Why is bluetooth 5 throughput (2Mbps) much lower than data rate (48Mbps)?

I can understand a small difference, but a factor of 24?!?

On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 1:09:28 AM UTC-5, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> Why is bluetooth 5 throughput (2Mbps) much lower than data rate (48Mbps)?
>
> I can understand a small difference, but a factor of 24?!?

Care to give us a clue as to what you are doing with Bluetooth? Some details might help a bit.

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On 4/12/2022 7:07 pm, Ricky wrote:

> Why is bluetooth 5 throughput (2Mbps) much lower than data rate (48Mbps)

You can literally type that exact question into Google and get your
answer. Basically, it's because of overhead.

On Saturday, December 3, 2022 at 10:09:28 PM UTC-8, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> Why is bluetooth 5 throughput (2Mbps) much lower than data rate (48Mbps)?
>
> I can understand a small difference, but a factor of 24?!?

48Mbps bandwidth allows up to 24 channels of 2Mbps data rate.

Commander Kinsey wrote:
> Why is bluetooth 5 throughput (2Mbps) much lower than data rate (48Mbps)?
>
> I can understand a small difference, but a factor of 24?!?

Bluetooth is largely garbage. Good enough for mice and keyboards.

--
Les Cargill

On Sun, 11 Dec 2022 21:16:03 -0000, Les Cargill <lcargil99@gmail.com> wrote:

> Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> Why is bluetooth 5 throughput (2Mbps) much lower than data rate (48Mbps)?
>>
>> I can understand a small difference, but a factor of 24?!?
>
> Bluetooth is largely garbage. Good enough for mice and keyboards.

No, it's the best way to copy a photo from your phone to your PC. No easier way. It should be easy through Wifi, but the programmers never thought of that. They're not very bright you see.

On Dec 11, 2022 at 2:21:03 PM MST, ""Commander Kinsey"" wrote
<op.1w06xdfvmvhs6z@ryzen.home>:

> On Sun, 11 Dec 2022 21:16:03 -0000, Les Cargill <lcargil99@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>> Why is bluetooth 5 throughput (2Mbps) much lower than data rate (48Mbps)?
>>>
>>> I can understand a small difference, but a factor of 24?!?
>>
>> Bluetooth is largely garbage. Good enough for mice and keyboards.
>
> No, it's the best way to copy a photo from your phone to your PC. No easier
> way. It should be easy through Wifi, but the programmers never thought of
> that. They're not very bright you see.

Apple products use WiFi as well, I think.

--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger.

They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.

Commander Kinsey wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Dec 2022 21:16:03 -0000, Les Cargill <lcargil99@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>> Why is bluetooth 5 throughput (2Mbps) much lower than data rate
>>> (48Mbps)?
>>>
>>> I can understand a small difference, but a factor of 24?!?
>>
>> Bluetooth is largely garbage. Good enough for mice and keyboards.
>
> No, it's the best way to copy a photo from your phone to your PC.

If you say so. I've had zero problems with a nice USB cable :) Said
cable stays plugged into the PC so it's pretty simple.

> No
> easier way.  It should be easy through Wifi, but the programmers never
> thought of that.  They're not very bright you see.

I mean that - as you note - the base rate and throughput are only
passingly acquainted and have quite the ratio. It's also
very far from reliable - delay variation is quite high.

So from a "comms" perspective, it's pretty dismal. It's Zapp
brannigan sending wave on wave of men until the killbots
hit the preset kill limit :)

--
Les Cargill

On Sun, 11 Dec 2022 21:30:43 -0000, Les Cargill <lcargil99@gmail.com> wrote:

> Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Dec 2022 21:16:03 -0000, Les Cargill <lcargil99@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>> Why is bluetooth 5 throughput (2Mbps) much lower than data rate
>>>> (48Mbps)?
>>>>
>>>> I can understand a small difference, but a factor of 24?!?
>>>
>>> Bluetooth is largely garbage. Good enough for mice and keyboards.
>>
>> No, it's the best way to copy a photo from your phone to your PC.
>
> If you say so. I've had zero problems with a nice USB cable :) Said
> cable stays plugged into the PC so it's pretty simple.

Mine is plugged into a charger for more electricity than I get from the computer. It also becomes unplugged when I take a photo a long way away from the computer for some reason.

>> No easier way. It should be easy through Wifi, but the programmers never
>> thought of that. They're not very bright you see.
>
> I mean that - as you note - the base rate and throughput are only
> passingly acquainted and have quite the ratio.

The ratio is illogical.

> It's also very far from reliable - delay variation is quite high.

I get a very precise 2Mbit on BT 2.

