In article <kvtfvht96cof15ojl2b7ni09t1pm17as2k@dim53.demon.nl>, Kees
Nuyt <k.nuyt@nospam.demon.nl> wrote:

> >> > how far away?
> >>
> >> One meter.
> >
> > something is very wrong. at that distance, it should *not*
> > drop out at all.
>
> Drop outs can occur when the input stage of the receiver is
> overloaded by strong radio signals, for example close to a GSM
> antenna mast or non-compliant WiFi.

it's not using wifi, and anything non-compliant can be ignored.

bluetooth is designed for close proximity.

a typical distance for bluetooth headsets is actually *less* than 1
meter, from a pocket at waist-level to one's head.

bluetooth mice & keyboards are usually even closer.

Andy Burnelli <nospam@nospam.net> writes:

> You seem to understand RCS where I admit that I only understand why Google
> is desperate for RCS but I don't yet understand why people would care.
>
> *Do you know why anyone would want RCS?*
>
> What does RCS give that, for example, my messaging app doesn't already do?
> *Pulse SMS* (Phone/Tablet/Web) by Maple Media, In-app purchases
> free, adfree, reqgsf, 4.7star,78.5K reviews,1M+Downloads
> <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=xyz.klinker.messenger>

I use RCS as sometimes it is the only way to send free text messages to
people who won't use a messaging app, or use Whatsapp, which I won't
use. Or maybe they do use an app but I don't know which one.

It's all a mess. I don't see why there can't be a standard way to send
end-to-end encrypted messages from any app to any app.

Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> writes:

> Andy Burnelli <nospam@nospam.net> writes:
>
>> You seem to understand RCS where I admit that I only understand why Google
>> is desperate for RCS but I don't yet understand why people would care.
>>
>> *Do you know why anyone would want RCS?*
>>
>> What does RCS give that, for example, my messaging app doesn't already do?
>> *Pulse SMS* (Phone/Tablet/Web) by Maple Media, In-app purchases
>> free, adfree, reqgsf, 4.7star,78.5K reviews,1M+Downloads
>> <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=xyz.klinker.messenger>
>
> I use RCS as sometimes it is the only way to send free text messages to
> people who won't use a messaging app, or use Whatsapp, which I won't
> use. Or maybe they do use an app but I don't know which one.
>
> It's all a mess. I don't see why there can't be a standard way to send
> end-to-end encrypted messages from any app to any app.

I tried Matrix, via Element, which doesn't even use a phone number. But
I don't know anyone else who uses it.

https://techcrunch.com/2022/12/30/inside-matrix-the-protocol-that-might-finally-make-messaging-apps-interoperable/

On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 18:58:53 -0500, nospam
<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> it's not using wifi,

I didn't say it does use WiFi.

> and anything non-compliant can be ignored.

No, you can't ignore those, they are called non-compliant
because they do cause trouble.

The input stage of any radio receiver can be overwhelmed by
excessively high field strengths. Bluetooth is no exception.
--
Kees Nuyt

In article <fsdhvhhpmtg62qbi8agujes8t5b10gfb9o@dim53.demon.nl>, Kees
Nuyt <k.nuyt@nospam.demon.nl> wrote:

>
> > it's not using wifi,
>
> I didn't say it does use WiFi.

you mentioned wifi. you're also snipping to alter context again.

> > and anything non-compliant can be ignored.
>
> No, you can't ignore those, they are called non-compliant
> because they do cause trouble.

exactly why they can be ignored.

don't use non-compliant devices.

> The input stage of any radio receiver can be overwhelmed by
> excessively high field strengths. Bluetooth is no exception.

actually, it is, because it's basically impossible to overload
bluetooth, which was designed for close proximity.

as i said before, which you snipped, it's very common for two bluetooth
devices to be within 1 foot of each other, and in many cases, closer
than that.

In message <7x8rgnfifp.fsf@example.com>
Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:

> It's all a mess. I don't see why there can't be a standard way to send
> end-to-end encrypted messages from any app to any app.

