Bluetooth Tethering PLEASE!!!!!

[fatclue_98]

I don't know if this topic has been bandied about on this forum. I've searched quite a bit and I haven't found anything. Is there any reason why MS has not released BT PAN on our stacks? I know the carriers have the ultimate say on methods used for tethering but not even the factory unlocked models have this wonderful feature. Wi-Fi tethering is nice and all, but it drains batteries like nobody's business, and if you're tethering to a tablet now you have two batteries dying a quick death. One of my favorite features of Windows Mobile after version 5 aku 3 was the internet sharing through either USB or BT. The speeds over BT were the same as any Wi-Fi tethering since it is the phone's same 3G signal anyway. Bluetooth tethering consumes a lot less power than Wi-Fi and with the PAN profile we also get the benefit of file transfer. ARGH!!!!! I hate having to carry an old POS WM6.5 device in my bag for the oft times I need to jack up my laptop when I'm out in the field. If anybody with any kind of influence with MS is reading, can you also throw in the MAP profile while you're at it? Please? Pretty please? With sugar......

 

[eric12341]

It's because Bluetooth PAN is slow, and only supported speeds up to 768k. Most 3G networks especially those of T-Mobile and AT&T are capable of speeds of at least twice that amount. It's also been found that it's much more secure to use WiFi tethering than Bluetooth.

 

[selfcreation]

Bluetooth tethering? really? WIFI tethering = MUCH better. MUCH MUCH MUCH better.

does Bluetooth tethering even exist? lol maybe on featured phones 10 years ago?

 

[fatclue_98]

Bluetooth tethering? really? WIFI tethering = MUCH better. MUCH MUCH MUCH better.

does Bluetooth tethering even exist? lol maybe on featured phones 10 years ago?

Okay, you're a moderator on this forum so I'm assuming your breadth of knowledge is greater than mine, well anybody's is but let's leave it at that. If Wi-Fi tethering is sooooo much better, faster and more secure than BT, why isn't there any kind of network drive mapping as there was on WM? As for tethering, I'd rather have a slower (?) BT connection than none at all, ask any DVP owner.

 

[xtala]

Bluetooth tethering? really? WIFI tethering = MUCH better. MUCH MUCH MUCH better.

does Bluetooth tethering even exist? lol maybe on featured phones 10 years ago?

Doesn't kill battery like WiFi tends to do
And Symbian, imho still the most complete smartphone OS out there, has had it since (at least) 2005

 

[selfcreation]

Okay, you're a moderator on this forum so I'm assuming your breadth of knowledge is greater than mine, well anybody's is but let's leave it at that. If Wi-Fi tethering is sooooo much better, faster and more secure than BT, why isn't there any kind of network drive mapping as there was on WM? As for tethering, I'd rather have a slower (?) BT connection than none at all, ask any DVP owner.

well im a MOD doesn't mean im a hacker/DEV.... doesn't mean I know more , I know from what i read or try.. and I work for a Carrier so i have some info. lol

BT file sharing IS slower. Most BT will support UP to (max) 1MB and WIFI supports MUCH higher speeds

Both BT and WIFI have WAP protection so security wise its the same.

and the lack of tethering in general is the RTM's fault , DELL just dint want to support it or if they did your CARRIER might have blocked it. most of us have it.

regarding the network drive mapping , it has to do with WP's Security Policy if i understand it properly , also its not very secured it seems.

here is the article on that: http://www.windowscentral.com/fun-trick-browse-deviceids-using-resco-explorer

Ether way allot of the phones are going trough the BT certification right now SO we will probably see the option in the future with WP8.

Doesn't kill battery like WiFi tends to do
And Symbian, imho still the most complete smartphone OS out there, has had it since (at least) 2005

hmm BT and Wifi kills the battery just as fast as one an other ..same thing with your 3G(4G) connecting if you have no reception. it might be a little more but less then 1% so not noticeable.

 

[fatclue_98]

well im a MOD doesn't mean im a hacker/DEV.... doesn't mean I know more , I know from what i read or try.. and I work for a Carrier so i have some info. lol

BT file sharing IS slower. Most BT will support UP to (max) 1MB and WIFI supports MUCH higher speeds

Both BT and WIFI have WAP protection so security wise its the same.

and the lack of tethering in general is the RTM's fault , DELL just dint want to support it or if they did your CARRIER might have blocked it. most of us have it.

regarding the network drive mapping , it has to do with WP's Security Policy if i understand it properly , also its not very secured it seems.

here is the article on that: http://www.windowscentral.com/fun-trick-browse-deviceids-using-resco-explorer

Ether way allot of the phones are going trough the BT certification right now SO we will probably see the option in the future with WP8.




hmm BT and Wifi kills the battery just as fast as one an other ..same thing with your 3G(4G) connecting if you have no reception. it might be a little more but less then 1% so not noticeable.

