698982@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <djKZf.65$Jk2.48@fed1read03> on Sat, 8 Apr 2006 01:16:12 -0700, "P
> Hoberg"
> < nospamphobergnospam@
att.net> wrote:
>
>
> IrDA?
>
> Bluetooth (any version) to USB (any version) won't limit your Internet
> speed
> *if* you set the port speed high enough. See the FAQ below.
>
> --
> Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>


Kevin K

2006-04-08, 11:48 pm

On Sat, 8 Apr 2006 16:48:39 UTC, "P Hoberg"
< nospamphobergnospam@
att.net> wrote:


I believe a lot of it depends on how fast you can setup your "modem"
speed in the computer. With my Motorola, I can't seem to set the
speed any faster than 115K in Windows using Bluetooth. Probably isn't
too much of an issue with Edge, but if and when I can get UTMS, I
would definately hope for more.

--

P Hoberg

2006-04-09, 5:48 am

So you think my USB cable is potentially faster to the V551 phone than
bluetooth? But I'd like the simplicity of bluetooth vs. having to deal with
the clumsy, distance limiting cable. Especially if I suffer little or no
speed penalty. Now I'm having difficulty having my Win XP Pro with SP2
connect successfully. It finds the phone and even sets it as Com 12, but
maybe the security number is my problem? Any thoughts? TIA, Paul

"Kevin K" <kevink4@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:KIRoJuEXw9g9-pn2-HriEPryiTSGY@ecs...
> On Sat, 8 Apr 2006 16:48:39 UTC, "P Hoberg"
> < nospamphobergnospam@
att.net> wrote:
>
>
> I believe a lot of it depends on how fast you can setup your "modem"
> speed in the computer. With my Motorola, I can't seem to set the
> speed any faster than 115K in Windows using Bluetooth. Probably isn't
> too much of an issue with Edge, but if and when I can get UTMS, I
> would definately hope for more.
>
> --
>



DecaturTxCowboy

2006-04-09, 5:48 pm

P Hoberg wrote:
> I'm not
> concerned with distance between the laptop and the V551, just with speed.

The speed of Bluetooth vs. cable for an internet connection irrelevant .
The maximum speed for data Cingular claims is 170 Kbps - a fraction of
what Bluetooth is capable of.

"Users should experience average speeds of 100 kbps to 150 kbps." as
advertised by Cingular's website.
Kevin K

2006-04-09, 5:48 pm

On Sun, 9 Apr 2006 08:39:13 UTC, "P Hoberg"
< nospamphobergnospam@
att.net> wrote:

> So you think my USB cable is potentially faster to the V551 phone than
> bluetooth? But I'd like the simplicity of bluetooth vs. having to deal with
> the clumsy, distance limiting cable. Especially if I suffer little or no
> speed penalty. Now I'm having difficulty having my Win XP Pro with SP2
> connect successfully. It finds the phone and even sets it as Com 12, but
> maybe the security number is my problem? Any thoughts? TIA, Paul
>
> "Kevin K" <kevink4@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:KIRoJuEXw9g9-pn2-HriEPryiTSGY@ecs...
>
>
>

I know that I had difficulty in getting bluetooth to work on my XP
box. There were issues of getting 2 sets of drivers fighting over the
dongle (drivers that came with the box, drivers in SP2). It took
several reinstall cycles, and disabling some drivers, before I could
get it to work. Also, I ended up buying MPT and having to use that,
since I could not get DUN to work directly.

About a month ago, I tried DUN directly again, and it works. And
starts up MUCH faster than MPT.

If it was the security number, it should be prompting you for it.

--

dold@XReXXUSBXt.usenet.us.com

2006-04-09, 5:48 pm

In alt.cellular.cingular P Hoberg < nospamphobergnospam@
att.net> wrote:
> So you think my USB cable is potentially faster to the V551 phone than
> bluetooth? But I'd like the simplicity of bluetooth vs. having to deal
> with the clumsy, distance limiting cable. Especially if I suffer little
> or no speed penalty. Now I'm having difficulty having my Win XP Pro with
> SP2 connect successfully. It finds the phone and even sets it as Com 12,
> but maybe the security number is my problem? Any thoughts? TIA, Paul

The maximum speed setting is in Connection Properties of either the USB or
Bluetooth Modem. I have my v551 Bluetooth set at 230400. With Windows XP
SP2, I see about 30Kbps in non-EDGE areas, and 70-100Kbps in EDGE areas.

What are you trying to do with com12? There are two things that are
important with Bluetooth, the V551, and Motorola Phone Tools, that I use
for transferring photos and sync of the phone book. The drivers from WinXP
try very hard to install themselves, even if you have already loaded the
software that came with the dongle. If you have two Bluetooth icons in
your systray, you have a problem. There are steps outlined in various
places about what to do with the WinXP drivers, which aren't fully
featured. They are the preferred device by the automatic loader, but they
lack features that you need.

For my DLink DBT-120, I loaded the drivers from the CDROM, and then had to
make some adjustments to get the automatically-installed WinXP-SP2 out of
the way. http://support.dlink.com/faq/view.asp?prod_id=2146
The steps here are generic enough that they might apply regardless of which
dongle you get. A co-worker bough the DLink because he knew mine worked...
They should all work, and the speed should be fine. John Navas found a
good price on a Zonet ZUB6111C USB 1.1 Bluetooth Dongle, and it works for
him. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...33130024


The other is port number. MPT won't work above com 10. You need to delete
the lower numbered ports so that the Bluetooth can install below 10. Make
sure that you always use the same USB port for your dongle so that it
doesn't create additional ports.

