Bluetooth Networking

[Jason Dunn]

<a href="http://www.pocketpcpower.net/Bluetooth.htm">http://www.pocketpcpower.net/Bluetooth.htm</a><br /><br />Ever wanted to learn more about networking with Bluetooth? Sam from Pocket PC Power has written up an excellent article that discusses why he chose Bluetooth over Wifi, how he got it working, and what the results were. Give it a read if you're curious.<br /><br />For my needs, Bluetooth simply doesn't have the bandwidth - or does it? Sam mentions 723 Kbps (big K) as the bandwidth, but <a href="http://www.wirelessdevnet.com/channels/bluetooth/features/bluetooth.html">on this page</a> they say it's 723 kbps (little K). The former is more bandwidth than my cable modem can pull anyway, but the latter is only 90 KB/s - not all that fast, especially when I'm transferring large files (something I do quite often). I'm looking forward to the Microsoft Bluetooth keyboard, because if done properly Bluetooth is a great device to device protocol, but I'm not sure I'd want to run a LAN on it. Bluetooth isn't the answer to everything, just as Wifi isn't.<br /><br />What's your experience with this? Good, bad, ugly?

[heliod]

I use Bluetooth for syncing and for browsing the Internet from my Pocket PC while going around the apartment.

For this purpose, speed is very good. I transfer files between the PC and the Pocket PC very quickly, check and answer emails, browse the net and post in forums, with a very slight delay comparing to the speed of using the machine in which the DSL modem is connected. So I believe (actually I am sure) the right number is with the big K.

[Pony99CA]

For my needs, Bluetooth simply doesn't have the bandwidth - or does it? Sam mentions 723 Kbps (big K) as the bandwidth, but on this page (http://www.wirelessdevnet.com/channels/bluetooth/features/bluetooth.html) they say it's 723 kbps (little K). The former is more bandwidth than my cable modem can pull anyway, but the latter is only 90 KB/s - not all that fast, especially when I'm transferring large files (something I do quite often). I'm looking forward to the Microsoft Bluetooth keyboard, because if done properly Bluetooth is a great device to device protocol, but I'm not sure I'd want to run a LAN on it. Bluetooth isn't the answer to everything, just as Wifi isn't.

What's your experience with this? Good, bad, ugly?
Three points.

First, I don't believe it's the "K" that matters -- 723 Kbps = 723 kbps. It's the "B" that matters -- b = bits, B = Bytes. Maybe some people use "K" vs. "k" if they don't use the "B" or "b" (723K = 723 kBps, while 723k = 723 kbps), but it appears both articles used the "b".

Second, 723 kbps is still pretty fast. Maybe some cable modems get up to 1500 kbps, but most consumer DSL doesn't. I have a 756 kbps line, which typically works out to about 600+ kbps of real data.

In any case, I've heard that my iPAQ 3870 is limited to something like 115 kbps. :-( This would make bandwidth a bigger issue for those of us considering Bluetooth vs. 802.11b.

Third and last, while bandwidth may be an issue, I think range would be the killer. 30 feet is simply not going to work for me. (I recently heard about "Class A" Bluetooth devices, which have a 300-foot range, but the iPAQ 3870 is not Class A, so that's a moot point.)

I keep my access point in my bedroom, which is where my laptop is. I typically use my iPAQ to access the Internet in two places -- bed and the living room. In bed, 30 feet would probably be fine, but the living room probably wouldn't work.

Steve

[Martin I Pettinger]

Hi

Out of interest if you have two bluetooth devices - one with a 10m range another with a 100m range - is the bonding restricted by the "small" device.

Another point of interest - I have a iPAQ 3850 and I am considering getting a CF sleeve and a CF Bluetooth Card - mainly because there is no BT SD card. Will the card be quicker that an iPAQ 3870.

I am surprised that the on board BT is limited to 115 isn't this the speed of infrared. I haven't used k's or K's because I do not really understand modem speeds etc - a tutorial on kbs would be useful.