I have to disagree with you on the battery life, Wi-Fi WILL kill you device's battery MUCH quicker than BT. Also the Resco Explorer link you placed is for Windows Mobile, not WP7. There are no drive mapping apps for ANY of the current OS's right now. Android has very limited SMB support through ES File Explorer and iOS, webOS & RIM have nothing. webOS has an app that you need to install on the server and your phone but it's very rudimentary at best.

I guess I'll have continue lugging around my old faithful WM6.5 phone to have the kind of real-life mobility I need. Imagine that, if there is a file I need to transport to a meeting somewhere I have to download it to my laptop, upload it to my Skydrive and then hope there is a good enough signal where I will be to download it to my phone. Here's a crazy idea - maybe I could use a file explorer to access the file on the company server, copy it to "My Documents" and when the time comes I could "beam" it to my tablet via BT. Good Lord! I'm back in 2008 using my Sprint Mogul!! WTF???

 

[selfcreation]

Or you could simply Xfer the fille PRIOR to the meeting? lol

like I said im sure we will see the option in the future for BT tethering/file transfer, last I hurd, Samsung is runing test and I do think others as well . that was like 2-4 months ago not sure. so WP8 6-9month away should (I hope) bring in the missing funtions.

for the battery , deppeding how you use it, BT can take up as much battery as WIFI , but it can also use allot less, deppending on a few things. my bad

 

[DanSmithKY]

I'm not sure people should be so caught up on bluetooth, when wifi direct would get the job done faster and is most likely more widely compatible, since it is backwards compatible with any device that supports wifi.

Plus there's this little hint of the future:
Microsoft adding wireless file beaming to Windows phones, PCs, and Xbox?

 

[fatclue_98]

I'm not sure people should be so caught up on bluetooth, when wifi direct would get the job done faster and is most likely more widely compatible, since it is backwards compatible with any device that supports wifi.

Plus there's this little hint of the future:
Microsoft adding wireless file beaming to Windows phones, PCs, and Xbox?

ARGH!!! Enough about Wi-Fi! WP7 does NOT have drive mapping like Windows Mobile does. Wi-Fi could make me breakfast and pour my coffee but if I can't access network files it's as useless as tits on a bull. BT PAN, as slow as everybody makes it out to be, is still better than nothing to get files from one device to another if there's no internet connectivity available. I supervise installations of medical gas systems in hospitals all over South Floriduh and believe me, in cardio rooms and some OR's, the walls are lead-lined. There is no signal, i.e. no SkyDrive to download files from. I have to keep job files on my tablet because there are too many and they're too large to keep in my phone (removable storage: another rant for another day). Do you all see where I'm coming from? The point is that the technology exists but it isn't seen as "cool" or "cutting edge", it's "from an age gone by" and manufacturers only care about what's hip these days and don't want to put useful, efficient items that are reminiscent of yesteryear. God forbid those extra BT profiles take up room in the ROM where you could have more processing power to run Angry Birds Rio. End of rant! Now where did I put my Grape Nuts & prune juice?

 

[eric12341]

Here we go again

 

[kg4icg]

By the way. It depends on what version of BT you are using depends on the speed. BT 2.1 and beyond have higher thruput rates than previous. If you look at BlackBerry Bridge and see how that operates you see it goes thru bluetooth on the BB phone.

 

[DanSmithKY]

ARGH!!! Enough about Wi-Fi! WP7 does NOT have drive mapping like Windows Mobile does. Wi-Fi could make me breakfast and pour my coffee but if I can't access network files it's as useless as tits on a bull. BT PAN, as slow as everybody makes it out to be, is still better than nothing to get files from one device to another if there's no internet connectivity available. I supervise installations of medical gas systems in hospitals all over South Floriduh and believe me, in cardio rooms and some OR's, the walls are lead-lined. There is no signal, i.e. no SkyDrive to download files from. I have to keep job files on my tablet because there are too many and they're too large to keep in my phone (removable storage: another rant for another day). Do you all see where I'm coming from? The point is that the technology exists but it isn't seen as "cool" or "cutting edge", it's "from an age gone by" and manufacturers only care about what's hip these days and don't want to put useful, efficient items that are reminiscent of yesteryear. God forbid those extra BT profiles take up room in the ROM where you could have more processing power to run Angry Birds Rio. End of rant! Now where did I put my Grape Nuts & prune juice?

What can BT do that WiFi Direct can't? Do you know what WiFi Direct is? You don't need a router. It transfers whatever you want from device to device like BT, except over way longer distances and at way higher speeds.