> So from a "comms" perspective, it's pretty dismal. It's Zapp
> brannigan sending wave on wave of men until the killbots
> hit the preset kill limit :)

But I'm only transferring 12MP photos or a 20MB APK.

On Sun, 11 Dec 2022 21:30:43 -0000, Les Cargill <lcargil99@gmail.com> wrote:

> Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Dec 2022 21:16:03 -0000, Les Cargill <lcargil99@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>> Why is bluetooth 5 throughput (2Mbps) much lower than data rate
>>>> (48Mbps)?
>>>>
>>>> I can understand a small difference, but a factor of 24?!?
>>>
>>> Bluetooth is largely garbage. Good enough for mice and keyboards.
>>
>> No, it's the best way to copy a photo from your phone to your PC.
>
> If you say so. I've had zero problems with a nice USB cable :) Said
> cable stays plugged into the PC so it's pretty simple.

And what would you do if you met your friend out and about, and you wanted to transfer a file to him?

In article <tn5haj$20u1v$4@dont-email.me>, Les Cargill
<lcargil99@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Bluetooth is largely garbage. Good enough for mice and keyboards.

rubbish. many, many devices use bluetooth, and quite reliably.

In article <op.1w06xdfvmvhs6z@ryzen.home>, Commander Kinsey
<CK1@nospam.com> wrote:

> > Bluetooth is largely garbage. Good enough for mice and keyboards.
>
> No, it's the best way to copy a photo from your phone to your PC.

actually, it's the worst.

> No easier
> way.

wifi is much easier, far faster and also more reliable.

a cable also works but not as convenient.

> It should be easy through Wifi, but the programmers never thought of
> that. They're not very bright you see.

they thought of that long ago, and without needing to configure
anything. just tap to send and confirm on the other device.

In article <tn5i64$21169$1@dont-email.me>, Les Cargill
<lcargil99@gmail.com> wrote:

> I've had zero problems with a nice USB cable :) Said
> cable stays plugged into the PC so it's pretty simple.

that doesn't work particularly well for phones and tablets and
definitely doesn't work at all for iot devices, automotive devices and
various other devices.

On Sun, 11 Dec 2022 22:39:31 -0000, J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:

> Les Cargill <lcargil99@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> > Why is bluetooth 5 throughput (2Mbps) much lower than data rate (48Mbps)?
>> >
>> > I can understand a small difference, but a factor of 24?!?
>>
>> Bluetooth is largely garbage. Good enough for mice and keyboards.
>
> Well, that's what it was designed for,

Who types at 2Mbps? Clearly it was intended for file transfers and audio too.

In article <op.1w1apqmimvhs6z@ryzen.home>, Commander Kinsey
<CK1@nospam.com> wrote:

>
> Who types at 2Mbps? Clearly it was intended for file transfers and audio too.

who transfers files at 2mbps?
wifi is faster than gigabit now.

Commander Kinsey wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Dec 2022 21:30:43 -0000, Les Cargill <lcargil99@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>> On Sun, 11 Dec 2022 21:16:03 -0000, Les Cargill <lcargil99@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>>> Why is bluetooth 5 throughput (2Mbps) much lower than data rate
>>>>> (48Mbps)?
>>>>>
>>>>> I can understand a small difference, but a factor of 24?!?
>>>>
>>>> Bluetooth is largely garbage. Good enough for mice and keyboards.
>>>
>>> No, it's the best way to copy a photo from your phone to your PC.
>>
>> If you say so. I've had zero problems with a nice USB cable :)  Said
>> cable stays plugged into the PC so it's pretty simple.
>
> Mine is plugged into a charger for more electricity than I get from the
> computer.  It also becomes unplugged when I take a photo a long way away
> from the computer for some reason.
>

Exactly.

>>> No easier way.  It should be easy through Wifi, but the programmers
>>> never
>>> thought of that.  They're not very bright you see.
>>
>> I mean that - as you note - the base rate and throughput are only
>> passingly acquainted and have quite the ratio.
>
> The ratio is illogical.
>

I'd imagine with the right models you could calculate the retransmission
rate or something.

>> It's also very far from reliable - delay variation is quite high.
>
> I get a very precise 2Mbit on BT 2.
>

There may not be that much interference in that spot. It could be a
something besides the RF part that's the bottleneck if it's that
consistent.

>> So from a "comms" perspective, it's pretty dismal. It's Zapp
>> brannigan sending wave  on wave of men until the killbots
>> hit the preset kill limit :)
>
> But I'm only transferring 12MP photos or a 20MB APK.

20MB is still a lot really. We're spoilt for choice these days.