Martin

[Jonathon Watkins]

Yes, with 2 devices the range is limited to the lower of the two (which is logical really if you think about it). Class 1 is up to 100m, Class 2 is up to 10m and class 3 is up to 1m (though these distances will increase in the open - up to 250m for class 1 BT in an open room for example).

[don996cab]

bluetooth speed under the best condition is still rated under 1Mbps, (800-700Kbps)

wi-fi is around 4-6Mbps. So depending upon your transfer needs, it can take an eternity (computer time) to transfer mp3, mpgs or any large files from ppc to pc, etc. I guess thats where the low power consumption comes in handy for bluetooth, when you are dealing with an eternity.

unless your connection is higher than 750Kbps, you wont notice any difference. worse still, the screen redraw on a ppc will definitely take away any high speed internet connection advantage.

but wi-fi is still much more convenient if you travel, or visit corporate networks, etc.

with regards to abbreviations, kilo means one thousand exactly. In the communications world a thousand bits transmitted in a second = 1 kilobit per second. Makes sense. 1000 is a nice round number for humans to work with, it isn't for computers. Mathematically speaking humans use decimal or base 10 numbers and computers use binary or base 2. 1024 is 2 to the power of 10 which is a significant binary value and so is represented by kilo in the computer world. Mega is similar except it means one million and in the computer world is 1024 kilo or 1,048,576. Ideally when abbreviations are used, k means 1000 and K means 1024.

[Jonathon Watkins]

Three points.

First, I don't believe it's the "K" that matters -- 723 Kbps = 723 kbps. It's the "B" that matters -- b = bits, B = Bytes. Maybe some people use "K" vs. "k" if they don't use the "B" or "b" (723K = 723 kBps, while 723k = 723 kbps), but it appears both articles used the "b".

Second, 723 kbps is still pretty fast. Maybe some cable modems get up to 1500 kbps, but most consumer DSL doesn't. I have a 756 kbps line, which typically works out to about 600+ kbps of real data.

Cable modems are typically 512 KB (KiloBytes/s) (ie 4096 Kilo Bits/s).

So actually 723 kbps is pretty slow really. I rather think you have a 756 KB/s line, that's 8x as fast.

I agree that the b or B is more significant - but to save confusion I usually talk about KiloBytes as KB and kilobits as kb. KB is what we really want to know anyway. kb are used when people want to make the numbers look larger. It's easily confused however, like when Steve Jobs confused KB and kb at Mac Expo.

[mgd]

but wi-fi is still much more convenient if you travel, or visit corporate networks, etc.


I disagree. This is not true in the real world. It would be very nice if we could get access to a WiFi AP anywhere, anytime, but that just is not happening right now. When travelling, a tri-band BT telephone + a BT-enabled PPC will keep you connected a higher percentage of the time (very high if you're travelling in Europe).

Also, there are many corporations that refuse to install WiFi networks for security reasons. So, even today, a PPC with bluetooth, a bluetooth phone and an oldfashioned LAN CF card will probably keep most people better connected than WiFi. A LAN card will get you connected to just about any LAN, whereas WiFi may or may not--unless you always travel with a spare AP just in case or you only like hanging out at WiFi-enabled cafes, etc.

My only doubt is: which is better, built-in BT or built-in WiFi? I bought a Socket Bluetooth card earlier in the year, and it is already outdated. The card I bought is BT version 1.0, while the lastest version 1.1 is the one that supports networking. So, if I were to buy an e740, which version would be the safest bet: built-in BT or built-in WiFi?

[Boxster S]

but wi-fi is still much more convenient if you travel, or visit corporate networks, etc.


I disagree. This is not true in the real world. It would be very nice if we could get access to a WiFi AP anywhere, anytime, but that just is not happening right now. When travelling, a tri-band BT telephone + a BT-enabled PPC will keep you connected a higher percentage of the time (very high if you're travelling in Europe).

