Slashdot Mirror

...is this stuff done using BlueTooth. It feels like Yet Another Wireless Solution, but specialized for mice and keyboards and (I'm guessing) proprietary to Intel, isn't a very cool thing. On the other hand, my knowledge of BlueTooth isn't (yet) in-depth enough to know if it would be suitable to handle real-time stuff like mouse movements. You don't want to get the guys over at FiringSquad to b*tch over latency in your mouse tech. ;^)

Intel and a bunch of others are pushing HomeRF, which will be cheaper than 802.11b. And Bluetooth, which will be cheaper yet, will be able to provide point-to-point and point-to-multimpoint wireless data at 1Mbs, although initially its functionality as a full LAN will be pretty limited (no more than 8 devices per piconet, for example)

I like the idea of having a cordless headset, with the Bluetooth cell phone behaving like a radio base station. Ideally, this should also allow me to use the cell phone as a wireless modem for internet access (like the Metricom Ricochet)

Then if the PDA is bluetooth enabled I'll be able to also use the cell phone for internet access instead of going the more expensive route of buying a cellphone _plus_ a 33.6 Kbps Palm V(x) modem ($170 excluding monthly access fee) or cell phone upgrade kit.

Now if an incoming cell phone call is not recognized by my cell phone's stored #s, it will look in the PDA's addressbook. If it doesn't find the incoming call there it will do a reverse lookup via the net or phone company. That way when it eventually displays "TeleMarketer, Inc" on my cell phone or PDA or synthesizes a voice announcement into the headset I will not pick it up.

This bluetooth connectivity could also inform my PDA that when ClientX calls, my PDA will bring up his contact record and let me know to say, "ClientX, I haven't talked to you since last Tuesday at 3:43 pm when we discussed the software component Bubba will be delivering to you tomorrow"

Extrapolating this idea. What's to keep me from using a bluetooth headset with: my wired phone on my desktop or as headphones for my walkman or as a microphone feed to a PA system or a walkie-talkie? Also, as bandwidth gets bigger why not have the headset include a monitor/camera.

This type of system then begins to cover most sensory areas with sound in/out, sight in/out, digital data in/out. The senses not yet addressed would be smell, touch, and taste, but not even the Borgs had those accessories on them!

Schneier's 8/15 Cryptogram newsletter touched on these issues weeks ago.

Namely, if capability like the US government's Tempest technology (reads electro magnetic pulses, CRT, keyboard radiation, etc. - spy craft stuff) is available, it's a matter of time before such tactics are _readily_ used on commonplace bluetooth devices doing private or delicate matters in public. After all, reading your OpenSSH-downloaded, and GnuPG encrypted email privately to yourself in the back booth might seem secure, but, what if a black hat type is capturing your radiating emissions quite easily? Illusory protection. Treat Bluetooth as a broadcast protocol, because that's what it is, says Schneier.

What amazes me is the dearth of information about the security of this protocol. I'm sure someone has thought about it, a team designed some security into Bluetooth, and that those designers believe it to be secure. But has anyone reputable examined the protocol? Is the implementation known to be correct? Are there any programming errors? If Bluetooth is secure, it will be the first time ever that a major protocol has been released without any security flaws. I'm not optimistic, continues Schneier.

Check out some of these articles on Bluetooth, and it's lack of discussion on it's possibly inherent security shortcomings.

Bluetooth

A list of Bluetooth articles, none of them about security

One mention of security

An essay about the Bluetooth hype

Recent article on TEMPEST

Me pican las bolas, man!
Thanks

Actually, they are, just head over to the BlueTooth web site and look around. The code API is a 6 Mb pdf file and they also offer an additional add-on pdf describing higher-level interaction protocols. A highly technical but very good read.

The Bluetooth Spec, Vol. 2 Profiles describes a Generic Object Exchange Profile. There are a couple of sub-profiles, Object Push and Synchronization that will describe transferring varioius data objects. vObjects (vCard, vCalendard, , etc objects) can be transferred.

The idea is that both the sender and receiver understand the type of object that is being transferred, where it should go and how to use it.

The Synchronization profile describes a method of synchronizing a desktop PC with a PDA, for instance.

> ...wireless ethernet. It does EVERYTHING bluetooth is suppose to...