--
Les Cargill

On Sun, 11 Dec 2022 22:54:25 -0000, Les Cargill <lcargil99@gmail.com> wrote:

> Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Dec 2022 21:30:43 -0000, Les Cargill <lcargil99@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 11 Dec 2022 21:16:03 -0000, Les Cargill <lcargil99@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>>>> Why is bluetooth 5 throughput (2Mbps) much lower than data rate
>>>>>> (48Mbps)?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can understand a small difference, but a factor of 24?!?
>>>>>
>>>>> Bluetooth is largely garbage. Good enough for mice and keyboards.
>>>>
>>>> No, it's the best way to copy a photo from your phone to your PC.
>>>
>>> If you say so. I've had zero problems with a nice USB cable :) Said
>>> cable stays plugged into the PC so it's pretty simple.
>>
>> Mine is plugged into a charger for more electricity than I get from the
>> computer. It also becomes unplugged when I take a photo a long way away
>> from the computer for some reason.
>
> Exactly.

Exactly what? I have not agreed with you. Since I do not plug the cable into the PC, it's not convenient to transfer photos with the cable, so I use BT!

>>>> No easier way. It should be easy through Wifi, but the programmers
>>>> never
>>>> thought of that. They're not very bright you see.
>>>
>>> I mean that - as you note - the base rate and throughput are only
>>> passingly acquainted and have quite the ratio.
>>
>> The ratio is illogical.
>
> I'd imagine with the right models you could calculate the retransmission
> rate or something.

It can't be that bad. nothing else has a ratio like that.

>>> It's also very far from reliable - delay variation is quite high.
>>
>> I get a very precise 2Mbit on BT 2.
>
> There may not be that much interference in that spot.

This room is chockablock with interference.

> It could be a
> something besides the RF part that's the bottleneck if it's that
> consistent.
>
>>> So from a "comms" perspective, it's pretty dismal. It's Zapp
>>> brannigan sending wave on wave of men until the killbots
>>> hit the preset kill limit :)
>>
>> But I'm only transferring 12MP photos or a 20MB APK.
>
> 20MB is still a lot really. We're spoilt for choice these days.

It's not a lot to transfer at 2Mbit. It's just over a minute.

In article <op.1w1i9hycmvhs6z@ryzen.home>, Commander Kinsey
<CK1@nospam.com> wrote:

>
> It's not a lot to transfer at 2Mbit. It's just over a minute.

less than a second via wifi. in other words, instant.

it's slower to tap the button to send it.

On 11/12/2022 21:21, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Dec 2022 21:16:03 -0000, Les Cargill <lcargil99@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>> Why is bluetooth 5 throughput (2Mbps) much lower than data rate
>>> (48Mbps)?
>>>
>>> I can understand a small difference, but a factor of 24?!?
>>
>> Bluetooth is largely garbage. Good enough for mice and keyboards.
>
> No, it's the best way to copy a photo from your phone to your PC.  No
> easier way.  It should be easy through Wifi, but the programmers never
> thought of that.  They're not very bright you see.

The Apple system runs faultlessly. A photograph taken on my iPhone or
iPad is almost instantly availale for viewing on all my Apple devices,
including my iMac.

You have received a response from a *Germain* fellow, but only on the
'uk.comp.sys.mac' Usenet group.

--
Kind regards,
David

On 12/11/2022 8:47 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:

>>>>> No easier way.  It should be easy through Wifi, but the programmers
>>>>> never
>>>>> thought of that.  They're not very bright you see.
>>>>
>>>> I mean that - as you note - the base rate and throughput are only
>>>> passingly acquainted and have quite the ratio.
>>>
>>> The ratio is illogical.
>>
>> I'd imagine with the right models you could calculate the retransmission
>> rate or something.
>
> It can't be that bad.  nothing else has a ratio like that.

I'm still not seeing this 48 megabit thing. Unless it is the
usage of data channels for beacon/advertising or something.
And maybe this notion is just dismissing the RF channel limitations.

https://www.edn.com/bluetooth-5-more-speeds-more-range-new-rf-tests/

0x01 PHY set to LE 1M
0x02 PHY set to LE 2M <=== new mode, doubles datarate (which profile???)
0x03 PHY set to LE Coded, S=8 encoding (low data rate, higher reach)
0x04 PHY set to LE Coded, S=8 encoding (lowered data rate, moderate reach)

Apparently a beacon has something to do with "unpaired data transfer",
perhaps for IoT things? Do unpaired transfers use profiles ?
Would Windows 11 have an item in protocol stack for this ?
And so on. You still can't get Windows to do ICS (Internet Connection Sharing) over BT,
at least automatically. And maybe that's a good thing.