Also, there are many corporations that refuse to install WiFi networks for security reasons. So, even today, a PPC with bluetooth, a bluetooth phone and an oldfashioned LAN CF card will probably keep most people better connected than WiFi. A LAN card will get you connected to just about any LAN, whereas WiFi may or may not--unless you always travel with a spare AP just in case or you only like hanging out at WiFi-enabled cafes, etc.

My only doubt is: which is better, built-in BT or built-in WiFi? I bought a Socket Bluetooth card earlier in the year, and it is already outdated. The card I bought is BT version 1.0, while the lastest version 1.1 is the one that supports networking. So, if I were to buy an e740, which version would be the safest bet: built-in BT or built-in WiFi?

I see that you live in Spain. In the US, Wi-Fi is MUCH more prevelant than BT. College campuses, businesses, airports, coffee shops, etc use Wi-Fi heavily. Also the stores here have sales on Wi-Fi components all the time...you never even seen Bluetooth stuff advertised in Office Depot, Office Max, CompUSA, Best Buy, etc.

Also, given the fact that 802.11b support is native with Windows XP, setup is painless and easy. I read the instructions in the original post on what the guy had to go through to get his BT network setup working and it sounded like he was reading steps to launch a nuclear missle. That's pitiful IMHO.

I plugged in my D-Link DWL-120 USB 802.11b device in my USB port and installed the drivers. I ran the network wizard in WinXP and had a network established in 15 - 20 seconds. All I had to do next was turn on my e550g (with the free 802.11b card I got with it at CompUSA) and I was ready to go.

Also, unlike the author of this article (who keeps making assumptions about 802.11b without providing any actual facts), Wi-Fi is NOT expensive (at least not here in the US). You can regularly get PCMCIA 802.11b cards for $39.99 or less. PCI cards normally run about $49 after MIR. And I got my 802.11b CF card for free with my e550g. Access points can easily be had for $100 or less. I know that Office Max currently has a D-Link Access Point for $69.

The author may have only paid $60 for a Bluetooth USB adatper, but he also had to pay friggen $750 for a BT enabled PDA. Highway robbery if you ask me.

And another thing, you don't need a router for 802.11b. You can simply use Internet Connection Sharing with Win98/WinMe/Win2k/WinXP.

[adamz]

I have the exact same setup as Sam in this article. Even the same USB bluetooth adapter he has pictured... which is not the Belkin BT USB adapter... it looks like an unbranded Broadcom BT3030 USB adapter, which happens to be the same as the Belkin BT USB, and Tecom BT3030. This unbranded version can be found for about $45.
I too, have a nice small NY apartment so this was a nicely inexpensive wireless solution. I don't care about broadband at home since I don't download alot of porn and my websites are hosted elsewhere, so I still have a dialup modem. And a cool thing you can do with the BT3030 is connect to the desktop's modem as though it were attached to the iPAQ 3970. So I can just set up a DUN connection in the iPAQ's connection mangler, set the modem as the Bluetooth modem, and dial out while sitting outside or on the couch. Disconnecting the DUN connection on the iPAQ disconnects the modem on the desktop (unlike Activesync).
As for the network access, this does work for Network shares, but I think the network has to have DHCP. So say you've got static Ips on the network 'cause there's servers and such, it would probably be a bit trickier to get the BT network access working since you can't assign static IP, DNS, etc. to the BT network adapter on the iPAQ. In other words, don't go enabling ICS on a server with a static IP 'cause it will probably screw up the networking on that computer.
Other services such as Bluetooth FTP are kind of cool, but you can't browse shares from the iPAQ. You can only send files. However, you can browse shares from the desktop computer, so that's kind of cool. Another thing I havn't tried but appears to be possible is using the desktop modem to Fax documents. I guess I would need some Fax software on the iPAQ.
As for travelling, I like not having to use extra hardware for WiFi since the bluetooth is built in. The ability to connect to bluetooth cell phones is great. And why not just bring a little Bluetooth Access Point where ever you go??
http://www.bluetoothupgrades.de/pico_modem.htm - Here's a bluetooth modem that you can just plug into any land line and get wireless internet access through DUN. I havn't ordered one of those yet, but it sounds like a pretty cool idea. When you're at a hotel, or visiting somewhere else… there may or may not be GPRS coverage, and even if there is, you might not want to waste your MBs. Just plug in the Bluetooth modem and connect to your Dial up ISP.