The beauty of standards is that there are so many to choose from.

That's why we're in this mess.

David

In message <240220230848538382%nospam@nospam.invalid>
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>In article <fsdhvhhpmtg62qbi8agujes8t5b10gfb9o@dim53.demon.nl>, Kees
>Nuyt <k.nuyt@nospam.demon.nl> wrote:
>
>> The input stage of any radio receiver can be overwhelmed by
>> excessively high field strengths. Bluetooth is no exception.
>
>actually, it is, because it's basically impossible to overload
>bluetooth, which was designed for close proximity.

Rubbish. It is possible to overload absolutely any radio receiver at
all. Filtering at the input can make it difficult, but can never make
it impossible. This is generic to radio reception.

The signals you have to worry about are normally not the wanted ones,
they're the unwanted ones at different frequencies. The overloading
can make it impossible to receive the wanted signals without error.

You can't stop those without brick-wall filtering, which is impossible.

Bluetooth and wifi radios don't usually have any input filtering at
all. Take some apart and go looking for the filter components. Post
links to some photos if you find any.

David

In article <23afc77b5a.DaveMeUK@BeagleBoard-xM>, David Higton
<dave@davehigton.me.uk> wrote:

> >> The input stage of any radio receiver can be overwhelmed by
> >> excessively high field strengths. Bluetooth is no exception.
> >
> >actually, it is, because it's basically impossible to overload
> >bluetooth, which was designed for close proximity.
>
> Rubbish. It is possible to overload absolutely any radio receiver at
> all. Filtering at the input can make it difficult, but can never make
> it impossible. This is generic to radio reception.

of course it's possible to deliberately overload 'any radio'. that's
not the issue and you know it.

the part you're missing is bluetooth devices are specifically designed
to work at close proximity, adjusting their power accordingly so that
they *don't* overload anything.

one example is a laptop with a bluetooth mouse next to it, literally a
couple of *inches* away. another is bluetooth headsets connecting to a
phone in a pocket, a foot or so away.

> The signals you have to worry about are normally not the wanted ones,
> they're the unwanted ones at different frequencies. The overloading
> can make it impossible to receive the wanted signals without error.

straw man.

intentional jamming is not the issue and highly unusual anyway.

David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> writes:

> In message <7x8rgnfifp.fsf@example.com>
> Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com> wrote:
>
>> It's all a mess. I don't see why there can't be a standard way to send
>> end-to-end encrypted messages from any app to any app.
>
> The beauty of standards is that there are so many to choose from.
>

Those aren't standards then.

Imagin if couldn't make a telephone call until you had established which
phone company your recipient was using and installed the app and created
an account.

In article <7xilfr6rdx.fsf@example.com>, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>
wrote:

> > The beauty of standards is that there are so many to choose from.
> >
>
> Those aren't standards then.

they are.

> Imagin if couldn't make a telephone call until you had established which
> phone company your recipient was using and installed the app and created
> an account.

no need to imagine anything. that's how it was in the early days of the
phone system.

<https://www.bandwidth.com/glossary/north-american-numbering-plan-nanp/>
Between 1876 and the first decades of the twentieth century, the
telephone numbering system in the United States consisted of a
haphazard patchwork of many different phone numbering plans,
each primarily crafted to satisfy local rather than national needs.
This parochial focus and the attendant disorganization made it
difficult to efficiently corral local exchanges to create a national
long-distance calling system. Worse, this ungainly system had another
significant bottleneck; it required an army of switchboard operators
to place calls, which made long-distance calling cumbersome.