There are some things that require the cable, like SEEM edits.


P Hoberg

2006-04-09, 5:48 pm

Thanks, that's what I get with my cable, and hope to with bluetooth.

"DecaturTxCowboy" <forgetit@bummer.com> wrote in message
news:k%7_f.45799$_S7.32288@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
>P Hoberg wrote:
>
> The speed of Bluetooth vs. cable for an internet connection irrelevant .
> The maximum speed for data Cingular claims is 170 Kbps - a fraction of
> what Bluetooth is capable of.
>
> "Users should experience average speeds of 100 kbps to 150 kbps." as
> advertised by Cingular's website.


P Hoberg

2006-04-09, 5:48 pm

XP picked com12 even tho lower numbers are unused. I use the com port when
I use DataPilot to do it's tricks with the phone. The cable still works
fine (it has a lower XP assigned com number) both with DataPilot and as a
modem. XP does get to the point of asking what kind of number assignment I
want to use, then if I let XP pick the number, the phone asks me to enter
it, then rejects my answer as incorrect. Then XP thinks it has a cellphone,
but the phone doesn't. I'll use device manager to remove the driver, then
use the CD that came with my IOGear GBU221WM class II adapter. Maybe I'll
have better luck. Then I'll try to figure out how to get a lower com number
assigned. I always use the same USB 1.0 port on my laptop - "if it ain't
broke, don't fix it!"

<dold@XReXXUSBXt.usenet.us.com> wrote in message
news:e1be7t$f0a$1@bl
ue.rahul.net...
> In alt.cellular.cingular P Hoberg < nospamphobergnospam@
att.net> wrote:
>
> The maximum speed setting is in Connection Properties of either the USB or
> Bluetooth Modem. I have my v551 Bluetooth set at 230400. With Windows XP
> SP2, I see about 30Kbps in non-EDGE areas, and 70-100Kbps in EDGE areas.
>
> What are you trying to do with com12? There are two things that are
> important with Bluetooth, the V551, and Motorola Phone Tools, that I use
> for transferring photos and sync of the phone book. The drivers from
> WinXP
> try very hard to install themselves, even if you have already loaded the
> software that came with the dongle. If you have two Bluetooth icons in
> your systray, you have a problem. There are steps outlined in various
> places about what to do with the WinXP drivers, which aren't fully
> featured. They are the preferred device by the automatic loader, but they
> lack features that you need.
>
> For my DLink DBT-120, I loaded the drivers from the CDROM, and then had to
> make some adjustments to get the automatically-installed WinXP-SP2 out of
> the way. http://support.dlink.com/faq/view.asp?prod_id=2146
> The steps here are generic enough that they might apply regardless of
> which
> dongle you get. A co-worker bough the DLink because he knew mine
> worked...
> They should all work, and the speed should be fine. John Navas found a
> good price on a Zonet ZUB6111C USB 1.1 Bluetooth Dongle, and it works for
> him. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...33130024

>
> The other is port number. MPT won't work above com 10. You need to
> delete
> the lower numbered ports so that the Bluetooth can install below 10. Make
> sure that you always use the same USB port for your dongle so that it
> doesn't create additional ports.
>
> There are some things that require the cable, like SEEM edits.
>
>


dold@XReXXUSBXt.usenet.us.com

2006-04-09, 11:48 pm

In alt.cellular.cingular P Hoberg < nospamphobergnospam@
att.net> wrote:
> it, then rejects my answer as incorrect. Then XP thinks it has a
> cellphone, but the phone doesn't. I'll use device manager to remove the
> driver, then use the CD that came with my IOGear GBU221WM class II
> adapter. Maybe I'll have better luck. Then I'll try to figure out how
> to get a lower com number assigned. I always use the same USB 1.0 port
> on my laptop - "if it ain't broke, don't fix it!"

I would definitely use the IOGear drivers.
The Windows XP provides a minimal set of features with regards to
Cellphones.

I never used the "laptop connection to cellphone" feature.
I haven't explored the utility of that function.
I currently use a USB headset for VoIP. Maybe that same headset would talk
over the cell phone with slightly better audio than the cellphone, but I
don't understand why one would use that setup.

I'm more interested in an alternate mix of the Bluetooth devices.
A Bluetooth phone, connects to PC for Internet tether and phonebook sync.
A Bluetooth headset/earpiece to connect to the phone, and also to connect
to the PC as a VoIP headset with Skype and Cisco Softphone.

I use the Bluetooth OBEX file transfer to move pictures and movies back and
forth between phone and PC.

I can't use the "modem" features to dial out as a fax modem or as a dialup
internet connection, because that's not supported by my Cingular features.

--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5
P Hoberg

2006-04-09, 11:48 pm

Thanks, everyone who helped me. Everything I want to do is working.
DataPilot sees the phone via bluetooth as COM14. My "MEdiaNetUnlimited"
works using the same dial string "*99***3#" that my cable connection uses,
so I have between 115K and 140K, fast enuf for my browsing and email needs
when I'm away from my cable modem, for $19.95 per month for unlimited
access, not using my minutes.