[Janak Parekh]

Cable modems are typically 512 KB (KiloBytes/s) (ie 4096 Kilo Bits/s).
Not usually. Here in New York, I've seen cable modems top out around 1.5-2mbps, i.e., the bandwidth of a T1. 4mbps is a damned fast cable modem :)

So actually 723 kbps is pretty slow really. I rather think you have a 756 KB/s line, that's 8x as fast.
Bluetooth is most definitely around 750kbps, as is the line he's referring to. A 756kBps line is around 6mbps, which is approaching 10mbps Ethernet speed, and I've never heard of a cable modem that actually gives that kind of bandwidth.

723kbps is not terrible at all -- it's basic DSL speed (the lowest level of which is 640kbps), and is still more than 10x the speed of a 56k modem. It's not useful for large LAN transfers, admittedly, but for that one should use 802.11b. It's also not clear that a PPC, in its current incarnation, would be able to usefully handle 1mbps+ streams.

--bdj

[Pony99CA]

Three points.

First, I don't believe it's the "K" that matters -- 723 Kbps = 723 kbps. It's the "B" that matters -- b = bits, B = Bytes. Maybe some people use "K" vs. "k" if they don't use the "B" or "b" (723K = 723 kBps, while 723k = 723 kbps), but it appears both articles used the "b".

Second, 723 kbps is still pretty fast. Maybe some cable modems get up to 1500 kbps, but most consumer DSL doesn't. I have a 756 kbps line, which typically works out to about 600+ kbps of real data.
Cable modems are typically 512 KB (KiloBytes/s) (ie 4096 Kilo Bits/s).

I thought cable modems pretty much topped out at 1.5 Mbps (1500 kbps). Of course, maybe the cable operators just cap the downstream rate at that rate.

So actually 723 kbps is pretty slow really. I rather think you have a 756 KB/s line, that's 8x as fast.

Pretty slow? Modems are 56 kbps, so 723 kbps is almost 13x faster. Yes, it may be slower than cable, but it's still much faster than the 2.5G and even 3G wireless services. I think Verizon's 1X RTT service peaks at 144 kbps (1/5 the 723 kbps we've been using).

As for my DSL performance, I really think I know more about how my DSL performs than anybody else here. I don't know if you noticed my profession in the margin, but I'm a software developer and know the difference between a byte and a bit. :-)

If you don't believe me, here are the results of a speed test I just ran at DSL Reports (http://www.dslreports.com/stest). (I must have been having a slow day; I used to get over 600 kbps down. I shut my E-mail client down and got similar results.)


2002-09-08 11:27:46 EST: 430 / 105
Your download speed : 430776 bps, or 430 kbps.
A 52.5 KB/sec transfer rate.
Your upload speed : 105820 bps, or 105 kbps.


2002-09-08 11:32:02 EST: 494 / 86
Your download speed : 494097 bps, or 494 kbps.
A 60.3 KB/sec transfer rate.
Your upload speed : 86767 bps, or 86 kbps.


Steve

[mobileMike]

My only doubt is: which is better, built-in BT or built-in WiFi? I bought a Socket Bluetooth card earlier in the year, and it is already outdated. The card I bought is BT version 1.0, while the lastest version 1.1 is the one that supports networking. So, if I were to buy an e740, which version would be the safest bet: built-in BT or built-in WiFi?

You know you can get your Socket BT card upgraded for free or small cost. I only had to pay for shipping my card to the supplier. The rest was free.

Personally, I would not get any networking built-in (bluetooth or WiFi). I think network vendors (3Com, Socket, TDK, whoever) are much better at producing network products, drivers, applications then PDA vendors. They also provide more updates. This is true even if you purchase it from a PDA vendor. Buy a separate card. The people working on the card are focused on specific issues not the broad isses (screen, power, expansion, processors, ROM updates, etc.) of a pda.