<https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UsefulNotes/NorthAmericanNumberi
ngPlan>
This system was far from uniform. Most central offices used two
letters and five numbers, but a fair number used three letters and
four numbers, and some small exchanges had numbers as short as
five digits (two letters, three numbers). On top of that, Montreal
and Toronto, among other areas, had a mixture of six- and seven-digit
numbers. Needless to say, this mishmash of incompatible local systems
proved to be a major obstacle to creating a continent-wide system for
long-distance communication. With that in mind, the Bell System
sought to unify all of the varied numbering plans throughout the US
and Canada into a single plan.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> writes:

> In article <7xilfr6rdx.fsf@example.com>, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>
> wrote:
>
>> > The beauty of standards is that there are so many to choose from.
>> >
>>
>> Those aren't standards then.
>
> they are.
>

noun. stan·​dard. : something established by authority, custom, or
general consent as a model, example, or point of reference

>> Imagin if couldn't make a telephone call until you had established which
>> phone company your recipient was using and installed the app and created
>> an account.
>
> no need to imagine anything. that's how it was in the early days of the
> phone system.

> Between 1876 and the first decades of the twentieth century, the

I wasn't born then so I still have to imagine.

On 2/24/2023 8:49 AM, nospam wrote:
> In article <7xilfr6rdx.fsf@example.com>, Richmond <dnomhcir@gmx.com>
> wrote:

>> Imagine if couldn't make a telephone call until you had established which
>> phone company your recipient was using and installed the app and created
>> an account.

> no need to imagine anything. that's how it was in the early days of the
> phone system.

> <https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UsefulNotes/NorthAmericanNumberi
> ngPlan>

> This [phone] system was far from uniform. Most central offices used two
> letters and five numbers

Nostalgia:

1. My 1950s Phoenix AZ phone number started with 2 letters: "WO". It
stood for "Woodland". If you told someone your number you actually said
it as "Woodland 5 5555". Funny since there weren't any woodlands within
100 miles...

2. Long distance calls were timed and expensive. The Phoenix metro area
was divided into 3 long distance zones so even calling across town could
be expensive.

3. Calling across country (USA) was VERY expensive. When cross country
relatives visited and returned home they called us person to person to
let us know they got home OK. That way when the long distance operator
asked us for the prearranged fictitious person being called he was never
there. That way we knew they got home OK and there was no long distance
charge.

Since all three parties (us, operator, relative) can hear each other
when the call was being initiated my aunt used to shout "I'm so glad you
got home OK" before the call was refused and all hung up. Never got
charged for it...

4. We were on a 4 party line. If it rang in two's it was our call. Also
lots of interesting stuff to be heard when eavesdropping on the other
lines. (Much later the practice was continued when cell phones could be
monitored with radio receiver. Also the neighbors wireless extensions...)

5. As a kid it was fun to dial a call without using the dial. You just
broke the circuit a number of times using the hangup button...

6. Ma Bell charged extra for extension phones and they were required to
be supplied by them. So of course we found our own used phones and
hooked them up ourselves. It was rumored that Ma Bell could detect
pirate phones by the ring current so we removed the ringers.

7. As a ham radio operator I made numerous phone patches across country
to beat the long distance charges. The ham across country would call CQ
Phoenix. I would answer and call and patch his relative locally for him
for no charge.

Loved beating out Ma Bell. Maybe the rest of you old farts have some
more old stories...

In article <ttaqkc$28u2c$1@dont-email.me>, AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:

> Nostalgia:
>
> 1. My 1950s Phoenix AZ phone number started with 2 letters: "WO". It
> stood for "Woodland". If you told someone your number you actually said
> it as "Woodland 5 5555". Funny since there weren't any woodlands within
> 100 miles...

any streets named woodland? or maybe a notable person in the history of
phoenix?

>
> 3. Calling across country (USA) was VERY expensive. When cross country
> relatives visited and returned home they called us person to person to
> let us know they got home OK. That way when the long distance operator
> asked us for the prearranged fictitious person being called he was never
> there. That way we knew they got home OK and there was no long distance
> charge.

that worked for collect calls too.

> 4. We were on a 4 party line. If it rang in two's it was our call. Also
> lots of interesting stuff to be heard when eavesdropping on the other
> lines. (Much later the practice was continued when cell phones could be
> monitored with radio receiver. Also the neighbors wireless extensions...)

but that would be illegal. cough.

