Talk:Bluetooth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project as a "full time member" and/or contribute to the discussion.


Contents

[edit] Radiation

I have heard about all the research on cellular radiation that Motorola et al don't want us to know about. I have experienced the power of that radiation when my cell phone is close by my land phone during conversations on the latter. So how much radiation is my poor brain receiving from my Blue Tooth hearing device when it is on my ear?

I couldn't agree more. Bluetooth article missing health section. A summary of http://www.swedetrack.com/images/bluet05.htm and others (web seek for bluetooth radiation) is needed. --Nkour 13:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It would be a great favour on humanity if somebody could dig out info about radiation harm.--Darrendeng 09:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Because of the lower level of radiation a Bluetooth headset should probably be better for health versus the full power of a cellphone right beside the head, but in instances where a wired headset is possible and there are no radiation concerns (ie. an MP3 player) perhaps the added exposure so close to the head (particularly by the young) should encourage more research and discussion. Lexor1969 23:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nintendo Wii Remote (Wiimote)

The Wii remote is a huge success that will grow in popularity and find uses away from the console. Need a section added about the Wii remote along with the version it uses (could not find it readily, and there is a cost difference for USB adapters). Apps such as Glovepie http://carl.kenner.googlepages.com/glovepie now support the Wii remote with its revolutionary tracking systems and Bluetooth technology. Lexor1969 23:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inaccuracy

  • RSSI - I moved this feature to 1.1, im unsure when this feature was added but i have 1.1 devices that have RSSI feature

-Towel401

[edit] Bluetooth derivation

Does anyone know why a data transmission protocol came to be named after an ancient Danish king? It's not vital to the article, I know, but since somebody has .....asserted that that is the derivation, I'm curious to know more... - IMSoP 22:12, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I've read somewhere on the Internet that the reason could be one of two:
  1. The first chip (or whatever) looked like a tooth that was blue.
  2. King Bluetooth was known for his communicating skills and in uniting warring tribes (or something like that). It was an apt name for a communications protocol.
Also, the Bluetooth logo was also supposedly taken from the sign (name in their alphabet?) used by the king.
--seav 16:15, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)
http://www.bluetooth.com/about/ says that the SIG was named after the king because of his role in unifying Denmark and Norway. I'll see if I can find out more and add it to this and the Harold Bluetooth article. -- Kimiko
Found the complete story on http://www.bluetooth.org/bluetooth/landing/btname.php So, yes, the technology is named after the king in honor of his unification of the tribes, and, yes, the logo is made up of the runes (Nordic ones that is) for H and B. I couldn't find any Bluetooth images of something that looked like an actual blue tooth, although some products have a blue extremity. -- Kimiko 19:17, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Weird: I thought it was because he'd created a (historical first) standard version of the Runes to be used in his kingdom (Harolds Runes) - which makes a lot more sense, since Bluetooth is a communication protocol. His unifying the "tribes" of Norway and Denmark basically amounted to some squallid political intrigues with him claiming the part around modern Oslo and subduing the rest as his vassals... and then losing the whole thing to his son, Sven Forkbeard. O tempora o mores. Problem is I don't have any reference to give to confirm the runes story...
Actually, the correct runes would be G and B. H isn't present in any form I've heard of. It would also make more sense with G being Gift, and one definition of B as Liberty. Gift of Liberty would make sense to me for a wireless protocol. It may not be vital to the article, but there are some people who do want to know. 66.216.148.171 19:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC) Jace

The runes are the combination of H and B in the younger futhark rune alphabeth, used in scandinavia.


Origins of "BLUETOOTH"

The essential reason for the well marketed name Bluetooth have little direct connection with Denmark

Bluetooth is a wholly British creation and one of the many examples of British science that makes the UK the leader in science medicine and technology in the world-(official stats please check new pats/advances-(USApop300m- 34%UKpop60m-10.5% Japanpop145m-10% Germany pop 90-5% etcetc)

One of the peculiar characteristics of modern times is how Britain is continually and cleverly "put down"- in the public eye as the worlds leading scientific innovator-as indeed it is put down in almost every other area also -London is now the established centre of banking and business in the world for example outstripping New York while some 18 of the biggest blockbuster films of the last thirty years(all marketed as American ) have been made in London and are by normal measurements British/American

It was therefore important when marketing Bluetooth to find a name that would cleverly distract from any suggestion of its British origins.As Sony Ericcson obviouly has(apparently) Scandinavian origins , a Danish name could easily seem appropriate.