I just don't understand why people choose. If you have a need to connect any time and anywhere get bluetooth card and a bluetooth phone. If you hang out in places with WiFi (Starbucks, office, etc.) get WiFi. DLink WiFi Access Points and cards are so cheap now days, this is a non-issue. I still would not give up my bluetooth card and phone. There is no WiFi at my in-law's summer cottage or in my little boat, but there is GPRS coverage. If you have a bluetooth card and/or phone why not spend the $100 to get the USB adaptor. If nothing else, it is fun to play around with.

If you start with bluetooth, I think it is natural to add WiFi card to your bag of gizmos. This way you can always have the best connection possible. If you start with WiFi, I think it is natural to add bluetooth card and bluetooth phone for when you are out of range of any WiFi Access Point.

DON'T CHOOSE, GET BOTH! The order you purchase them is the only issue.

BTW: The author says there is no information on this available on the network. If you use Socket Communication's card, their forum is full of usefull discussions. I personally have written 3 How-To's.
/ mike

[that_kid]

Cable modems are damn fast. My parents live in Northern NJ and their speed is crazy. I get 1.5 megabits down and 400 kilobits up(at&T), and they get 3 megabits down and 1 megabit up(optimaonline), and before anyone says that they must be in an area where not many people have modems, they're not. They are in one of the biggest cities in jersey and most of the people I know in that area have cable modems. Now I live on the outskirts of Richmond and get about half the speed as they do. I guess it all depends on the service provider cause verizon dsl SUXS but bellsouth's dsl rocks(fromw what I'm told) Anyhow I have a ambicom bluetooth card in my laptop and try to use it with my 3970. I can send files to and from the laptop and ipaq but I can only sync with bluetooth once per boot. After the first sync the com port gets locked and I can't access it anymore. I think it has something to do with the ambicom card and a new socket card should fix that. Since I do alot of things with my laptop that require greater than bluetooth speed I use wifi most of the time and i'm in the process of upgrading to wifi-5, But for my pda bluetooth is great.

[dagpetersson]

BT or WiFi...
It's not only speed that matters...
Security, Interference (BlueTooth use Frequence jumping technique and this matter in stockrooms)

So don't discount BT, It will come and stay...

Read PicoCommunications White Papers for more information...

http://www.picocommunications.com/white_papers.html

/dp - FRONTIT

[mgd]

I see that you live in Spain. In the US, Wi-Fi is MUCH more prevelant than BT. College campuses, businesses, airports, coffee shops, etc use Wi-Fi heavily. Also the stores here have sales on Wi-Fi components all the time...you never even seen Bluetooth stuff advertised in Office Depot, Office Max, CompUSA, Best Buy, etc.


"More prevalent" does not translate into always, or even mostly, there when you need it. If you live in a college town or large city you are more likely to have access to WiFi but that does not mean that you will have access when you need it. For instance, what percentage of businesses with networks installed have WiFi. Madrid is a very large city (4 million inhabitants), but the nearest publicly advertised (on the Internet) WiFi connection to my home is about 5 blocks away--out of range.


Also, given the fact that 802.11b support is native with Windows XP, setup is painless and easy. I read the instructions in the original post on what the guy had to go through to get his BT network setup working and it sounded like he was reading steps to launch a nuclear missle. That's pitiful IMHO.

I plugged in my D-Link DWL-120 USB 802.11b device in my USB port and installed the drivers. I ran the network wizard in WinXP and had a network established in 15 - 20 seconds. All I had to do next was turn on my e550g (with the free 802.11b card I got with it at CompUSA) and I was ready to go.



Setting up my WiFi AP was not so easy. I did get it to work after playing around with it for a few hour. My BT connection didn't take much time at all: 5 minutes max. Each person's experience differs. My AP is connected to my ADSL router, not to my WinXP station. I therefore had to setup TCP/IP networking addresses on my PDA in order to get direct access to the internet without passing through XP. That way XP doesn't have to be running for me to get access to the internet using my PDA. As you can see, I chose a different setup from yours for my own reasons.