What you are wanting has nothing to do with BT; that is just the method you are stuck on using to transfer files. If you want to use your phone as a portable hard drive then get an Android phone.

 

[N8ter]

Bluetooth tethering? really? WIFI tethering = MUCH better. MUCH MUCH MUCH better.

does Bluetooth tethering even exist? lol maybe on featured phones 10 years ago?

Windows Mobile supported it. Blackberry and Symbian still stupports it.

 

[N8ter]

What can BT do that WiFi Direct can't? Do you know what WiFi Direct is? You don't need a router. It transfers whatever you want from device to device like BT, except over way longer distances and at way higher speeds.

What you are wanting has nothing to do with BT; that is just the method you are stuck on using to transfer files. If you want to use your phone as a portable hard drive then get an Android phone.

BT has better power management than WiFi. I think that's why. That's also Why RIM chose to use BT for BB Bridge instead of WiFi even though those devices support things like WiFi Tethering and they could have implemented WiFi direct.

The better power management of BT vs. WiFi is advantageous for tethering tablets and Laptops for extended periods of time (your phone lasts longer, as well as those other devices' batteries).

Also, the smaller range of BT gives it a security advantage over WiFi in that it cannot be sniffed from nearly as far away. WiFi has about 2x the range of BT, or more.

Additionally, the speed argument doesn't hold up since BT 3.0 + HS has a 24 Mb/s max theoretical transfer rate which is faster than the average LTE connection on either AT&T or Verizon. BT power management leaves WiFi in the dust, and it's much more flexible and optimized for different scenarios.

The biggest issue with BT is the lagging support from OEMs. Windows Phones lag in BT Specs. The Lumia 900 launched with 2.1, but other devices have been launching with BT3+ since early 2010.

So yea, on a Windows phones BT kind of sucks (transfer and tethering speed), but on something like a GS2 - which has BT3 + HS (24Mb/sec transfer rate), it is a completely different experience with way superior power management.

 

[fatclue_98]

BT has better power management than WiFi. I think that's why. That's also Why RIM chose to use BT for BB Bridge instead of WiFi even though those devices support things like WiFi Tethering and they could have implemented WiFi direct.

The better power management of BT vs. WiFi is advantageous for tethering tablets and Laptops for extended periods of time (your phone lasts longer, as well as those other devices' batteries).

Also, the smaller range of BT gives it a security advantage over WiFi in that it cannot be sniffed from nearly as far away. WiFi has about 2x the range of BT, or more.

Additionally, the speed argument doesn't hold up since BT 3.0 + HS has a 24 Mb/s max theoretical transfer rate which is faster than the average LTE connection on either AT&T or Verizon. BT power management leaves WiFi in the dust, and it's much more flexible and optimized for different scenarios.

The biggest issue with BT is the lagging support from OEMs. Windows Phones lag in BT Specs. The Lumia 900 launched with 2.1, but other devices have been launching with BT3+ since early 2010.

So yea, on a Windows phones BT kind of sucks (transfer and tethering speed), but on something like a GS2 - which has BT3 + HS (24Mb/sec transfer rate), it is a completely different experience with way superior power management.

Why didn't you post this before all the ignorant haters shredded me? Thank You!

 

[DanSmithKY]

Battery life is becoming less and less of an issue every day, and I just can't imagine that the difference is worth worying about these days.

BT might be able to do more than typical LTE speeds right now, but that will be the case for what, another 6 months? Not to mention the fact that TMobile's "4G" network is already much faster than that.

As far as security goes, WiFi is more than capable of handling that.

Besides, if WP used BT for tethering instead of WiFi, then people would complain about the usable distance, compatibility, speed, etc.

In my opinion, BT is just not cut out for real data transfer, and the speed gap is only going to get wider. Of course, I wouldn't mind if it was there in addition to WiFi, but I'm not sure it's worth it for MS. But perhaps it will be one of the many new features in WP8.

 

[fatclue_98]

Battery life is becoming less and less of an issue every day, and I just can't imagine that the difference is worth worying about these days.

BT might be able to do more than typical LTE speeds right now, but that will be the case for what, another 6 months? Not to mention the fact that TMobile's "4G" network is already much faster than that.

As far as security goes, WiFi is more than capable of handling that.

Besides, if WP used BT for tethering instead of WiFi, then people would complain about the usable distance, compatibility, speed, etc.

In my opinion, BT is just not cut out for real data transfer, and the speed gap is only going to get wider. Of course, I wouldn't mind if it was there in addition to WiFi, but I'm not sure it's worth it for MS. But perhaps it will be one of the many new features in WP8.