"P Hoberg" < nospamphobergnospam@
att.net> wrote in message
news:djKZf.65$Jk2.48@fed1read03...
I want to buy a USB bluetooth device to connect my Motorola V551 to my
laptop. I use a cable now. I use Datapilot to upload & download phone
numbers, pictures, ringtones, etc. I also use my 551 as my wireless modem
to access the internet. Is there a 1.1 vs. 2.0 issue I should be concerned
with? Will the $14.99 Q-Stor USB to IrDA device limit my thru-put? I'm not
concerned with distance between the laptop and the V551, just with speed.


DecaturTxCowboy

2006-04-10, 2:48 am

P Hoberg wrote:
> for $19.95 per month for unlimited
> access, not using my minutes.

I'm getting real leary of people using the MediaNet tethered to their
phone.

Got a call from a customer last Wednesday that had been tethering his
laptop at work for because his company has a proxy server that restricts
his outside internet access since last fall. He was billed for a $731
data connect charge in one month. He called Cingular and they asked if
he was connecting his phone to his laptop, he said he was and they said
it was prohibited.

He had the presence of mind to ask what if he had said he wasn't using
his phone tethered to his laptop. The CS rep told him they have new
processes in place and are encouraging users to go with a data plan or
connection card.


The following space is reserved for Navis' "informed" opinions.

|-------------------------------------------------|
| |
| |
| |
| |
|-------------------------------------------------|
P Hoberg

2006-04-10, 5:48 am

Hmmm...
I got past my final problem by taking my laptop and V551 to my local
Cingular store where they know me well (a company store, not an agent). One
of the employees helped me, with the knowledge and approval of his manager.
They have helped others do it.
I've been using the service occasionally for a few months, only when on the
road, in Dallas, Las Vegas, or in a local coffee shop or friend's home,
sometimes an hour or more on-line. Never for hours at a single session. My
only new issue is bluetooth, not my data cable.
"Status" says 230K when using the cable, 115K when using bluetooth.
Browsing seems to be the same speed when using either. Slow but not
unusable.

"DecaturTxCowboy" <forgetit@bummer.com> wrote in message
news:wYk_f.14409$tN3.5236@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>P Hoberg wrote:
>
> I'm getting real leary of people using the MediaNet tethered to their
> phone.
>
> Got a call from a customer last Wednesday that had been tethering his
> laptop at work for because his company has a proxy server that restricts
> his outside internet access since last fall. He was billed for a $731 data
> connect charge in one month. He called Cingular and they asked if he was
> connecting his phone to his laptop, he said he was and they said it was
> prohibited.
>
> He had the presence of mind to ask what if he had said he wasn't using his
> phone tethered to his laptop. The CS rep told him they have new processes
> in place and are encouraging users to go with a data plan or connection
> card.
>
>
> The following space is reserved for Navis' "informed" opinions.
>
> |-------------------------------------------------|
> | |
> | |
> | |
> | |
> |-------------------------------------------------|



P Hoberg

2006-04-10, 5:48 am

I use "news.west.cox.net" when I'm using my Cox cable modem. It doesn't
work when I'm using MediaNet. Do you have any idea what I could use
successfully to get to this (Motorola) and similar newsgroups with MediaNet?

"DecaturTxCowboy" <forgetit@bummer.com> wrote in message
news:wYk_f.14409$tN3.5236@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
>P Hoberg wrote:
>
> I'm getting real leary of people using the MediaNet tethered to their
> phone.
>
> Got a call from a customer last Wednesday that had been tethering his
> laptop at work for because his company has a proxy server that restricts
> his outside internet access since last fall. He was billed for a $731 data
> connect charge in one month. He called Cingular and they asked if he was
> connecting his phone to his laptop, he said he was and they said it was
> prohibited.
>
> He had the presence of mind to ask what if he had said he wasn't using his
> phone tethered to his laptop. The CS rep told him they have new processes
> in place and are encouraging users to go with a data plan or connection
> card.
>
>
> The following space is reserved for Navis' "informed" opinions.
>
> |-------------------------------------------------|
> | |
> | |
> | |
> | |
> |-------------------------------------------------|


DecaturTxCowboy

2006-04-10, 5:48 pm

P Hoberg wrote:
> I use "news.west.cox.net" when I'm using my Cox cable modem. It doesn't
> work when I'm using MediaNet. Do you have any idea what I could use
> successfully to get to this (Motorola) and similar newsgroups with MediaNet?

To prevent spaming and other issues, lot of ISPs only allow access to
their new group server via their own gateway.

For example, if you are an Earthlink account user and try to use their
news server while using someone's SBC dialup account to connect to the
internet, it may not let you authenticate.

I don't recall if I could use my Eathlink news server while using my
Sprint phone as a modem or if I had to use my SBC news server as I'm
doing now with my Cingular phone.

You'll need to use an open news server, but since I don't have this
problem I don't know of any off the top of my head. I know that some
other users there have the answer.

You might try to Google for umm..."open news servers".
dold@XReXXUSBXt.usenet.us.com

2006-04-10, 5:48 pm

In alt.cellular.cingular P Hoberg < nospamphobergnospam@
att.net> wrote:
> "Status" says 230K when using the cable, 115K when using bluetooth.
> Browsing seems to be the same speed when using either. Slow but not
> unusable.