Windows does do Internet Connection Sharing over Wifi, between two
PCs with Wifi adapters and no Wifi router. I did not leave this
lashed up long enough, to test the datarate. In modern Windows
this is a replacement for a deprecated access point feature, and
presumably it's to make tracking us easier (the implementation
details). In the past, you could set your own IP addresses
on two PCs and just transfer stuff between them, without reference
to the outside world. But... they don't want that now. They prefer
your Windows Update to start running across a lashup, when your
objective is to be doing something else.

Paul

Commander Kinsey wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Dec 2022 22:54:25 -0000, Les Cargill <lcargil99@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>> On Sun, 11 Dec 2022 21:30:43 -0000, Les Cargill <lcargil99@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 11 Dec 2022 21:16:03 -0000, Les Cargill <lcargil99@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>>>>> Why is bluetooth 5 throughput (2Mbps) much lower than data rate
>>>>>>> (48Mbps)?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can understand a small difference, but a factor of 24?!?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bluetooth is largely garbage. Good enough for mice and keyboards.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it's the best way to copy a photo from your phone to your PC.
>>>>
>>>> If you say so. I've had zero problems with a nice USB cable :)  Said
>>>> cable stays plugged into the PC so it's pretty simple.
>>>
>>> Mine is plugged into a charger for more electricity than I get from the
>>> computer.  It also becomes unplugged when I take a photo a long way away
>>> from the computer for some reason.
>>
>> Exactly.
>
> Exactly what?  I have not agreed with you.  Since I do not plug the
> cable into the PC, it's not convenient to transfer photos with the
> cable, so I use BT!
>
>>>>> No easier way.  It should be easy through Wifi, but the programmers
>>>>> never
>>>>> thought of that.  They're not very bright you see.
>>>>
>>>> I mean that - as you note - the base rate and throughput are only
>>>> passingly acquainted and have quite the ratio.
>>>
>>> The ratio is illogical.
>>
>> I'd imagine with the right models you could calculate the retransmission
>> rate or something.
>
> It can't be that bad.  nothing else has a ratio like that.
>

Bluetooth does. I don't know of a good way for
you to gather data to see this.

<snip>

--
Les Cargill

On Mon, 12 Dec 2022 09:51:13 -0000, David Brooks <David.is@home.now> wrote:

> On 11/12/2022 21:21, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Dec 2022 21:16:03 -0000, Les Cargill <lcargil99@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>> Why is bluetooth 5 throughput (2Mbps) much lower than data rate
>>>> (48Mbps)?
>>>>
>>>> I can understand a small difference, but a factor of 24?!?
>>>
>>> Bluetooth is largely garbage. Good enough for mice and keyboards.
>>
>> No, it's the best way to copy a photo from your phone to your PC. No
>> easier way. It should be easy through Wifi, but the programmers never
>> thought of that. They're not very bright you see.
>
> The Apple system runs faultlessly. A photograph taken on my iPhone or
> iPad is almost instantly availale for viewing on all my Apple devices,
> including my iMac.

I absolutely detest that auto synching stuff. I want stuff to go where I put it and to know what I'm putting where. Just because I take a photo on one device does not mean I'm going to want it on another. I bet you don't even know where the file is. Is it on your phone? Your computer? Both? The cloud? All of the above? What if the internet goes down, where can you find the file? And where is it? In the same folder on both devices? What if the folder structure is different? Have you now got stuff all over your computer's disk in different places you don't know about? What if you don't want another user of the computer seeing the photo you just took? What an utter mess. Computers should never ever assume what you want to do.

> You have received a response from a *Germain* fellow

Do you mean German? Germain is an old spelling of germane, which means "Related to a matter at hand, especially to a subject under discussion."

> but only on the 'uk.comp.sys.mac' Usenet group.

Some people seem to have a problem posting to more than one group. I've killfiled everyone using google groups, or any replies to them, because it's broken. It removes all other groups, breaking up the conversation.

