"Bluetooth set to take over wireless from Wi-Fi..."

Discussion in 'Wireless Internet' started by John Navas, Jan 26, 2006.

  1. John Navas

    John Navas Guest

    <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/26/bluetooth_bests_wifi/print.html>

    A thought-provoking article that's well worth reading in its entirety.
    Here's a key portion of the article:

    ...

    It's hard to put together a convincing forecast of anything except
    chaos for Wi-Fi. Not this year, not even next year; but after that,
    the 2.4 GHz band of 802.11b and 11g and 11n will become too congested
    to use. Can Wi-Fi survive the public disillusionment that will
    follow? I wouldn't say so.

    Meanwhile, the success of Bluetooth is likely to expand. The current
    spread spectrum technology at 2.4 GHz can duck ad weave around Wi-Fi
    because it doesn't need to be as ambitious in terms of bit rate, and
    because of its inherently more efficient use of frequencies. And by
    the time 2008 starts up, I would bet quite a lump on seeing UWB
    established as a de facto Bluetooth technology, for handling the high
    bit-rate stuff.

    If the Bluetooth SIG has the foresight to build Mesh technology into
    its chosen version of UWB, then it will win. ...

    What will provoke the switch to UWB and Bluetooth?

    I'd say: "Laws."

    Some time in the next two years, I expect to see metro area
    authorities start to call for the banning of Wi-Fi except for the
    networks they run themselves. They'll be happy to have residents use
    the metro Wi-Fi, but they won't be happy to have their own critical
    communications infrastructure sabotaged by seeing fifteen residents
    each set up a powerful MIMO device on channel 11.

    Precedent says that they can do it. Several airports have banned
    external Wi-Fi from their territory, despite the theory that it's
    licence-exempt and therefore open to anybody. If a democratically
    elected body bans private radio transmissions in the area, the only
    problem is policing it. And the operator of a city-wide wireless
    network will have no trouble at all in triangulating onto rogue
    hotspots.

    That will make it necessary for people who want their own, private
    access to their own, private home server, to use another technology.
    Mesh-linked UWB networks will suit just fine: high speed - faster
    than you need for high definition TV, anyway! - and low powered
    wireless which will carry voice, data, and video without interfering
    with anything else.

    ...
     
    John Navas, Jan 26, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. John Navas

    Bert Hyman Guest

    (John Navas) wrote in
    Maybe so in the UK (the apparent source of this piece), but in the
    US, the FCC will certainly have a lot to say about such a practice.
     
    Bert Hyman, Jan 26, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. John Navas

    Rico Guest

    Just in passing, how do you think someone becomes an FCC commissioner? Is
    it a politcal appointment (spoils) job? So let's democratically elect a
    President who at some point in his past was the mayor of a mid to large
    city that wanted to do away with residential WiFi. Now just ask yourself
    who might this newly elected President appoint to the FCC?

    Now tell me again what the FCC would have to say about anything?

    fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.
     
    Rico, Jan 26, 2006
    #3
  4. On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 16:35:07 GMT, in alt.internet.wireless , John

    (quoting an article on El Reg)
    The pundits say that every year, and every year, theyre wrong. Maybe
    this year will be different. Maybe they'll discover intelligent life
    in the Big Brother house.
    They can call all they like. They don't control it in the UK.
    Airports are private property. You can ban wifi on your land too, if
    you want to. Doing so is of course pretty pointless.
    No, the only problem will be explaining to your voters why you wasted
    all that money on defending your illegal move in the High Court.

    I think someone has been reading too much propaganda.
    Mark McIntyre
     
    Mark McIntyre, Jan 26, 2006
    #4
  5. John Navas

    David Taylor Guest

    Maybe so in the UK (the apparent source of this piece), but in the
    I seriously doubt it would happen in the UK either. The Radio Agency
    doesn't tend to lift a finger unless there's a complaint from a proper
    official body such as the CAA, police, BBC, fire etc. They certainly
    aren't interested in policing Joe Bloggs with a wifi router at home.