> 5. As a kid it was fun to dial a call without using the dial. You just
> broke the circuit a number of times using the hangup button...

i can still do that. i hated numbers with 9s and 0s.

some places had a desk phone without a dial intended only for incoming
calls. that worked for pretty much everyone, although those who could
dial with the hookswitch had other ideas...

> 6. Ma Bell charged extra for extension phones and they were required to
> be supplied by them. So of course we found our own used phones and
> hooked them up ourselves. It was rumored that Ma Bell could detect
> pirate phones by the ring current so we removed the ringers.

more than just a rumour, and why phones have a ringer equivalent.

> 7. As a ham radio operator I made numerous phone patches across country
> to beat the long distance charges. The ham across country would call CQ
> Phoenix. I would answer and call and patch his relative locally for him
> for no charge.

sounds like 2m fm.

> Loved beating out Ma Bell. Maybe the rest of you old farts have some
> more old stories...

far more than is appropriate for a public venue. :)

On 2/24/2023 10:33 AM, nospam wrote:
> In article <ttaqkc$28u2c$1@dont-email.me>, AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:

>> My 1950s Phoenix AZ phone number started with 2 letters: "WO". It
>> stood for "Woodland". If you told someone your number you actually said
>> it as "Woodland 5 5555". Funny since there weren't any woodlands within
>> 100 miles...

> any streets named woodland? or maybe a notable person in the history of
> phoenix?

Not that I remember. Could be though...

>> As a ham radio operator I made numerous phone patches across country
>> to beat the long distance charges. The ham across country would call CQ
>> Phoenix. I would answer and call and patch his relative locally for him
>> for no charge.

We also kept schedules. I had a Friday schedule with a cousin in
Chicago. I patched him to his daughter in Phoenix and he patched me to
my relatives in Chicago.

In later years I patched service folks in Vietnam to relatives in the
states. In that case the relatives picked up the stateside long distance
charges from me to them.

> sounds like 2m fm.

The 2M band is generally only line of sight except for very sporadic
openings. We did have mountain top repeaters that covered much of AZ
though. Some had a built-in phone patch to the local system so that you
could actually make phone calls from your car. Imagine that...

If the sun spot cycle was at a peak 10 and 15M were great for daytime
patches not only to the states but world wide. Otherwise 20M was good
but unfortunately very crowded.

I've been inactive on the radio for many years now though still
licensed. Two things are mainly responsible: The Internet and my current
HOA (no ham antennas allowed)...

In message <240220230944187848%nospam@nospam.invalid>
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>In article <23afc77b5a.DaveMeUK@BeagleBoard-xM>, David Higton
><dave@davehigton.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> >> The input stage of any radio receiver can be overwhelmed by
>> >> excessively high field strengths. Bluetooth is no exception.
>> >
>> >actually, it is, because it's basically impossible to overload
>> >bluetooth, which was designed for close proximity.
>>
>> Rubbish. It is possible to overload absolutely any radio receiver at
>> all. Filtering at the input can make it difficult, but can never make
>> it impossible. This is generic to radio reception.
>
>of course it's possible to deliberately overload 'any radio'. that's
>not the issue and you know it.
>
>the part you're missing is bluetooth devices are specifically designed
>to work at close proximity, adjusting their power accordingly so that
>they *don't* overload anything.
>
>one example is a laptop with a bluetooth mouse next to it, literally a
>couple of *inches* away. another is bluetooth headsets connecting to a
>phone in a pocket, a foot or so away.
>
>> The signals you have to worry about are normally not the wanted ones,
>> they're the unwanted ones at different frequencies. The overloading
>> can make it impossible to receive the wanted signals without error.
>
>straw man.
>
>intentional jamming is not the issue and highly unusual anyway.

You're the first person to talk about intentional jamming. Not me.

David

In article <ttb7tv$2a9eo$1@dont-email.me>, AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:

> >> My 1950s Phoenix AZ phone number started with 2 letters: "WO". It
> >> stood for "Woodland". If you told someone your number you actually said
> >> it as "Woodland 5 5555". Funny since there weren't any woodlands within
> >> 100 miles...
>
> > any streets named woodland? or maybe a notable person in the history of
> > phoenix?
>
> Not that I remember. Could be though...

a quick search finds that it's the woodland historic district.