That is the "connection" between the PC and the phone, not between the
phone and the network. It is adjustable in the properties for the modem on
the PC. It should be at 230400 for both, so that it is faster than the
network.

--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5
dold@XReXXUSBXt.usenet.us.com

2006-04-10, 5:48 pm

In alt.cellular.cingular P Hoberg < nospamphobergnospam@
att.net> wrote:
> I use "news.west.cox.net" when I'm using my Cox cable modem. It doesn't
> work when I'm using MediaNet. Do you have any idea what I could use
> successfully to get to this (Motorola) and similar newsgroups with MediaNet?

I would call Cox support, and ask if there is a server that you can use
while you are connected at work.

I suspect that you can't send email out with the standard setting of
smtp.west.cox.net, either.

--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5
P Hoberg

2006-04-10, 11:48 pm

I have no trouble receiving email from any of the 7 email accounts set up in
my OE6. And I can send email from my normal COX account, my ATT account,
and others.

<dold@XReXXUSBXt.usenet.us.com> wrote in message
news:e1eciq$8ok$3@bl
ue.rahul.net...
> In alt.cellular.cingular P Hoberg < nospamphobergnospam@
att.net> wrote:
>
> I would call Cox support, and ask if there is a server that you can use
> while you are connected at work.
>
> I suspect that you can't send email out with the standard setting of
> smtp.west.cox.net, either.
>
> --
> ---
> Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5


P Hoberg

2006-04-10, 11:48 pm

I doubt if I'll actually get better than the 115K or so over MediaNet via
USB cable or bluetooth connecting my laptop to my V551. It's slow, but
acceptable for my limited purposes.

<dold@XReXXUSBXt.usenet.us.com> wrote in message
news:e1eccq$8ok$2@bl
ue.rahul.net...
> In alt.cellular.cingular P Hoberg < nospamphobergnospam@
att.net> wrote:
>
> That is the "connection" between the PC and the phone, not between the
> phone and the network. It is adjustable in the properties for the modem
> on
> the PC. It should be at 230400 for both, so that it is faster than the
> network.
>
> --
> ---
> Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5


dold@XReXXUSBXt.usenet.us.com

2006-04-10, 11:48 pm

In alt.cellular.motorola P Hoberg < nospamphobergnospam@
att.net> wrote:
> I doubt if I'll actually get better than the 115K or so over MediaNet via
> USB cable or bluetooth connecting my laptop to my V551. It's slow, but
> acceptable for my limited purposes.

The ~100Kbps ftp throughput that I get with my v551 Bluetooth in a strong
EDGE area might make me want a little more headroom, but you're right.
There is some overhead, so I thought 230400 was a nice number.

--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5
dold@XReXXUSBXt.usenet.us.com

2006-04-10, 11:48 pm

In alt.cellular.motorola P Hauberk < nospamphobergnospam@
att.net> wrote:
> I have no trouble receiving email from any of the 7 email accounts set up
> in my OE6. And I can send email from my normal COX account, my ATT
> account, and others.

I'm surprised they let smtp traffic go through, but they might be using a
POP-first, temporary IP authentication scheme like my ISP does.

I'd still call Cox and ask if there's an alternate server that you could
use to connect your laptop via the Work LAN, or your friend's non-Cox
connection. No mention of GPRS. What you want is access from outside of
the Cox network. If they say "It ought to work", then I don't know.
Or, phrased differently... Can you connect for news when you are on someone
else's network, and just can't do it via MEdiaNet?

I can ping news.west.cox.net, which I didn't really expect.
I can't ping netnews.mchsi.com unless I am on their network.

But if I try an nntp connection to news.west.cox.net, it fails, just like
netnews.mchsi.com when I'm not on their network.

--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5
John Navas

2006-04-11, 11:48 pm

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

I recommend Bluetooth 1.1 over 1.0 because it coexists better with Wi-Fi and
is more reliable.

In <HPRZf.70$Jk2.54@fed1read03> on Sat, 8 Apr 2006 09:48:39 -0700, "P Hoberg"
< nospamphobergnospam@
att.net> wrote:

>Thanks, John. Ignore my IrDA (infrared? Duh!) question. I was just worried
>that like USB 1.0 vs. 2.0, there is some bluetooth standard I should worry
>about. I've always used the 1.0 USB port on my laptop because my 2.0 USB PC
>card caused problems I couldn't get around, and I believed any USB speed was
>much faster than what the serial port on the phone was capable of. I just
>found "The first generation of Bluetooth permits exchange of data up to a
>rate of 1 Mbps per second" via Google, so unless USB 1.0 is a limitation,
>I'll just get the cheapest adapter Fry's or MicroCenter sells. You helped
>me get "MEdiaNetUnlimited" working as my internet modem a few months ago
>(thanks again), so I think my phone's speed is set correctly.
>
>"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
>news:zPQZf.706647$qk4.698982@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
[color=darkred]

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
John Navas

2006-04-11, 11:48 pm

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

Higher port speed *will* make a difference.

In <X2A_f.231$Jk2.152@fed1read03> on Mon, 10 Apr 2006 14:25:13 -0700, "P
Hoberg" < nospamphobergnospam@
att.net> wrote:
[color=darkred]
>I doubt if I'll actually get better than the 115K or so over MediaNet via
>USB cable or bluetooth connecting my laptop to my V551. It's slow, but
>acceptable for my limited purposes.
>
><dold@XReXXUSBXt.usenet.us.com> wrote in message
> news:e1eccq$8ok$2@bl
ue.rahul.net...