    The cited case of airports is specific as they are privately owned and
    so I wouldn't see a problem in enforcing radio transmissions on private
    property any less than a corporation could do so with an overlay
    solution such as Airmagnet/Airdefense etc. They might have difficulty
    doing it from a legal point of view though.

    Quick question, how many people do you think forget to turn off their
    mobile phone when on an aircraft? How effectively is that policed?

    David.
     
    David Taylor, Jan 27, 2006
    #5
  6. John Navas

    Bob II Guest

     
    Bob II, Jan 27, 2006
    #6
  7. John Navas

    David Taylor Guest

    http://www.radio.gov.uk/

    :) Thanks for that, I only ever got to speak to them twice and that was
    probably just before their demise.

    Ofcom seem equally uninterested in pretty much anything enforcement
    wise, more interested in creating paperwork. ;)

    David.
     
    David Taylor, Jan 27, 2006
    #7
  8. John Navas <> hath wroth:
    (...)

    It's interesting to note that the recent crop of Nikon digital cameras
    use 802.11g Wi-Fi and not Bluetooth. Nikon CoolPix P1 and S6 are
    802.11g while the D2H is 802.11b. No Bluetooth from anyone yet.
    There's rumors of a Wi-Fi camcorder, but no real products yet.
    Methinks it's too soon to declare Bluetooth the eventual winner.
     
    Jeff Liebermann, Jan 27, 2006
    #8
  9. John Navas

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <> on Fri, 27 Jan 2006 11:17:12
    By most accounts, Nikon Wi-Fi has been a flop, panned by reviewers and
    customers alike. Look for Canon or Sony to make wireless happen.
     
    John Navas, Jan 28, 2006
    #9
  10. Review of Nikon CoolPix P1 wireless:
    http://www.steves-digicams.com/2005_reviews/p1_pg5.html
    In the conclusions at:
    http://www.steves-digicams.com/2005_reviews/p1_pg6.html
    he says:
    "The WiFi features were simple to setup and use. Using the
    supplied software it was easy to get the camera to talk to
    my D-Link 802.11g router and transfer photos. It really does
    work as advertised as long as you are within the operating
    limits of your router."
    That doesn't sound too horrible.

    Here's another review that says he likes the wireless:

    http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Nikon-Coolpix-P1-Digital-Camera-Review-/Conclusion.htm

    PC Magazine doesn't seem to like the wireless features:
    http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1882077,00.asp
    They complained that it was difficult to setup with a wireless hot
    spot. I'm not sure why anyone would want to do that, but it had them
    stumped. As usual, they had trouble with WEP. My guess is the usual
    ASCII to Hex conversion problem. They also complained that one
    couldn't take photos and send them via wireless at the same time. If
    that is how they use the camera, little wonder they failed to be
    impressed.

    I didn't realize the Kodak also made a Wi-Fi digital camera:
    http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1882074,00.asp
    PC Mag seems to like it better than the Nikon Coolpix P1.

    Anyway, that's now 4 cameras with Wi-Fi and zero with Bluetooth, which
    was my original point.
     
    Jeff Liebermann, Jan 28, 2006
    #10
  11. John Navas

    David Taylor Guest

    They complained that it was difficult to setup with a wireless hot
    Easy, photographer wanting to urgently upload a shot back to HQ, press
    photographer for example with an immediate exclusive who doesn't have
    his laptop to hand.

    David.
     
    David Taylor, Jan 28, 2006
    #11
  12. William P.N. Smith, Jan 28, 2006
    #12
  13. And for what its worth, Guy Kewney has been making this claim ever
    since bluetooth was invented, if not before. Eventually he'll be right
    I guess.
    Mark McIntyre
     
    Mark McIntyre, Jan 28, 2006
    #13
  14. John Navas

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <> on Sat, 28 Jan 2006 04:52:50
    Wi-Fi-Enabled Digital Camera Disappoints
    Wireless capability may help photo sharing, but the price is steep.
    <http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,123572,00.asp>

    Wireless Nikon P1 Fails to Connect
    Efforts to link wirelessly between the Coolpix P1 and a notebook can be
    annoyingly fruitless.
    <http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/article/0,aid,124042,00.asp>
     
    John Navas, Jan 28, 2006
    #14
  15. John Navas

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <> on Sat, 28 Jan 2006 04:52:50
    Sony DSC-FX77
    <http://www.microanvika.com/CAMERAS/product.asp?TXT=INFO&PNO=SON52179>

    The best thing about this particular camera is its Bluetooth capability,
    offering data tranfer from a distance of up to 10 metres without any cable
    connection. Data transfer between the camera and a range of devices is
    smart, fun and convenient. As more and more peripheral devices develop BIP
    Bluetooth interfaces, the future vision of a wireless world comes closer to
    being reality.