Unfortunately there is a lie involved in this also because the Sony Ericcson organisation operates from London-where its research is based-and is -again from a "real"point of view-as distict from legal technicalities etc a British company

The marketing of Bluetooth is a superb example of the way there is almost a fanatical obssession to prevent Britains scientific eminence from being widely known. The media seem only interested in Britain for its pop music or health scares....a sorry business indeed.....that the British government does nothing to correct.....JP

Incidentally the name Bluetooth was of course choosen carefully by a British marketing consultancy...

The whole thing above from "Origins of Bluetooth" and down to the start of this sentence is wrong.And very much so. The radio technology for Bluetooth was developed by Ericsson in Lund, Sweden. Mossig 22:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the introduction, how can a radio frequency be secure? And is "low-cost" actually supposed to apply to the frequency? 213.23.136.189 13:10, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The virus was written as a proof-of-concept by a group of virus writers known as 29a and sent to anti-virus groups. Because of this, it should not be regarded as a security failure of either Bluetooth or the Symbian OS. It has not propagated 'in the wild'. Brilliant. "Nobody broke these locks in public this time they really are secure."

This section needs some work:
  • The information is out of date.
  • External links are imbedded in the text, and in some cases not even identified as external (depending on the skin you use).
See also bluesnarf. Andrewa 14:51, 12 May 2005 (UTC)


I removed the reference to the non-existent Waleed algorithm from the Security measures section of the article. It looks like a clueless newbie edited the article on 19 August 2005 and added "waleed" between "SAFER+" and "algorithm", and then some well-meaning editor wikified "waleed algorithm" into a red link on 28 September 2005. Then a spammer followed the red link and created a nearly content-free article on 9 November 2005, with a link to his web site. --DavidConrad 06:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Harold Bluetooth

With two distinct meanings for bluetooth (the wireless comms technology, and the King of Norway and Denmark, Conqueror of Normandy), should we be considering a disambiguation page, as normally used where a word refers to subjects in different areas? It's somewhat strange to see Bluetooth mentioned only as "someone who this technology is named after"

I don't think there is a need for disambiguation. The introduction of this article links to Harold Bluetooth that redirects to the article regarding the King Harold I of Denmark (aka Harold Bluetooth Gormson). -- sabre23t 01:30, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

We need to decide what section we are going to talk about Harold Bluetooth as there are two sections in this Bluetooth article and it is redundant. Additionally, there is a link in the See Also section that refers to the Origins of Bluetooth. Seems also redundant. 198.151.12.8 14:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SIG

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,9289,00.asp refers to nine founding members of the SIG: 3Com, Ericsson, IBM, Intel, Lucent Technologies, Microsoft, Motorola, Nokia, and Toshiba. Is this right? Isidore 20:52, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] I am surprised that there is no mention of the term "interoperability" which is the key to Bluetooth

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.


[edit] Power consumption

Is power use linear, or proprotional to the distance the devices are apart? Onco p53 01:09, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

-- I'd be surprised to hear that the electrical power drain changed at all with distance. however, the signal strength of course will will be be subject to distance^2 reduction.

I read that some modules detect the signal strength, then adjust the power consumption to only the amount needed. In effect, this makes the power indirectly related to the distance. I don't believe it is inherent to the technology though. I can't locate my source. goodeye 19:21, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bluetooth 2.0

I've removed some of the text in the Bluetooth 2.0 section as it was factually inaccurate: there are no single frequency channels with faster data rates: connections using EDR hop as Bluetooth always has. --Pw201 21:41, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Profiles for Bluetooth v2

Any new profiles being introduced with Bluetooth 2?

Is there a bluetooth v1.6?

[edit] OSI Layer

As a developer, I think it might be very handy if some images like http://progtutorials.tripod.com/Bluetooth_Technology_files/image003.jpg and http://progtutorials.tripod.com/Bluetooth_Technology_files/image005.jpg were added. Bluetooth can be somewhat confusing, since it's somewhat vague layered in comparison to 802.11

[edit] Transfer Speeds?