Bluetooth is more than just wireless networking. In fact, it's more like USB than ethernet. The protocol is short-range (~10m, boosted signals to ~100m) with many devices, plug&play style negotiation, etc. While it *can* replace 802.11 type wireless in many cases, that's not really the goal.

Two simple examples; these are both specific app targets of the Bluetooth SIG:

- Wireless headsets for cellphones. Having ethernet in a phone is overkill, let along in an earphone/mic headset.

- Using a cellphone as a modem for a laptop/PDA. The idea is simple: without taking your phone out of your pocket/purse/holster/etc, or plugging anything in, you can dial through it as a modem. Using a full ethernet implementation, the phone would have to act as a gateway, rather than a "dumb" modem.

Add to those ideas wireless keyboards and mice, and places where IR is currently used (PDA data transfer, for example). There's even some talk that Bluetooth could replace X10 as the home-automation protocol of choice.

I'd refer you to the Bluetooth SIG site for more info, but it seems to be dead. Sigh. Hunting around on the various members (Ericsson, IBM, and Intel come to mind) sites might turn up something.

Instead of worrying about the next kind of micro-storage device we can build into a digital camera, the industry should be focusing on taking it out entirely. This is what technologies like Bluetooth are supposed to make possible. You carry around storage in whatever form you like--your PDA, a 1-Gig drive in your backpack, an IBM microdrive on your belt--and the camera stores directly to the external device. This would also allow the camera to be smaller, use less battery, etc. In fact, if you used a color PDA, you potentially wouldn't need the color preview screen on the camera either.

Bluetooth products are mostly still in prototype, but AFAIK nobody is even talking about this with cameras. Seems like the way to go.

This is an example of using the wrong technology to solve the problem. If the actual goal is to deliver targetted ads to a consumer based on his/her location, the right thing to do is to use a local solution, not a global one.

If all stores acquired short range transmitters that continuously broadcast their advertisements, and phones (or other PDAs) were equipped with simple receivers, then simply being in proximity to the store would allow the PDA's owner to get the messages. Each store would be able to provide custom messages without having to bother to send ads and location information to some sort of central server. This would give much greater flexibility for stores, as well as removing the need to broadcast fine-grained location information to random advertisers.

I imagine technology like Bluetooth could easily be adapted to do this. It almost seems like the only reason to use GPS is to make use of an existing (centralized) infrastructure...

unfortunately only creates networks to 30 ft distance, although overlapping "scatternets" can be created.

It's not Microsoft that Palm should see as their major competitor, it's Symbian's EPOC system. Symbian's on a bit of a 'slow burn', but don't lose sight of the fact that all the world's largest cellphone manufacturers are lined up to put EPOC on their next-gen phones and phone/PDA hybrids before the end of this year, or the middle of 2001. While it's obvious to most people that current attempts at integrating cellphones and PDAs haven't been entirely successful (the Nokia 9110i is probably the best, but not entirely satisfactory as either a phone or as a PDA), the advent of devices such as Bluetooth headsets should really change that situation. Imagine something with the form-factor of a Palm Vx, running Symbian's EPOC, talking via Bluetooth to a headset, and via GSM to the phone and data networks, and the possibilities should become apparent... there are a hell of a lot of cellphone users out there; whoever conquers that market is practically guaranteed dominance in the 'traditional' PDA market.

Yes, but you'd still be attached via a cable to your network. Those cableless players with disk drives are more appealing if you spend any amount of time on a plane or public transit.

On a plane ride back home recently, I picked up this month's Red Herring (May 2000). They had a really good read about wireless technologies. Of particular interest was an article about a relatively new technology called Bluetooth. Check it out. It could become as fundamental as ethernet to the way we network.

Check out www.bluetooth.com or look for Bluetooth in Google or Yahoo.

Personally, I would like to see a communication standard between home appliances like Bluetooth take off. Then, my palm pilot, console, computer, cable box, and whatever else I have could be one big wireless network.

-=Bob

That would be so cool! I imagine they would hook up these microchips to some kind of 'bluetooth'-like wireless network... and that means we could tap in, right? - perhaps add a few pounds to one guy, and give your cute date a little caffeine... oh man, this could be fun!

Good question. Basically, USB is a lot more versatile than SCSI, though there would be some debate over this, I'm sure.