The author may have only paid $60 for a Bluetooth USB adatper, but he also had to pay friggen $750 for a BT enabled PDA. Highway robbery if you ask me.


I have Socket Bluetooth and WiFi CF cards...the BT card is cheaper by as much as $30. You don't have to buy a BT enable PDA, you can BT enable your PDA.


And another thing, you don't need a router for 802.11b. You can simply use Internet Connection Sharing with Win98/WinMe/Win2k/WinXP.


I didn't know you needed one for BT.

Anyway, I do think that WiFi is best for general networking however things will really get interesting once TI releases it's all-in-one BT/WiFi chip solution. Imagine your PDA automatically roaming from GPRS to WiFi to BT networks as needed, the way mobiles do today. Now that's interesting. There's no need to pit one technology against the other. However, in the meantime, let's say for some reason you find yourself in a poorer section of town today, and you have with you your PDA with BT, a BT-enabled phone, and a WiFi card. Which combination do you think is most likely to get you online? Hell, with an irda connection between your PDA and phone you're more likely to get online than with WiFi.

[mgd]

You know you can get your Socket BT card upgraded for free or small cost. I only had to pay for shipping my card to the supplier. The rest was free.


Yeah, I know. I've had this back-and-forth conversation with Socket for a few months now. You see, Socket's distributor here in Madrid are not honouring the upgrade as they say they do not deal directly with end-users. Not only that, they are rude. Not even Socket has been able to get them to budge.

Socket suggests that I mail the card to their offices in France which will not be cheap to do securely. What pisses me off is that the distributor is only about a mile away from my home. Socket has apologised for the "bungle" as they call it. Their distributors here in Madrid (Santa Barbara, SA) are pigs.

[EricMCarson]

I am also running a bluetooth network at the home and at the office. I have not found that my range from the class A access point has been limited by the class B (3970 & 3870s) range. In fact, I get throughput everywhere on my 3/4 acre property and throughout my 400 ft long office hallway with the access point located at the back.

Overall, I have been very impressed with bluetooth networking, once it is up and running. However, almost every manufacturer has a long way to go in setup of the bluetooth protocols. Aside from TDK Systems, every other card or adapter I haved tried to setup, including the PicoBlue access point has given me fits in one way or another (doesn't authenticate devices, cannot be setup to accept all requests, etc.) and have required calls to tech support to fix. However, once this stuff is up and running, it is amazing (particularly, since as a mobile professional, bluetooth consumes next to no power, even in our laptops).

One other thing, bluetooth is in fact limited to 768 kpbs after overhead (1 MBps gross bandwidth), which is the minimum speed of most DSL connections. However, it is slower than USB 1.0, noticeably so when syncing large files over ActiveSync or utilizing a VPN connection to transfer large amounts of data. But for everyday syncing and browsing, bluetooth works with super low power consumption.

[Boxster S]

I'd also like to add that Intel will be adding 802.11g support natively via the southbridge in their upcoming Springdale dual-channel DDR Prescott (next gen Pentium 4) motherboards. They will be out in 2H '03

Once that happens, it's on buddy :D

[samw5]

Ok, just so that it makes everyone happy I changed the big K to k. I don't think it really matters as someone said in a previous post the B/b is what really matters.
In any event, Bluetooth is much slower than 802.11b and doesn't work as far, but consumes far less power. Both are also intended for two different purposed so don't try to compare them too much (I tried my best not too in the article).

Now as far as the question of using a 10m range device with a 100m range device, it will depend who initiate the conneciton. I found that initiating a connection from a lower rated device can be much harder from far but keeping the connection is something different. Even though a device might be rated at 10m it might very well be able to keep an active signal far behond this point. Now don't expect to achieve similar distance to 802.11b but it is suited for my personal application and small appartment.

Well, I still hope that the review will help some of you better understand BT or maybe setup a wireless PAN at home.

