Talk:Bluetooth/Archive 2011

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.


 * Data rates are sort-of nominal 1/2/3 Mbits/s, but the packet structure reduces the max data rates. Buried in the article is the true answer that 2.1Mbits/s is the max. Whether you actually get that depends on your chip and your off-chip transport William M. Connolley (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Noticed this which seems inaccurate ", and the low power per bit radios are used when large quantities of data need to be sent." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.141.87.2 (talk • contribs)


 * I don't think its inaccurate (at least, not obviously wrong) but is perhaps misleading. Note "low power per bit" not "low power". But saying "faster" is probably clearer William M. Connolley (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

proprietary or open technology
I was a bit confused by the first sentence. "Bluetooth is a proprietary open wireless technology..." Is Bluetooth an open source technology or proprietary? I think that “open” and “proprietary” terms are mutually exclusive. Can someone clarify it? Thanks, --Ervinn (talk) 03:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It is open in that the spec is freely available . But it is proprietary in that to use it you need the right to use patents which is only granted by joinig the SIG. Or something; its all very complicated (maybe Bluetooth Qualification is the Bluetooth SIG certification process required for any product using Bluetooth wireless technology and is a necessary pre-condition of the intellectual property license for the Bluetooth technology. Qualification is also necessary in order to apply the Bluetooth trademark to a product. helps ) William M. Connolley (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Naming?
The Name and logo section begins with:


 * The word Bluetooth is an anglicised version of the Scandinavian Blåtand/Blåtann, the epithet of...

It's not at all clear what the inclusion of both Blåtand and Blåtann means. Some possibilities:
 * 1) Two separate possible sources for the word Bluetooth
 * 2) Two possible spellings or conjugations of the king's epithet
 * 3) ... something else?

Unfortunately, in the sentence's current form it is difficult (especially for English-only people such as myself) to see these as two items rather than one long, strangly spelt item. It's even more difficult to know what is meant.

What is meant here? Could someone express it more clearly? -- 66.30.251.99 (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems (from online translators) that the English "tooth" translates as "tann" in modern Danish and "tand" in modern Swedish and Norwegian. Blå (approximately "bloa"; I don't speak IPA) is "blue" in all three languages). Given that there's no such language as "Scandinavian" it seems that the article is trying to say that there are multiple translations in modern Scandinavian languages. 86.170.13.181 (talk) 01:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Garbled paragraph
The second paragraph in the "Bluetooth profiles" section (the paragraph starting "For the new protocol architecture low energy massive interests obviously hamper the publicating…" (sic) appears to be a machine translation and makes little sense. Can anyone redact it into something comprehensible? 86.170.13.181 (talk) 16:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * My best guess is that this is some kind of badly garbled reference to the difficulty of getting profiles defined. The sole ref is to TI saying how wonderful BLE will be, so I think the entire para is just best deleted, and I have. Anyone who can make sense of it is welcome to restore it William M. Connolley (talk) 17:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Bluetooth protocol stack section
I recommend trimming this section to the bare minimum of a line or two and a list. This is because the referred article, Bluetooth protocols contains nearly the exact same text plus some more. Does anyone object? BollyJeff ||  talk  02:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Is it proprietary or open?
Bluetooth is a proprietary open wireless technology standard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.56.148.119 (talk) 19:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ I would say it's not proprietary, since we can view the standards. If I am wrong, please fix. BollyJeff  ||  talk  21:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have answered that. It is open not free, as I said a while ago . I'll try to clarify / source that William M. Connolley (talk) 21:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, now it says 'proprietary open' again. You're gonna need to explain it better. Does proprietary as used here fit one of these: Proprietary protocol, Proprietary software? I see that 'open' links to Open standard. If that is the right definition, then maybe it should be reworded to show the whole link, not just the word open, because the way it is now will continue to generate questions. BollyJeff  ||  talk  23:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Date of Bluetooth v4.0 adoption not clear:
From the current article:

"Bluetooth v4.0

On April 21, 2010, the Bluetooth SIG completed the Bluetooth Core Specification version 4.0, which includes Classic Bluetooth, Bluetooth high speed and Bluetooth low energy protocols. Bluetooth high speed is based on Wi-Fi, and Classic Bluetooth consists of legacy Bluetooth protocols. This version has been accepted as of December 17, 2009."

It seems that the version has been accepted before it was complete, is this true? or is the date meant to be Dec 17,2010? I find it slightly confusing the way it is worded currently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.31.106.34 (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ I don't know about the finish date, but the adopted date is on the BT website as June 30, 2010. BollyJeff  ||  talk  20:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Reference/Link Needed
(1) 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.

(2) Reference number 14 URL link "American Embassy Riyadh (2009-03-22)..." is no longer available.

memoro card — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.96.102.31 (talk) 15:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Proprietary open standard?
The article refers to Bluetooth as a "proprietary open wireless technology". Aren't open-standards by definition not proprietary? Please clarify. flarn2006 [u t c] 07:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure I've seen this question before... never mind. The standard is open, in that it is fully published and publically available. It is proprietary in that the patents needed to use it are (owened by? assigned to?) the Bluetooth sig. So it is both open and proprietary William M. Connolley (talk) 07:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Search results
I did a search for bluetooth in google and noticed a result for a previous vandalized page. What can we do about this? Search for "bluetooth" in google and you will see the result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.106.95.15 (talk) 00:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

reference # 47 ^ a b D. Chomienne, M. Eftimakis (2010-10-20). "Bluetooth Tutorial" (PDF). Retrieved 2009-12-11. IS A DEAD LINK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.76.63.190 (talk) 13:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Possible new article name
An editor appears to believe the article should be retitled "Bluetooth technology". I have reverted the changes. If anyone supports this sweeping change, please make a case here. At the moment, I would oppose the change (obviously, since I reverted it). But I will of course bow to wp:consensus. Any support for the change?Shajure (talk) 18:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

There is a redirect in place pointing from bluetooth technology, and its creation is the only edit, so if there is consensus to move the article, it can be done easily. But again, at the moment I would oppose (and revert unless there is consensus).Shajure (talk) 18:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I note that the TM logo says "Bluetooth", not "Bluetooth technology", and the common usage is "Bluetooth", without the "technology". I think it is clear the current title is appropriate.Shajure (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I can't see a reason for the change, meself, but I may be biased. Note that LP appears to be associated with the SIG; I;ve asked LP to clarify that on their talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 19:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Often abbreviated BT - but that could equally be Blue Tooth ! --195.137.93.171 (talk) 05:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Proprietary vs. Open
Can someone explain how Bluetooth is both a proprietary protocol and an open standard? —danhash (talk) 20:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sure I've done this before, but its quicker to answer than find it: BT is proprietary, in that the tech is covered by patents, and you need to sign up to get to use those. Its open in the sense that the spec is entirely public William M. Connolley (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikilinking to articles that don't exist is bad, mkay?
There is no wibree article. Please correct your addition. See wp:MOS for instruction if needed, or perhaps seek help from a more experienced editor.Shajure (talk) 22:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)