<https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2014/08/16/phoenix-h
istorical-neighborhood-woodland-district-downtown-arizona/14134729/>
WOODLAND HISTORIC DISTRICT

LOCATION: Generally bounded by Seventh and 16th avenues, and Van
Buren to Adams streets.

PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE: 1880-1935.

> > sounds like 2m fm.
>
> The 2M band is generally only line of sight except for very sporadic
> openings. We did have mountain top repeaters that covered much of AZ
> though.

yep.

> Some had a built-in phone patch to the local system so that you
> could actually make phone calls from your car. Imagine that...

the original car phones were mts (mobile telephone system), later imts
(improved mts), which had only a handful of channels for an entire
city.

<https://telephoneworld.org/cellular-phone-history/pre-cellular-mts-imts
/>

<http://www.wb6nvh.com/MTSfiles/Carphone5.htm>

In article <91cbec7b5a.DaveMeUK@BeagleBoard-xM>, David Higton
<dave@davehigton.me.uk> wrote:

> >
> >> The signals you have to worry about are normally not the wanted ones,
> >> they're the unwanted ones at different frequencies. The overloading
> >> can make it impossible to receive the wanted signals without error.
> >
> >straw man.
> >
> >intentional jamming is not the issue and highly unusual anyway.
>
> You're the first person to talk about intentional jamming. Not me.

*your* quote above is clear, particularly this part:
'can make it impossible to receive the wanted signals'

that sure sounds like jamming.

On 2/24/2023 2:20 PM, nospam wrote:
> AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:

>>>> My 1950s Phoenix AZ phone number started with 2 letters: "WO". It
>>>> stood for "Woodland".

>>> any streets named woodland? or maybe a notable person in the history of
>>> phoenix?

>> Not that I remember. Could be though...

> a quick search finds that it's the woodland historic district.
> <https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2014/08/16/phoenix-h
> istorical-neighborhood-woodland-district-downtown-arizona/14134729/>

> WOODLAND HISTORIC DISTRICT
> LOCATION: Generally bounded by Seventh and 16th avenues, and Van
> Buren to Adams streets.
> PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE: 1880-1935.

Interesting. I worked that area (beat) in the late 60s and early 70's
and don't remember anything Woodland. But REMEMBER is my key word here...

In message <240220231620515376%nospam@nospam.invalid>
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>In article <91cbec7b5a.DaveMeUK@BeagleBoard-xM>, David Higton
><dave@davehigton.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> >
>> >> The signals you have to worry about are normally not the wanted ones,
>> >> they're the unwanted ones at different frequencies. The overloading
>> >> can make it impossible to receive the wanted signals without error.
>> >
>> >straw man.
>> >
>> >intentional jamming is not the issue and highly unusual anyway.
>>
>> You're the first person to talk about intentional jamming. Not me.
>
>*your* quote above is clear, particularly this part:
>'can make it impossible to receive the wanted signals'
>
>that sure sounds like jamming.

Think of other stuff that a receiver is subjected to in a normal
environment. A Bluetooth receiver is also going to be receiving (and
trying to reject) wifi, mobile phones, DECT phones, all sorts of remote
controls (garage door opener, intruder alarm), and even a microwave oven.
Bluetooth signals would be, to it, the wanted signals. The rest are not
intentional jamming, they're simply there.