With USB, there is no hardware configuration to be done - you can plug the devices into each other in any order, into the computer or a hub, and you can chain hubs. It's very simple for a user to connect things with USB. SCSI, on the other hand, requires you to set a device ID for each device (usually 0 to 7, I think) and each device in the chain has a priority associated with it, and that is fixed.

The real power of USB is how nice it is from a software driver point of view. If the host OS supports USB (and this would be the difficult part) then writing a device driver is easy. You get a clean software interface, and your driver isn't even loaded until the USB host driver has determined that your device has actually been connected and is receiving power. It's true plug and play (and hot pluggable). The host can even do power management, so even though you might not be able to run your printer and scanner at the same time, the host can power down the one that isn't in use, and allocate that power to the other device, all without you having to worry about it.

Needless to say, the easier it is for the end user, the more difficult it is for us... :)

Also, if you really want to see an amazing technology, check out BlueTooth! Wires of any kind might soon be a thing of the past.

We've got a bunch of mailing lists, and can start a bunch more for specific projects such as code development, etc. If you're interested in helping us hash out an opensource OS or are just interested in finding out more about these projects, please join us.

Patrick Salsbury

Here at our university we measured the range of the Wavelan produkts years ago. This new 11 Mbps still won't cover more then 40 Meters inside a building. Solid walls cannot be penetrated with the signal strength of only 100mW@2.4GHz . When the WaveLANs are used outdoors, the range is increased to 500 meters or more provided there is line of sight. We also tested that a small FM signal can block all the communication of the supposed robust CDMA radio.

Probably the big break will come from bluetooth this standard is technically superiour to the IEEE commity design. It is cheap enough to be build into laptops, PDAs, mp3 players, etc.

The Linux driver for the WaveLAN cards are only partly distributed in source code. A binairy exists in the distribution to talk to their MAC chip. They will not disclose the interface to they propierary chipset...

Just my 5 eurocents...
Johan.

Synchronize a mobile device with a mobile device

We'd need a way for the mobile devices to talk to each other first. Either through a hardware standard(ugh!) or wireless protocol (such as Blutooth). Once that is done then we can concern ourselves with a uniform data transfer standard. Working at a mobile device to mobile device data transfer standard now would be putting the cart waaaay before the horse.

The latter, only more so. If I understand it correctly, Bluetooth is meant as an standard of inexpensively and wirelessly interconnecting proximate electronic devices on an a more-or-less ad hoc (and possibly sometimes automatic) basis -- not just PCs, but also mobile phones, PDAs, etc. See the web site, especially the FAQ.

The latter, only more so. If I understand it correctly, Bluetooth is meant as an standard of inexpensively and wirelessly interconnecting proximate electronic devices on an a more-or-less ad hoc (and possibly sometimes automatic) basis -- not just PCs, but also mobile phones, PDAs, etc. See the web site, especially the FAQ.

There is a text version too... http://www.bluetooth.com/text/default.asp

But there's much new stuff. This Intel page explains a lot of the history behind Bluetooth.

Basically, (the Intel page doesn't say this) some engineers at Ericsson thought about designing a new protocol for communication between their (Ericsson's) devices in 1994, and started developing it. The project wasn't initially called Bluetooth, but "MC link" (MC = Multi-Communicator). But somewhere during the development, they started to realize that the chips needed for this would be much cheaper if it was a widely adopted standard, so they started talking with their arch rival Nokia about sharing the technology and making it a common standard. They formed a Special Interest Group (SIG) in 1998, together with some other well-known companies (amongst others IBM, Intel, Motorola, 3Com, Casio, Cirrus Logic, TDK, Compaq, Dell, Xircom, Lucent, Toshiba, Psion, Qualcomm and Axis).
Last year they released the specification for version 1.0 of the standard. And experimental Bluetooth devices have been built using the standard and shown on various expos last year, and real devices are under development now. I think we'll see many of these devices released this year. That's the brief history of Bluetooth.

Here is also Ericsson's Bluetooth site. Here's the specs.

Hope this explains a bit. If you want to read more, browse the Bluetooth SIG site . They used to have a non-flash site before, but info about Bluetooth should be all over the net.
I wrote an essay a year ago about Bluetooth, with basically just meterail from the net, so maybe I could find some links for you.