    Sony DCR-TRV80
    Sony DCR-IP55
    Sony DCR-IP7BT
    Sony DCR-IP220
     
    John Navas, Jan 28, 2006
    #15
  16. Argh. I got it backwards. It's the Kodak camera that had problems
    sending photos via wireless and taking pictures at the same time.
    Nikon apparently can do that.
     
    Jeff Liebermann, Jan 28, 2006
    #16
  17. Looks like the major complaints were price and connectivity. For a
    new product with a new feature, overpriced is considered normal. The
    manufacturer wants to see what the market will bear and is willing to
    pay. I'm not so sure that the battery life problem is easily fixed.

    However, you're still ignoring my point. Two camera manufacturers
    chose to use Wi-Fi instead of Bluetooth. If the predicted inevitable
    dominance of Bluetooth is imminent, then it should have been a
    Bluetooth camera instead. Never mind that the first implimentations
    are lacking in various ways. That will eventually be fixed. Certainly
    Bluetooth chips suck less power and are cheaper. Pairing is much
    easier with Bluetooth than with 802.11b/g. Bluetooth should have
    been the obvious choice, bit it wasn't. Could it be because Nikon and
    Kodak found that more home users and wireless hot spots used Wi-Fi and
    not Bluetooth?
     
    Jeff Liebermann, Jan 28, 2006
    #17
  18. John Navas

    Guest Guest

    it is rather clear that kewney has a hidden agenda and/or an axe to
    grind. his claims are beyond ludicrous and intentionally deceptive.
     
    Guest, Jan 28, 2006
    #18
  19. John Navas

    Guest Guest

    it disappoints because of numerous things, not solely wifi, and that
    appears to work just fine.

    <http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/kodak/easyshare_one-review/>

    The Kodak EasyShare One is a very interesting camera with fantastic
    wireless capabilities but poor camera features and usability. While
    it's a great concept, it needs a lot of refinement (not to mention a
    price cut) before I can recommend it.
    he writes:

    I tried it with two different shipping versions of the Coolpix P1,
    four different computers, and two separate network routers--and never
    managed to get a successful connection.

    but from another review:
    <http://www.steves-digicams.com/2005_reviews/p1_pg5.html>

    I was amazed how simple it was to get the P1 configured to my D-Link
    DI-624M router considering I had it setup for maximum wireless
    security with 128-bit WEP encryption enabled.

    and another review:
    <http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/CPP1/CPP1A.HTM#usereport>

    File transfers were dead-easy, and the Transfer by Date option
    appealed to our lazy natures: Just select Transfer by Date, pick the
    most recent folder of images and ... well, that's it. The computer
    put up a dialog box telling us the transfer was underway and if we
    were feeling especially lazy, we could watch the countdown. Pretty
    slick.

    dave had some issues with wep keys but it sounds like the usual
    annoyances with wep key hashing, and probably the problem that the
    pcworld reviewer had.

    so much for 'disappointing.' maybe pcworld should stick to reviewing
    computers and not cameras.
     
    Guest, Jan 28, 2006
    #19
  20. John Navas

    John Navas Guest

    [POSTED TO alt.internet.wireless - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

    In <280120061150123538%> on Sat, 28 Jan 2006 11:50:12
    Since most users are less sophisticated than PC World, that some presumably
    more sophisticated reviewers had no problems says nothing about the user
    experience, just as there are lots of software programs that I can use but
    that I wouldn't wish on any non-expert. That reviewers had *any* problems is
    a black mark.
     
    John Navas, Jan 28, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Similar Threads
There are no similar threads yet.
Loading...