I saw no mention of the rates of which you can transfer data with bluetooth. I seem to average about 38kb/s which was surprisingly slow when compared to other methods off transferring data.

[edit] Information on Bluetooth Video Streaming

Hi all,

I'm currently working on a project based on bluetooth video streaming. I would like to enquire a few questions on Bluetooth:

1. Is it more feasible to work on the project based on Java platform or C++?

2. How is VDP (Video Distribution Profile) used in bluetooth video streaming?

3. Is there any online bluetooth resources available for this bluetooth video streaming project?

Thanks in advance!

Sam R :)


[edit] Bluetooth Profiles - own page?

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)

Done in September 2006 (but under "profile" and not "profiles". I changed your link accordingly). -Lwc4life 11:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Power Classes

  • Class 2 power rating 2.5mW? there is no class for devices with 10mW output? my headset is rated 10mW im pretty sure it is class 2 and i remember seeing something that stated class 2 devices were 10mw?

Pls anyone give information about the difference between class 1 and 2?

I am surprised that there is no clarification for terms "Class I" and "Class II" in context of Bluetooth. While "class 2 Bluetooth radios" is mentioned in the article.

fixed talkie_tim 15:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Power Class info checked against 1.1 Spec and made into a table for easier readability -- Warpedshadow 22:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the table should be changed slightly. Since the units are given in the column headers, they don't really need to be next to the values as well. To make it a bit more "uniform", the unit for the range should also be put in the column header and then removed from the other rows. Nylex 16:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too Technical?

The section "Setting up connections" is a bit technical and I feel unnecesary for the present article. Also the two "dumps" are from applications within the [[1]] packaage and no refernece to that is given. -- Warpedshadow 23:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bluetooth Audio Streaming for Headsets

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)

[edit] Opinionated Point?

"A number of unscrupulous advertising firms in the greater Los Angeles area debuted Bluetooth-enabled billboards along roads and highways, broadcasting advertisements to passing motorists' Bluetooth-enabled cellular phones or PDAs, much to the motorists' annoyance"

Similar systems have also been used in the UK by more legitimate companies, partciularly in train stations although with minor success. Perhaps the point should be re-written, stating that it has been used around the world for advertising, and with limited success. yet another Matt 12:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it's impossible that EVERY motorist dislikes. I'm not sure you can even say that it has had limited success without some verification of this. Maybe say "This form of advertising has been viewed as invasive by some motorists" and link to a news article/source discussing the technology (I'm pretty sure I saw something on CNN about it before). Just a suggestion. --Marchanlon 00:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Got too tired of seeing that bias there so I've removed it. I'm not sure of Wikipedia's policy on linking to news articles (an opinion piece no less), so I've left that there for the moment. --83.70.249.41 00:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Future

There are two future of bluetooth sections, please merge them together. 70.111.225.103 03:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The two futures seem to be looking from differing view points (the first is a technical view, the second is from an applications viewpoint), merging them together doesn't seem a good idea to me. Maybe rename the second section to "Future Applications of Bluetooth"? --Marchanlon 00:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

In the section "Future of Bluetooth" there are no references and I have not been able to find any document suporting the "Lisbon" release new additions to the protocol. After some more research I found a podcast from Mike Foley describing the new additions. How can one reference a podcast? Theups 17:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interoperability of various power classes

I think something must be added on interoperability of various power classes. If I have a Class 2 and Class 1 devices, what is the distance they could talk to each other? Would it be somewhere in the middle between 10m and 100m? Is there a way to guess the value here? MureninC 11:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question:2.4 GHz Bluetooth 2.0 ISM Band USB + EDR Adapter

Would this adapter work BOTH ways if it were plugged into a printer / scanner and the laptop was already Bluetooth equiped? (ie. print from laptop and receive from scanner?)

Thanks.

The Wiz

[edit] How do I know if my PC has Bluetooth?

How do I know if my Windows XP PC has Bluetooth? Is there a simple test?

A: In Windows XP - right click on file, and select > "Send to" >> "Bluetooth device". If this option doesn't appear, your bluetooth device isn't correctly configured or there is no such device in your computer.