Everyone here has offered up some good pro and cons regarding my OP. That being said, there's no valid reason that the stack can't have the options. Windows Mobile had it and was lauded for it when all we had was DUN. Fact of the matter is, RIM still relies on DUN for tethering though I've heard that OS 7.1 now has hotspot capability on certain models. The real problem is controlling the traffic, to paraphrase Bill Clinton "it's the carriers stupid". Mobile hotspot apps will direct you to the carrier's website if you don't have their profit-generating packages. I understand their position with regard to people who abuse by streaming audio & video. Nobody in their right mind would use BT for this type of thing but an important email or file that needs to be sent from a laptop or even a tablet is what this profile was designed for.

I beg you all to keep it civil since there's no real reason to get all worked up over this.

 

[GMJeff]

The issue is not about Bluetooth speed compared to wifi speed.

The whole argument is about a user's local bluetooth syncing and Microsoft's cloud sync.

Bluetooth has a small range of around 30 feet while wifi is around 100 feet, unblocked. So, for the range needs, wifi wins.

For speed, it just depends on the type of each that you are using.

They both have security protocols that are to keep people from hacking the network. So, once again, just depends on your device or embedded hardware.

Microsoft didn't put the Windows Phone on the market feature complete and they and we knew that. The Apollo release later this year should alleviate some of the issues, though.

As for battery life between wifi or Bluetooth sync on the Windows Phone, it is a moot point because when you sync the phone to Zune through wifi, the phone is supposed to be plugged in to an electrical outlet.

Sent using Tapatalk

 

[N8ter]

Battery life is becoming less and less of an issue every day, and I just can't imagine that the difference is worth worying about these days.

BT might be able to do more than typical LTE speeds right now, but that will be the case for what, another 6 months? Not to mention the fact that TMobile's "4G" network is already much faster than that.

What are you talking about...

T-Mobile's 4G Network is theoretically faster than that. No one on T-Mobile is downloading faster than 24/Mb sec. NO ONE, unless they're 5 feet form a tower and the only one on it. It doesn't happen. If you wanna know how they achieve that theoretical 46mbps speed ask yourself why all their 46mbps devices have rather poor battery life and look it up.

Battery life is not becoming less and less of an issue. It's becomming more and more of an issue. That's why Samsung put a 2k mah battery in their GS3 and motorola made the droid razr maxx. Battery life is part of the reason why so many people loved RIM.

BT spec advances just as everything else advances. It can get faster. The same way it sucked in 2.1 but is fast in 3.0/4.0, it can get faster and newer phones and OSes that support the cutting edge hardware/spec will be able to deliver a better experience by utiliing it.

As far as security goes, WiFi is more than capable of handling that.

And so can BT. The smaller range of BT is a benefit from a security standpoint since WiFi can be sniffed from a much farther distance, though, which is a valid security concern and should be considered if that is a focus of any discussion.

Besides, if WP used BT for tethering instead of WiFi, then people would complain about the usable distance, compatibility, speed, etc.

No, you can have BT as an option in addition to WiFi. WiFi is terrible on your battery compared to BT. It's not even a competition there. No one said the existence of BT tethering should equate to the nonexistence of WiFi tethering. We've already said WM devices like the HD2 supported USB, BT, and WiFi tethering and Android phones like the Galaxy series do the same. The two can easily coexist.

Battery life is a concern. Not everyone lives tethered to a charger and charging your phone off your laptop when your laptop isn't plugged in isn't gaining anything, Lol.

In my opinion, BT is just not cut out for real data transfer, and the speed gap is only going to get wider. Of course, I wouldn't mind if it was there in addition to WiFi, but I'm not sure it's worth it for MS. But perhaps it will be one of the many new features in WP8.

Your opinion is wrong. 24 mb/sec is more than enough for real data transfers. If you are okay withi data transfers on your 3G/LTE connection, then BT 3/4 + HS will typically outperform them easily. It will almost always perform near it's limits when tethering or transferring files, but an LTE/HSPA+ connection will almost always have a slower consistent speed than 24 mbps.

In the end the actual cell radio will be a bottleneck because it will not be able to outperform high speed BT, anyways... Speed isn't the issue. The BT modules in the phones is the issue. The fact that no WP7 device has a BT 3 or 4 module with HS support means they will always perform terribly, even though others phones would perform well due to the better hardware. They simply need to up the specs to mandate a better module in future phones to remedy that.

The whole T-Mobile 46mbps 4G B.S. is a gimmick.

24 megabits per second = 3 Megabytes per second. That's fast enough to stream full HD, with room to spare. It is faster than the average houshold DSL or Cable Internet connection.