David

On 2023-02-24 00:02, Andy Burnelli wrote:
> Carlos E.R. wrote:
>
>>> That is not correct. RCS has to be supported by the service-provider as
>>> well as the handset manufacturers. Apple does not support RCS.
>>
>> Big deal. It is a walled garden, enter, at your own risk >:-p
>
> I agree with any sensible logical opinion, where I agree with Carlos that
> you can decide to be locked up inside the walled garden but if you do, then
> you are simply trading your phone number for a required Apple account.
>
> Big deal.
>
> It's not clear that nospam is aware that there is an account required.
>
>>> The functionality is ways behind well known messaging apps/services like
>>> WhatsApp, Signal, Telegram, Threema and others like iMessage and some
>>> others.
>
> All of those suffer from the fact they require an account, although for
> WhatsApp, which I recently installed, the "phone number" _is_ the account.
>
>>> What could be the unique selling proposition of RCS? I used it already:
>>> I do not see any.
>>
>> As I said, that it allows people both sides of the pond to communicate
>> for free, considering that "over there" they use mostly SMS/MMS.
>
> I have to admit that I don't understand yet why anyone pines for RCS.
> It's my fault though. I don't understand what I'm missing, I guess.

You are missing that for me, each MMS is about one dollar each, and I
have relatives the other side of the pond that prefer SMS/MMS to whatsapp.

Thus, if automatically the same app that did SMS/MMS suddenly does RCS
instead, which is gratis, for me that's a win.

Obviously I prefer whatsapp, but they don't.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2023-02-23 22:45, nospam wrote:
> In article <rl2lcjx3k1.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> it's carrier controlled and requires a phone number, so yes it is.
>>
>> Big deal! :-D
>
> it is a big deal
>
>> So what?
>
> the so what is not everyone has a phone number, and they can change, as
> was explained in the link i posted.

We are talking alternatives to SMS, which use the phone number. I am not
interested in alternatives that are not related to a phone or do not use
the phone number as identification.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

On 2023-02-24 11:48, Richmond wrote:
> Andy Burnelli <nospam@nospam.net> writes:
>
>> You seem to understand RCS where I admit that I only understand why Google
>> is desperate for RCS but I don't yet understand why people would care.
>>
>> *Do you know why anyone would want RCS?*
>>
>> What does RCS give that, for example, my messaging app doesn't already do?
>> *Pulse SMS* (Phone/Tablet/Web) by Maple Media, In-app purchases
>> free, adfree, reqgsf, 4.7star,78.5K reviews,1M+Downloads
>> <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=xyz.klinker.messenger>
>
> I use RCS as sometimes it is the only way to send free text messages to
> people who won't use a messaging app, or use Whatsapp, which I won't
> use. Or maybe they do use an app but I don't know which one.
>
> It's all a mess. I don't see why there can't be a standard way to send
> end-to-end encrypted messages from any app to any app.

I seem to recall some movement about that in the European Union
parliament or commission. About some interoperability mandate.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

In article <1jpncjx4he.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:

>
> We are talking alternatives to SMS, which use the phone number. I am not
> interested in alternatives that are not related to a phone or do not use
> the phone number as identification.

you might not, but most people want alternatives that are *not* tied to
a phone number or a particular carrier.

In article <ce40f37b5a.DaveMeUK@BeagleBoard-xM>, David Higton
<dave@davehigton.me.uk> wrote:

>
> Think of other stuff that a receiver is subjected to in a normal
> environment. A Bluetooth receiver is also going to be receiving (and
> trying to reject) wifi, mobile phones, DECT phones, all sorts of remote
> controls (garage door opener, intruder alarm), and even a microwave oven.
> Bluetooth signals would be, to it, the wanted signals. The rest are not
> intentional jamming, they're simply there.

all hypothetical handwaving.

here in the real world, those don't have a tangible effect on bluetooth
connections, except possibly in extreme situations.

maybe if someone users bluetooth headphones while sitting next to a
leaky microwave oven and also a high power wifi transmitter (not
consumer grade), they might have a problem.

in normal use, bluetooth does not drop out at 1 foot distances that
carlos said he was using, unless something is defective.

Am 24.02.23 um 23:41 schrieb nospam:
> In article <1jpncjx4he.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>, Carlos E.R.
> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>> We are talking alternatives to SMS, which use the phone number. I am not
>> interested in alternatives that are not related to a phone or do not use
>> the phone number as identification.
>
> you might not, but most people want alternatives that are *not* tied to
> a phone number or a particular carrier.

Right! Very much so!

--
Gutta cavat lapidem (Ovid)