I guess I've been under a rock or something, because I've never even heard of it before. I can figure out that it is some kind of wireless datacomm spec, but I'm a little curious about the details. The website seems to requires Flash, or license agreements, or both, to get anything more then marketing fluff. Would any of the fine Slashdot readership want to edjamacate me as to why I should care about it? :-)

advTHANKSance

Diamond HomeFree Wireless

Official Bluetooth page

TheRegister Article on Firewireless

So whats so great about bluetooth? Well it was orginally designed to replace irda but it will now be doing so much more. Bluetooth devices have about a 30ft range. When ever one device comes in contact with another, they set up somewhat of a mini network. Eight devices in all can make up one of these networks. One is the master telling the others what frequencies to skip to ect (Bluetooth operates at 2.4ghz and utalizes spread spectrum much like digital phones). These networks can then communicate with other networks of devices. This is all done on the fly and may be reconfigured constantly when new devices move in and out of the area.

So what can be done with this. Well, first the obvious, like networking printers ect but it has so much more potential. From what I hear, the bandwidth is comaprable to dsl which is plenty for most applications and other bluetooth devices dont hog the bandwidth. Well, for one you could could dial up a connection using your phone in your pocket without even touching it. Now imagine bluetooth everywhere and commercial services. Imagine negotiating for an internet connection in an airport without ahving to talk to anyone. Imagine pulic printers, and a slew of other things.

We are only beginning to realize what wireless technology can do. The potential is gigantic. There are some things to worry about like will each device have an id; autonegotiation is scary. 2.4ghz is also the resonate frequency of a water molecule, think leaky microwave. Still, I believe this is going to be amazing, 1) because its so cheap and 2) because its so easy. Truely plug and play networking. Expect to see bluetooth devices this spring and integration into laptops and phones by next fall. For more information, check out Bluetooths home page. Lots and lots of big name backers. This is no vaporware.

Bluetooth is slow, too slow. Do not believe the marketing hype (ala microsoft). These are not the droids you're looking for...

You'll notice that speed is not mentioned on the blehh-tooth faq page: http://www.bluetooth.com/v2/faq/default .asp

"The gross data rate is 1Mb/s." is what one finds after reading through the tech page: http://www.bluetooth.com/v2/docume nt/default.asp

For comparison: the airport cards apple manufactures run at 10Mb/s (and you can get one today).

Bluetooth is slow, too slow. Do not believe the marketing hype (ala microsoft). These are not the droids you're looking for...

You'll notice that speed is not mentioned on the blehh-tooth faq page: http://www.bluetooth.com/v2/faq/default .asp

"The gross data rate is 1Mb/s." is what one finds after reading through the tech page: http://www.bluetooth.com/v2/docume nt/default.asp

For comparison: the airport cards apple manufactures run at 10Mb/s (and you can get one today).

************************************************ ***

************************************************ ***

************************************************ ***

************************************************ ***

************************************************ ***

************************************************ ***

************************************************ ***

Um, I realize you were making a joke (and quite a good one too, IMO :), but the part about "user becomes the center of a small network universe" is just about how I imagine Bluetooth will turn out. Soon...

I like having a color display, but that by itself will not ensure dominance and I hope that noone at 3COM is believing this.

What I see happening is something like Bluetooth joining PCs, Cellphones, PDAs, Watches, Telephones, Modems together. And I hope that Palms will fit very nicely into this picture.

I agree with the recent followups....IR is *not* the way to go. I'm much more interested in Bluetooth but I don't see much activity for linux.

Future Mobiles will have GSM (in Europe and enlightened places like Manhattan) as well as Bluetooth for pico-net connections. And Bluetooth also means eliminating cables -- who needs a USB cable when you can run USB protocols over Bluetooth, and connect your keyboard, printer, mouse, PDA, Phone and wearable HUD using wireless?

With suitable repeaters, this can enable roaming within an organization, and with IEEE 802.11 bridging, can allow for wider roaming for a truly wireless experience.

The future is coming fast, and it will be a lot of fun!
-- Paul Gillingwater

does anybody know of anything similar that will go in an x86 pc? By similar, I mean cool like AirPort, especially the 11mbs part.

For the 11 Mbps part, I'm not sure. There are some wireless LAN solutions available for PCs, but as far as I know they all require you to install a base station. The nice thing about AirPort is the ad-hoc networking: minimal setup, any machine can talk to any other machine without having to install extra hardware.