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
John Navas

2006-04-11, 11:48 pm

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <1Zu_f.45991$_S7.1282@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com> on Mon, 10 Apr 2006
15:37:33 GMT, DecaturTxCowboy <forgetit@bummer.com> wrote:

>P Hoberg wrote:
>
>To prevent spaming and other issues, lot of ISPs only allow access to
>their new group server via their own gateway.
>
>For example, if you are an Earthlink account user and try to use their
>news server while using someone's SBC dialup account to connect to the
>internet, it may not let you authenticate.
>
>I don't recall if I could use my Eathlink news server while using my
>Sprint phone as a modem or if I had to use my SBC news server as I'm
>doing now with my Cingular phone.
>
>You'll need to use an open news server, but since I don't have this
>problem I don't know of any off the top of my head. I know that some
>other users there have the answer.
>
>You might try to Google for umm..."open news servers".

Or simply use Google Groups.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
John Navas

2006-04-11, 11:48 pm

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <e1ekfb$lok$1@blue.rahul.net> on Mon, 10 Apr 2006 21:59:07 +0000 (UTC),
dold@XReXXUSBXt.usenet.us.com wrote:

>In alt.cellular.motorola P Hoberg < nospamphobergnospam@
att.net> wrote:
>
>The ~100Kbps ftp throughput that I get with my v551 Bluetooth in a strong
>EDGE area might make me want a little more headroom, but you're right.
>There is some overhead, so I thought 230400 was a nice number.

Higher port speed also reduces latency.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
dold@XReXXUSBXt.usenet.us.com

2006-04-11, 11:48 pm

In alt.cellular.cingular John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
> I recommend Bluetooth 1.1 over 1.0 because it coexists better with Wi-Fi and
> is more reliable.

Is it BT 1.2 that makes for a good audio connection to a PC?

If you have a phone, a PC and a Bluetooth headset, you might as well
endeavor to use the headset with the PC, and not just the phone.

A coworker had a Jabra BT200 headset for his blackberry, added the DLink
DBT-120 for his PC, purely because he knew I had one and it worked, and was
able to use both Skype and Cisco Softphone on his PC with the BT headset.

The sound was kind of flat compared to my Plantronics USB headset, but I
think that might be a good thing, using less bandwidth, and perfectly
intelligible.

I noticed that IOGear has a BT headset for $19.99
http://www.iogear.com/main.php?loc=...t&Item=GBE201W7
http://www.iogear.com/main.php?loc=...W&cat=Bluetooth
That one is BT 1.1. I might get it just because $20 is my price point for
stuff I don't need ;-)

And a BT adapter http://www.iogear.com/main.php?loc=product&Item=GBU301
for $9.95. Or a starter kit with two for $29.95 ;-)

The http://www.iogear.com/main.php?loc=product&Item=GBE211 headset is BT
1.2, but it isn't for sale in the discount outlet. $39 at newegg.

--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5
John Navas

2006-04-11, 11:48 pm

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <e1hinq$7mf$1@blue.rahul.net> on Wed, 12 Apr 2006 00:47:54 +0000 (UTC),
dold@XReXXUSBXt.usenet.us.com wrote:

>In alt.cellular.cingular John Navas < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>Is it BT 1.2 that makes for a good audio connection to a PC?

Yes. In addition, I goofed -- what I should have written is:

I recommend Bluetooth 1.2 over 1.0-1.1 because it coexists better with
Wi-Fi and is more reliable.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluetooth>

>If you have a phone, a PC and a Bluetooth headset, you might as well
>endeavor to use the headset with the PC, and not just the phone.
>
>A coworker had a Jabra BT200 headset for his blackberry, added the DLink
>DBT-120 for his PC, purely because he knew I had one and it worked, and was
>able to use both Skype and Cisco Softphone on his PC with the BT headset.
>
>The sound was kind of flat compared to my Plantronics USB headset, but I
>think that might be a good thing, using less bandwidth, and perfectly
>intelligible.
>
>I noticed that IOGear has a BT headset for $19.99
>http://www.iogear.com/main.php?loc=...t&Item=GBE201W7
>http://www.iogear.com/main.php?loc=...W&cat=Bluetooth
>That one is BT 1.1. I might get it just because $20 is my price point for
>stuff I don't need ;-)
>
>And a BT adapter http://www.iogear.com/main.php?loc=product&Item=GBU301
>for $9.95. Or a starter kit with two for $29.95 ;-)
>
>The http://www.iogear.com/main.php?loc=product&Item=GBE211 headset is BT
>1.2, but it isn't for sale in the discount outlet. $39 at newegg.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
P Hoberg

2006-04-11, 11:48 pm

John,
It's set to 115,200. Do I really need to set it higher?
TIA,
Paul

"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:YVX_f.11621$YT1.190@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <e1ekfb$lok$1@blue.rahul.net> on Mon, 10 Apr 2006 21:59:07 +0000 (UTC),
> dold@XReXXUSBXt.usenet.us.com wrote:
>
>
> Higher port speed also reduces latency.
>
> --
> Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>


John Navas

2006-04-12, 2:48 am

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

Yes. At least 230,000. See the FAQ below.

