On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 20:31:39 GMT, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
<9v5qo3975grei76smd81jggc60lq7vga0a@4ax.com>:

>On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 12:09:01 -0800, "Joel Koltner"
><zapwireDASHgroups@yahoo.com> wrote in
><13oq4mutj5as7b6@corp.supernews.com>:
>
>>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>>news:me0qo3d7gqupuv9iir9ql391i3ujrr063o@4ax.com. ..
>>> Read _all_ the links I provided and/or do some homework. Bluetooth 3.0
>>> and Wireless USB are capable of speeds of 480 Mbps in close proximity
>>> and 100-110 Mbps at 10 meters
>>
>>When someone says "Bluetooth" in a conversation today, unless they
>>specifically mention Bluetooth 3.0 or some other variant, the most reasonable
>>assumption that they mean the original 1 or 3Mbps variant.
>
>Only when they don't bother to check all of the information provided.
>
>>> Sure, since the actual advantage, from the consumer standpoint at least,
>>> is huge, since no special cable is needed.
>>
>>A "special radio" is not that much better than a "special cable." ...
>
>I strongly disagree. Wi-Fi is a clear case in point.

The original Bluetooth is another clear case in point.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>