There are some rumours that some motherboards of x86 PCs may integrate BlueTooth chips in a few months. BlueTooth does not provide the same bandwidth as AirPort (100 times less), but it also provides the ad-hoc networking and it is supposed to be integrated in all kinds of devices, so that you could have your phone, your keyboard, your mouse, or any other device connected to your PC without wires and without requiring a line-of-sight like the IrDa stuff.

I'm surprised no one on Slashdot has brought up the fact that 2.4 gigs is the band that Bluetooth is using. Seems a shame they didnt see it as an opportunity to use the technology...

(The 1.0 Bluetooth spec was released last month and development kits are available even if a little expensive due to being first generation!)

~Pev

When it comes to transmitters, there are some who are already ahead.

Sweden's Ericsson together with IBM, Intel, Nokia and Toshiba have created an open standard technology for wireless communication called Bluetooth. The Bluetooth tranciever technology will be very cheap and low in power and is said to work even on planes. Bluetooth will have a range of up to 10 metres, 360-degree connectivity, point-to-point and point-to-multipoint connections, a gross data rate of 1 mbps, supporting Symmetrical and Asymmetrical Data rates up to 721 kbps, and support of both voice and data channels for simultaneous operation. The best thing is that it uses the open band of radio frequency which is available all over the world!

You might not have heard much about yet in America since it seems futile to get American media (including Slashdot...*mumble mumble*) to report on it, but interest in the system is rocketing and it is very hot in Europe. Over 750 companies have joined the Special Interest Group so far.
Already developed is a headset for your cell phone which lets you speak even if the phone is in your bag. (You will defenitely be taken for a loon when you go around on the streets talking to yourself with this one), a harddrive that automatically connect to thin clients anywhere(thereby working as PDAs) and many other things. Other early products is expected to be stereo speakers that you can place anywhere in the room (you still need a power cord of course), digital cameras from Casio, ID numbers to track stolen cars, cheap wireless LANs from 3Com, smart card readers, washing machines that call the repairman when broken, mobile phones that can double as remotes for your TV or to unlock your car, and other products. For computer users an early benefit is that we might finally get rid of the cable "spaghetti" behind the computer and the stereo. It is also said that the Calcaria Linux7K project (or Linux CL-PS7110) is interested in Bluetooth, something that makes Microsoft a bit worried since it seriously threatens Microsoft CE. The name Bluetooth comes from a Viking king who ruled Denmark and southern Sweden.

Read more at The official Bluetooth homepage and the ZDnet UK Bluetooth Special Report.

When it comes to transmitters, there are some who are already ahead.

Sweden's Ericsson together with IBM, Intel, Nokia and Toshiba have created an open standard technology for wireless communication called Bluetooth. The Bluetooth tranciever technology will be very cheap and low in power and is said to work even on planes. Bluetooth will have a range of up to 10 metres, 360-degree connectivity, point-to-point and point-to-multipoint connections, a gross data rate of 1 mbps, supporting Symmetrical and Asymmetrical Data rates up to 721 kbps, and support of both voice and data channels for simultaneous operation. The best thing is that it uses the open band of radio frequency which is available all over the world!

You might not have heard much about yet in America since it seems futile to get American media (including Slashdot...*mumble mumble*) to report on it, but interest in the system is rocketing and it is very hot in Europe. Over 750 companies have joined the Special Interest Group so far.
Already developed is a headset for your cell phone which lets you speak even if the phone is in your bag. (You will defenitely be taken for a loon when you go around on the streets talking to yourself with this one), a harddrive that automatically connect to thin clients anywhere(thereby working as PDAs) and many other things. Other early products is expected to be stereo speakers that you can place anywhere in the room (you still need a power cord of course), digital cameras from Casio, ID numbers to track stolen cars, cheap wireless LANs from 3Com, smart card readers, washing machines that call the repairman when broken, mobile phones that can double as remotes for your TV or to unlock your car, and other products. For computer users an early benefit is that we might finally get rid of the cable "spaghetti" behind the computer and the stereo. It is also said that the Calcaria Linux7K project (or Linux CL-PS7110) is interested in Bluetooth, something that makes Microsoft a bit worried since it seriously threatens Microsoft CE. The name Bluetooth comes from a Viking king who ruled Denmark and southern Sweden.

Read more at The official Bluetooth homepage and the ZDnet UK Bluetooth Special Report.