In <g9Z_f.291$Jk2.10@fed1read03> on Tue, 11 Apr 2006 18:58:37 -0700, "P
Hoberg" < nospamphobergnospam@
att.net> wrote:

>It's set to 115,200. Do I really need to set it higher?
[color=darkred]
>"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
>news:YVX_f.11621$YT1.190@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
P Hoberg

2006-04-12, 5:48 am

John,
My IOGear gbu221 specs (re:
http://www.iogear.com/main.php?loc=product&Item=GBU221) say "
a.. Bluetooth specification 2.0 compliant to reduce interference with Wi-Fi
devices
a.. Faster data transfer rates - up to 2.1Mbps
a.. USB specification 1.1 compliant "
so... is 2.0 better than 1.2, or am I mixing apples and oranges?
and... I should change my 115200 to 230400 both for my V551 bluetooth modem
and my V551 USB cable modem?
TIA,
Paul

"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
news:mfY_f.3066$1q4.1520@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <e1hinq$7mf$1@blue.rahul.net> on Wed, 12 Apr 2006 00:47:54 +0000 (UTC),
> dold@XReXXUSBXt.usenet.us.com wrote:
>
>
> Yes. In addition, I goofed -- what I should have written is:
>
> I recommend Bluetooth 1.2 over 1.0-1.1 because it coexists better with
> Wi-Fi and is more reliable.
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluetooth>
>
>
> --
> Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>


DecaturTxCowboy

2006-04-12, 5:48 pm

John Navas wrote:
> I recommend Bluetooth 1.2 over 1.0-1.1 because it coexists better with
> Wi-Fi

Hogwash, rubbish, untrue...

And the last time you looked at a spectrum analyzer was?

Anything that increases the noise floor...never mind, I'm already
talking over your head and not worth explaining anything technical to
someone who has already announced his truth.

dold@XReXXUSBXt.usenet.us.com

2006-04-12, 5:48 pm

In alt.cellular.cingular P Hoberg < nospamphobergnospam@
att.net> wrote:
> and... I should change my 115200 to 230400 both for my V551 bluetooth modem
> and my V551 USB cable modem?

If your true data rate from network to modem is around 100Kbps, with a spec
that says 170K is possible, then you certainly should have a link between
the modem and the computer that is higher than 115K for full throughput.

The only downside is if your flow control is no good, and the computer
can't handle the higher rate without errors. Then you would apply an
artificial limit.

If you are in a non-EDGE area, then your true data rate is somewhere around
30-50Kbps, and the 115200 rate is plenty fast.



I couldn't help myself...
I ordered the $19.95 IOGear headset.
Free shipping over $25, so I ordered the $9.95 adapter, too.
I don't need a $5 adapter, but I'm a sucker for marketing.

--
---
Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5
John Navas

2006-04-12, 5:48 pm

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <e1jdcq$g09$1@blue.rahul.net> on Wed, 12 Apr 2006 17:28:58 +0000 (UTC),
dold@XReXXUSBXt.usenet.us.com wrote:

>In alt.cellular.cingular P Hoberg < nospamphobergnospam@
att.net> wrote:
>
>If your true data rate from network to modem is around 100Kbps, with a spec
>that says 170K is possible, then you certainly should have a link between
>the modem and the computer that is higher than 115K for full throughput.
>
>The only downside is if your flow control is no good, and the computer
>can't handle the higher rate without errors. Then you would apply an
>artificial limit.
>
>If you are in a non-EDGE area, then your true data rate is somewhere around
>30-50Kbps, and the 115200 rate is plenty fast.

Even with standard GPRS a faster port speed (e.g., 230 Kbps) can help by
lowering latency.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
John Navas

2006-04-12, 5:48 pm

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

IOgear is a good brand.

Bluetooth 2.0 is even better than 1.x, but you won't get any faster speed than
1.x with a Bluetooth 1.x device (e.g., cell phone) at the other end.

USB specs are totally different than Bluetooth specs.

USB 1.1 is more than fast enough -- USB 2.0 won't help with your cell phone,
but it won't hurt either, and will play nicer with other USB 2.0 devices on a
USB 2.0 port.

For best performance use the fastest port speed you can that doesn't result in
overrun. I recommend 230 Kbps for GPRS, and 460 Kbps for EGPRS(EDGE), the
points of diminishing returns in my tests.

In <E62%f.302$Jk2.70@fed1read03> on Wed, 12 Apr 2006 00:37:09 -0700, "P
Hoberg" < nospamphobergnospam@
att.net> wrote:

>John,
>My IOGear gbu221 specs (re:
>http://www.iogear.com/main.php?loc=product&Item=GBU221) say "
>a.. Bluetooth specification 2.0 compliant to reduce interference with Wi-Fi
>devices
>a.. Faster data transfer rates - up to 2.1Mbps
>a.. USB specification 1.1 compliant "
>so... is 2.0 better than 1.2, or am I mixing apples and oranges?
>and... I should change my 115200 to 230400 both for my V551 bluetooth modem
>and my V551 USB cable modem?
>TIA,
>Paul
>
>"John Navas" < spamfilter0@navasgro
up.com> wrote in message
>news:mfY_f.3066$1q4.1520@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
P Hoberg

2006-04-12, 5:48 pm

Thank you, Clarence! Finally, I understand! Duh! 115K = 115,000 vs.
115,200 or 230,400! Duh, again! Thank you. It takes a while, but finally
comes thru! Whew!

