On Mon, 25 Mar 2002, Toni Heinonen wrote: > I wonder what you mean. Are you talking about a network > infrastructure? After all, isn't the idea of Bluetooth that you have > two devices, such as a laptop and a mobile phone, that are > interconnected with Bluetooth transceivers instead of, say, a serial > cable? In the context of a simple serial cable, range is the most important variable. It would be cheaper to deny connections with a range of more than a few feet within a given perimeter than to deny connections of only a few inches. > But that doesn't sound anything like Bluetooth. Bluetooth is meant for > personal area networks, whereas the network you describe is a wide > area mobile phone network with data capabilities. At $5 a pop for bluetooth chips, wouldn't it be tempting to put one on each telephone pole? Or scatter them around a building? As it is currently being used, to connect say a PDA to a phone, a person with a $5 device in their pocket could probably prevent a person with a $300 PDA in their hand from talking to the $200 phone in their pocket. In the context of most of the off-list mail I've received, it is even easier to tape a small cheap device under a co-worker's desk. > Indeed. I assume the technology was proprietary? When it comes to > Bluetooth, I think the cipher and underlying encryption infrastructure > is sound (as sound as WLANs were before they were deployed :) Bingo. :)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Mar 25 2002 - 12:24:35 PST