Sam

[Big Honkin' Deal]

Yes, Wifi is faster but let me tell you....
Nothing beats getting your email via Bluetooth, sitting on the beach at the southernmost point in the US (Key West) :P

[samw5]

Lol, sounds good enough to me ;)

Sam

[Jason Dunn]

Hmm...I still think there's a lot of confusion over the real speeds. I shouldn't have focused on the big "K" vs. little "k" - you're all right, the "b" is what matters (bits vs. bytes). I loathe using "bits" to talk about speed - kilobytes is real world and what people understand. Marketing people use "bits" to give users the illusion of more speed.

A 56K modem is 56 kilobits/s, which is 7 KB/S

Bluetooth is 728 kilobits/s, which is 91 KB/s

My cable modem gives me roughly 800 KB/s downstream and 100 KB/s upstream (though most servers can only ever dish up 400 KB/s max downstream)

Wifi gives me 1.37 MB/s (11 megabits divided by 8 to get megabytes)

Did I make an error in my math anywhere? So unless I'm mistaken Bluetooth maxes out at 91 KB/s. Fast, much faster than a 56K modem, but not a replacement for 802.11b (ever waited for a 1 gig video file to transfer over Wifi? It seems very slow then....) :lol:

But I'm VERY much looking forward to getting that Microsoft Bluetooth keyboard and mouse - death to cable! :D

[Boxster S]

But I'm VERY much looking forward to getting that Microsoft Bluetooth keyboard and mouse - death to cable!

More batteries to replace...yayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy! :roll: I grow increasingly pissed at my Logitech Wireless Optical Mouse when it dies right when I'm in the middle of something.

[samw5]

Nope, no mistakes there. 91KB seems about right for what I'm getting.

Now here is a site that does called 56K, 56Kbps: http://computingcentral.msn.com/internet/speedtest.asp
So I don't think I was dreaming when writting that.

BT isn't made for people that transfer 1GB mpeg files on a daily basis, I'll give you that ;)
Honestly, I don't think BT is anywhere close to be a replacement for 802.11b, but it has it advantages, and I personally like the new tech side of Bluetooth. Hopefully, BT vers 2 and up will feature much better bandwidth (probably comparable to 802.11b) and greater communication distances (without more power consumption). I just would hate to see most people ignored BT as it does have some great potential.
You also gotta remember that the hardware industry is all about trade offs. What is good for one person might not always be good for the next.

Just my $.02
Sam

[kfluet]

My first post in this forum, I hope it works...

I just thought I would leave a note about getting network access working WITHOUT ActiveSync, since none of the reviews/howtos I have seen mention it.

I have a 3970 iPaq and the same dongle the reviewer had, but the "Wireless Networks Inc." version (more easily available in Canada).

This assumes that you already have the bluetooth software up and running on a Win2K machine as per the article and that you are already able to, for example, use the Bluetooth file transfer tool to move a file from your PC to your iPAQ.

In Win2K, you just have to check "Enable Internet Connection Sharing for this connection" on your Ethernet port. It will tell you that it will change the IP's on your other (Bluetooth) network adapter. This is fine.

On the iPAQ, click on Connect to Network Access under the Actions available for your Win2K machine.

It was a little confusing at first, because rather than just trying it, I was looking for where to set up TCP/IP on the iPAQ's Bluetooth interface. It is handled automatically for you, so don't worry about that. It just works.

You can browse the web, share files with Windows from the PocketPC File Explorer and print if you have printing software on your PocketPC.

I'm getting file transfer rates of roughly 250-300 kbps either direction.

-- Kevin

[samw5]

Kevin;

Thanks for the tip. I'll try to get it to work and update the review. I thought this would be possible to do but for some reasons WinXP Pro doesn't let you share a network connection if you're running a firewall on it. I'll see what can be done.

Sam

[st63z]

I haven't had much congestion problems with our local Road Runner, but man, seems they keep lowering the cap (earliest beta users had virtually the whole neighborhood hub bandwidth). I was enjoying like 3-4 mbps down a long time ago before they announced a 2.2mbps cap, now I'm only getting 1-1.5mbps max down.