And John, I looked up "latency" and found "Channel latency is the time it
takes for a computer channel to become unoccupied in order to transfer data.
Network latency is the delay introduced when a packet is momentarily stored,
analyzed and then forwarded.". Which do you mean? Probably the latter.
Although, whichever, I'll accept that lower is better for my thru-put.

I'll change both my modems to 230400. I want my USB cable and my bluetooth
to be as fast as possible to my V551, although I'm unlikely to use the cable
any more, unless you tell me that bluetooth is a security problem. I am in
an EDGE area, here in Irvine, CA, and must be, in Dallas, because my speed
seems the same both places.

TIA,
Paul

<dold@XReXXUSBXt.usenet.us.com> wrote in message
news:e1jdcq$g09$1@bl
ue.rahul.net...
> In alt.cellular.cingular P Hoberg < nospamphobergnospam@
att.net> wrote:
>
> If your true data rate from network to modem is around 100Kbps, with a
> spec
> that says 170K is possible, then you certainly should have a link between
> the modem and the computer that is higher than 115K for full throughput.
>
> The only downside is if your flow control is no good, and the computer
> can't handle the higher rate without errors. Then you would apply an
> artificial limit.
>
> If you are in a non-EDGE area, then your true data rate is somewhere
> around
> 30-50Kbps, and the 115200 rate is plenty fast.
>
>
>
> I couldn't help myself...
> I ordered the $19.95 IOGear headset.
> Free shipping over $25, so I ordered the $9.95 adapter, too.
> I don't need a $5 adapter, but I'm a sucker for marketing.
>
> --
> ---
> Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5


kevin weaver

2006-04-12, 5:48 pm

> I'll change both my modems to 230400. I want my USB cable and my
> bluetooth to be as fast as possible to my V551, although I'm unlikely to
> use the cable any more, unless you tell me that bluetooth is a security
> problem. I am in an EDGE area, here in Irvine, CA, and must be, in
> Dallas, because my speed seems the same both places.
>
> TIA,
> Paul

There Is always a security risk with anything wireless.


John Navas

2006-04-12, 5:48 pm

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <u3c%f.312$Jk2.88@fed1read03> on Wed, 12 Apr 2006 11:56:22 -0700, "P
Hoberg" < nospamphobergnospam@
att.net> wrote:

>Thank you, Clarence! Finally, I understand! Duh! 115K = 115,000 vs.
>115,200 or 230,400! Duh, again! Thank you. It takes a while, but finally
>comes thru! Whew!
>
>And John, I looked up "latency" and found "Channel latency is the time it
>takes for a computer channel to become unoccupied in order to transfer data.
>Network latency is the delay introduced when a packet is momentarily stored,
>analyzed and then forwarded.". Which do you mean? Probably the latter.
>Although, whichever, I'll accept that lower is better for my thru-put.

Latency in terms of an Internet connection is the time it takes a packet to
traverse the network path, usually measured as the round-trip time of a
'ping'. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ping> Think of latency as most of the
delay from pressing Search on Google to the receiving of the search results.

Port speed affects how fast a given packet of data can be transferred over
that port. The faster the port speed the less time it takes, which has a
direct effect on reducing latency. GPRS/EGPRS have much more latency than
even dial-up, so any reduction in latency is significant.

>I'll change both my modems to 230400. I want my USB cable and my bluetooth
>to be as fast as possible to my V551, although I'm unlikely to use the cable
>any more, unless you tell me that bluetooth is a security problem. I am in
>an EDGE area, here in Irvine, CA, and must be, in Dallas, because my speed
>seems the same both places.

Bluetooth can be a security problem, but only if you allow it to connect to
foreign devices. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluejacking>


><dold@XReXXUSBXt.usenet.us.com> wrote in message
> news:e1jdcq$g09$1@bl
ue.rahul.net...
>

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
DecaturTxCowboy

2006-04-12, 11:48 pm

kevin weaver wrote:

> There Is always a security risk with anything wireless.

And with Bluetooth usable up to a mile away too...
John Navas

2006-04-12, 11:48 pm

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <cHh%f.69365$dW3.22306@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com> on Thu, 13 Apr 2006
01:20:08 GMT, DecaturTxCowboy <forgetit@bummer.com> wrote:

>kevin weaver wrote:
>
>
>And with Bluetooth usable up to a mile away too...

Uh no. Try 1/10 of that for Class 2 devices like almost all cell phones, even
with a high-gain directional antenna. The mile thing was with Class 1
devices.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
DecaturTxCowboy

2006-04-13, 2:48 am

John Navas wrote:
>
> Uh no. Try 1/10 of that for Class 2 devices like almost all cell phones, even
> with a high-gain directional antenna.

Factually incorrect. Nice try, but no points.



Glenn Shaw

2006-04-13, 5:48 pm

DecaturTxCowboy wrote in alt.cellular.cingular:

> John Navas wrote:
>
> Factually incorrect. Nice try, but no points.

If I may interject:

Bluetooth Class 1: max range 300 feet, used primarily in industrial
applications.
Bluetooth Class 2: max range 30 feet, typically used in mobile devices
like cell phones and PDAs.
Bluetooth Class 3: max range 3 feet.

Source: http://www.bluetooth.com/Bluetooth/Learn/Basics/

The only way I see BT being even remotely useable at a 1-mile range, is
if the BT device were Class 1 and a high-gain directional antenna were
used.