Start button -> run -> DEVMGMT.MSC. Look for a node called "Bluetooth Devices." This would indicate if the operating system is configured with a BT device (internal, or USB-connected). David Spalding Talk, Contribs 16:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reference/Link Needed

In the ICP section:

"Intercom Profile (ICP)

This is often referred to as the walkie-talkie profile. It is another TCS based profile, relying on SCO to carry the audio. It is proposed to allow voice calls between two Bluetooth capable handsets, over Bluetooth."

It say this is "...another TCS based profile". However, TCS is not defined on the page, or linked.

[edit] Bluetooth vs Wi-Fi

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)
      • I was under the impression that Wi-Fi transports IEEE 802.3 frames (perhaps with extensions to allow hand-overs and roaming?). Thus, even if the 'physical' layer is technologically different between 802.1/2/3 and 802.11, the Link layer is identical or nearly identical. It depends on your definition of 'Ethernet', in that case. If you take 'Ethernet' to denote only Layer 1, then Ethernet and Wi-Fi are entirely different (but this isn't made clear in the article). Alexios Chouchoulas 18:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Bluetooth makes it simple, why is nobody mentioning this?

Lipatden 16:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology vs Origin of the name

  • I can't help but notice that the Etymology section and origin of the name have overlapping information. Anyone know why? Funnyfarmofdoom 21:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Cleaned up by putting both sets of info under the same heading down the end. Obviously, diverging interpretations of events happening centuries ago have relative importance for people looking minimal info on the technology.

Dilane 17:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slight reorg

All the PAN/LAN wireless standards gain by having a kind a similar "look and feel". Which is going from the user down to most technical building blocks. Then, follows elements which can be perceived as peripherals (social concerns). Then standard items (trivia, references, external link, etc...). So, I reorganised (slightly) Bluetooth: use, 2 technical sections, and created social concerns. If some authors think that health concern is a major issue, they are welcome to create a page. Dilane 17:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Before I RV two of your changes, I'm curious -- Why did you remove the PDA references, and the IEEE reference?

... personal area networks (PANs), also known as IEEE 802.15.1...

...between devices such as personal digital assistants (PDAs),...


I think they were pertinent, and not "too much information" for a main entry for the topic. PDA applications are not trivial, most mid-range PDAs come with BT -- in fact, I think the Dell Axims come with BT standard now, and only the top of the line add WiFi. Social concerns sounds okay, I wonder if this is the place to mention that short-lived phenomenon where kids would send "secret" notes to others' phones or pdas via BT, e.g. "Hey, cute, I like your phone," blah blah blah nevermind, it was a hoax. David Spalding Talk, Contribs 20:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Yellow-band?"

I'm removing the Yellow-band addition (as soon as the database is unlocked) by 84.19.35.82 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • block user • block log), as I can find NO references to anything yellow related to BT on the Bluetooth.com site or on the Internet. Until citations are provided, I suspect it's "rubbish," violation of WP standards. Preserving the quote here for reference. --~DBS Talk/Contribs 15:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Yellow band is the latest in Bluetooth technology [citation needed]. It is a much more powerful version of Bluetooth [citation needed]. It has an approximate range of 50M, but it's range depends on walls[citation needed]. Yellow-band technology has been in development since the success of Bluetooth was recognized around the world[citation needed].

—Uncited, 84.19.35.82

[edit] How stuff works link - evaluated

I've read the page on "How Stuff Links" that appears on External Links. This link has been on-again, off-again, on this article. As per WP:EL, it offers something that the article doesn't: a layman's explanation of how Bluetooth ... works. WP's article as written is a technical overview, with specifics on developments and such, but not in such a way that I think John or Josephine Doe will read and "get." I suggest the link stays. The linked-to site satisfies the guideline, I don't see undue advertising on the external site, and no discernible conflict of interest. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 02:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Patent Dispute

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)

[edit] Questions about connections

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).

[edit] BT Audio Gateway

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)

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)

[edit] Beauknit reference -- truth or myth?

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))

[edit] Bluetooth dongle

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)

[edit] Multi-link

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)

[edit] Removal of innaccuracy

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)

[edit] Don't mention games consoles.

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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/l/u/Talk%7EBluetooth_c4f7.html"