AFAIK, the faster future BT will also use more power (guess you can't cheat real-world physics). Also, you could theoretically always drop down WiFi to 1-2mbps using FHSS instead of DSSS (for more resiliency against in-band interference), but maybe someone can explain more?

I do love my T68i BT. Saving $$$ and pondering 3970 or Loox BT :) TDK always seems to get the best reports from testing of first-gen BT equipment, but hopefully the new entrants into the field now are just as stable/compatible? I like the cheap Class 1 Belkin/IOGear but I have the Class 2 D-Link on backorder since it's just so DARN small!

It's confusing regarding Class 1/2 interaction, for example 3Com always advertises 10m for their client-to-client and 100m client-to-AP, which suggests the Class 1 is also more sensitive able to pick up weaker signals from farther way?

P.S. Just bought the Mot BT headset yesterday (haven't opened it), couldn't wait for the Jabra or BlueSpoon...

[Janak Parekh]

Hmm...I still think there's a lot of confusion over the real speeds. I shouldn't have focused on the big "K" vs. little "k" - you're all right, the "b" is what matters (bits vs. bytes). I loathe using "bits" to talk about speed - kilobytes is real world and what people understand. Marketing people use "bits" to give users the illusion of more speed.
I don't know about it being more "understandable"... the average end-user doesn't understand either.

BTW, the reliance of bits is not really a marketing innovation, it's been around since the day of the 300 baud modem. The main reason was that not all systems used 8-bit representations for their data (many mainframes, for example, used 7-bit encodings). A "bit" is uniform across all of computation systems (at least, until we go to quantum computing), whereas a byte is not (and with things like Unicode, the notion of a byte being one character of information is going out the window as well).

By using KB across the board, it becomes harder to compare against specs. The networking industry has standardized across bits for 20+ years now, and it's going to be hard to change that. Likewise, the storage industry has standardized on bytes for that period of time.

Besides, it's easier to say "GigE" than "125MBytesE" :D

--bdj

[st63z]

^ All very good points, thanks! (I like the quantum computing bit - hehe) :)

[rlobrecht]

Cable modems are typically 512 KB (KiloBytes/s) (ie 4096 Kilo Bits/s).
Not usually. Here in New York, I've seen cable modems top out around 1.5-2mbps, i.e., the bandwidth of a T1. 4mbps is a damned fast cable modem :)


The cable modem is able to do 4 mb, but the carriers usually block you at 1.5 - 2. There was an article recently about a group of kids who had hacked their cable modem to be unlimited, and the cable company figured it out and had them arrested (stealing bandwidth.)

[jrappold]

Yes, with 2 devices the range is limited to the lower of the two (which is logical really if you think about it). Class 1 is up to 100m, Class 2 is up to 10m and class 3 is up to 1m (though these distances will increase in the open - up to 250m for class 1 BT in an open room for example).

Not true. We use both AXIS and RED-M BT Access Points on our campus. Both of these APs have a 100 meter range, and our iPAQs and Jornadas can connect to them anywhere in that range.

[st63z]

The cable modem is able to do 4 mb, but the carriers usually block you at 1.5 - 2. There was an article recently about a group of kids who had hacked their cable modem to be unlimited, and the cable company figured it out and had them arrested (stealing bandwidth.)

I remember our beta RR users had the full 10mbps (only limited by the 10BT port on their cable modems). If I recall correctly, our RR neighborhood bandwidth is like 30mbps (will have to recheck speedguide.net to refresh memory)...?

[Jonathon Watkins]

We use both AXIS and RED-M BT Access Points on our campus. Both of these APs have a 100 meter range, and our iPAQs and Jornadas can connect to them anywhere in that range.
OK - that's interesting - thanks for that update. It's a bit odd though - as the IPAQ should be able to do that - maybe they really are class 1 devices.

After all, we can't have a conversation i f I can hear you, but you can't heear me! :)