--
Glenn Shaw • Indianapolis, IN USA
To reply by e-mail, remove "nospam" and swap "cast" and "net"
John Navas

2006-04-13, 5:48 pm

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In < Xns97A47CE93ACBtogus
acomcastnet@216.196.97.136> on Thu, 13 Apr 2006
11:16:39 -0500, Glenn Shaw <togusa@nospamcomnet.cast> wrote:

>DecaturTxCowboy wrote in alt.cellular.cingular:
>
>
>If I may interject:
>
>Bluetooth Class 1: max range 300 feet, used primarily in industrial
>applications.
>Bluetooth Class 2: max range 30 feet, typically used in mobile devices
>like cell phones and PDAs.
>Bluetooth Class 3: max range 3 feet.
>
>Source: http://www.bluetooth.com/Bluetooth/Learn/Basics/
>
>The only way I see BT being even remotely useable at a 1-mile range, is
>if the BT device were Class 1 and a high-gain directional antenna were
>used.

Correct. He's probably misinterpreting
<http://www.techsmec.com/index.php/2...th_ran
ge>.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
clifto

2006-04-13, 5:48 pm

Glenn Shaw wrote:
> Bluetooth Class 1: max range 300 feet, used primarily in industrial
> applications.
> Bluetooth Class 2: max range 30 feet, typically used in mobile devices
> like cell phones and PDAs.
> Bluetooth Class 3: max range 3 feet.
>
> Source: http://www.bluetooth.com/Bluetooth/Learn/Basics/
>
> The only way I see BT being even remotely useable at a 1-mile range, is
> if the BT device were Class 1 and a high-gain directional antenna were
> used.

And an exceptional low-noise, high-sensitivity receiver were on each
end instead of the consumer-grade stuff available.

--
All relevant people are pertinent.
All rude people are impertinent.
Therefore, no rude people are relevant.
-- Solomon W. Golomb
DecaturTxCowboy

2006-04-13, 5:48 pm

clifto wrote:
> Glenn Shaw wrote:
>
> And an exceptional low-noise, high-sensitivity receiver were on each
> end instead of the consumer-grade stuff available.


Nope...Popular Science had a write up how-to on this and its been well
documented in the Defcon hacking articles. I recall a rifle stock
mounted 12 driver element Yagi antenna here:
http://www.tgdaily.com/2004/08/02/defcon_12/page6.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluetooth_sniping

Bottom line, Bluetooth CAN indeed be compromised up to a mile away and
THAT was the gist of my reply to Kevin.

> kevin weaver wrote:
> There Is always a security risk with anything wireless.



John Navas

2006-04-19, 5:48 pm

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <tqy%f.10677$4L1.5313@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com> on Thu, 13 Apr 2006
20:22:49 GMT, DecaturTxCowboy <forgetit@bummer.com> wrote:

>clifto wrote:
>
>Nope...Popular Science had a write up how-to on this and its been well
>documented in the Defcon hacking articles. I recall a rifle stock
>mounted 12 driver element Yagi antenna here:
>http://www.tgdaily.com/2004/08/02/defcon_12/page6.html
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluetooth_sniping
>
>Bottom line, Bluetooth CAN indeed be compromised up to a mile away and
>THAT was the gist of my reply to Kevin.

Only with Bluetooth Class 1, not Class 2 (as in the case of most cell phones)
or Class 3, your attempt to scramble notwithstanding.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
DecaturTxCowboy

2006-04-20, 5:48 pm

John Navas wrote:
>
> Only with Bluetooth Class 1, not Class 2 (as in the case of most cell phones)
> or Class 3, your attempt to scramble notwithstanding.

Did I not say "Bluetooth CAN indeed be compromised up to a mile away"
ans is not Bluetooth Class 1 not Bluetooth? My statement is still valid,
your attempt to scramble notwithstanding.



John Navas

2006-04-20, 5:48 pm

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <C1M1g.50524$_S7.26259@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com> on Thu, 20 Apr 2006
13:30:10 GMT, DecaturTxCowboy <forgetit@bummer.com> wrote:

>John Navas wrote:
>
>Did I not say "Bluetooth CAN indeed be compromised up to a mile away"
>ans is not Bluetooth Class 1 not Bluetooth? My statement is still valid,
>your attempt to scramble notwithstanding.

Your actual flat statement was:

And with Bluetooth usable up to a mile away too...

Which isn't correct in the context of non-Class 1 devices, like most cell
phones.

Are you now claiming that you were being disingenuous, off-topic, misleading,
or a smartass, rather than just being misinformed? ;)

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
DecaturTxCowboy

2006-04-20, 5:48 pm

John Navas wrote:
> Your actual flat statement was:
>
> And with Bluetooth usable up to a mile away too...
>
> Which isn't correct in the context of non-Class 1 devices, like most cell
> phones.
>

My statement is still valid as I never stated which class of a device.
Any assumption that I was referring to a non-Class 1 device is your own.

> Are you now claiming that you were being disingenuous, off-topic, misleading,
> or a smartass, rather than just being misinformed? ;)

None of the above. I believe you have market cornered on all of those
points. Have a nice day.

LinkBot





Other Archives: Real Estate forum archive | Web Design archive | Software support archive | PC Hardware reviews archive | Medical topics archive

Copyright 2004 - 2009 cellphonetopics.com