On Mon, 12 Dec 2022 13:45:46 -0000, Les Cargill <lcargil99@gmail.com> wrote:

> Commander Kinsey wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Dec 2022 22:54:25 -0000, Les Cargill <lcargil99@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 11 Dec 2022 21:30:43 -0000, Les Cargill <lcargil99@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 11 Dec 2022 21:16:03 -0000, Les Cargill <lcargil99@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Commander Kinsey wrote:
>>>>>>>> Why is bluetooth 5 throughput (2Mbps) much lower than data rate
>>>>>>>> (48Mbps)?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I can understand a small difference, but a factor of 24?!?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bluetooth is largely garbage. Good enough for mice and keyboards.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it's the best way to copy a photo from your phone to your PC.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you say so. I've had zero problems with a nice USB cable :) Said
>>>>> cable stays plugged into the PC so it's pretty simple.
>>>>
>>>> Mine is plugged into a charger for more electricity than I get from the
>>>> computer. It also becomes unplugged when I take a photo a long way away
>>>> from the computer for some reason.
>>>
>>> Exactly.
>>
>> Exactly what? I have not agreed with you. Since I do not plug the
>> cable into the PC, it's not convenient to transfer photos with the
>> cable, so I use BT!
>>
>>>>>> No easier way. It should be easy through Wifi, but the programmers
>>>>>> never
>>>>>> thought of that. They're not very bright you see.
>>>>>
>>>>> I mean that - as you note - the base rate and throughput are only
>>>>> passingly acquainted and have quite the ratio.
>>>>
>>>> The ratio is illogical.
>>>
>>> I'd imagine with the right models you could calculate the retransmission
>>> rate or something.
>>
>> It can't be that bad. nothing else has a ratio like that.
>>
>
> Bluetooth does. I don't know of a good way for
> you to gather data to see this.

I've ordered a BT5 adapter for my PC. I'll see if the measured 2Mbit increases. If it really is way less than 48Mbit, then it's a shitty design.

On Mon, 12 Dec 2022 12:13:03 -0000, Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

> On 12/11/2022 8:47 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
>
>>>>>> No easier way. It should be easy through Wifi, but the programmers
>>>>>> never
>>>>>> thought of that. They're not very bright you see.
>>>>>
>>>>> I mean that - as you note - the base rate and throughput are only
>>>>> passingly acquainted and have quite the ratio.
>>>>
>>>> The ratio is illogical.
>>>
>>> I'd imagine with the right models you could calculate the retransmission
>>> rate or something.
>>
>> It can't be that bad. nothing else has a ratio like that.
>
> I'm still not seeing this 48 megabit thing.

Understanding, or finding a link which mentions it?

> Unless it is the
> usage of data channels for beacon/advertising or something.
> And maybe this notion is just dismissing the RF channel limitations.
>
> https://www.edn.com/bluetooth-5-more-speeds-more-range-new-rf-tests/
>
> 0x01 PHY set to LE 1M
> 0x02 PHY set to LE 2M <=== new mode, doubles datarate (which profile???)
> 0x03 PHY set to LE Coded, S=8 encoding (low data rate, higher reach)
> 0x04 PHY set to LE Coded, S=8 encoding (lowered data rate, moderate reach)
>
> Apparently a beacon has something to do with "unpaired data transfer",
> perhaps for IoT things? Do unpaired transfers use profiles ?
> Would Windows 11 have an item in protocol stack for this ?
> And so on. You still can't get Windows to do ICS (Internet Connection Sharing) over BT,
> at least automatically. And maybe that's a good thing.
>
> Windows does do Internet Connection Sharing over Wifi, between two
> PCs with Wifi adapters and no Wifi router. I did not leave this
> lashed up long enough, to test the datarate. In modern Windows
> this is a replacement for a deprecated access point feature, and
> presumably it's to make tracking us easier (the implementation
> details). In the past, you could set your own IP addresses
> on two PCs and just transfer stuff between them, without reference
> to the outside world. But... they don't want that now. They prefer
> your Windows Update to start running across a lashup, when your
> objective is to be doing something else.

But you said you got it to connect two wifi adapters together. That IS disconnected from the outside world.

On 12/12/2022 11:56 PM, Commander Kinsey wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2022 13:45:46 -0000, Les Cargill <lcargil99@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Bluetooth does. I don't know of a good way for
>> you to gather data to see this.
>
> I've ordered a BT5 adapter for my PC.  I'll see if the measured 2Mbit increases.
> If it really is way less than 48Mbit, then it's a shitty design.

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/what-bluetooth-version-is-on-my-pc-f5d4cff7-c00d-337b-a642-d2d23b082793

LMP 0 Bluetooth Core Specification 1.0b (withdrawn)
LMP 1 Bluetooth Core Specification 1.1 (withdrawn)
LMP 2 Bluetooth Core Specification 1.2 (withdrawn)
LMP 3 Bluetooth Core Specification 2.0 + EDR (withdrawn)
LMP 4 Bluetooth Core Specification 2.1 + EDR (deprecated, to be withdrawn)
LMP 5 Bluetooth Core Specification 3.0 + HS (deprecated, to be withdrawn)
LMP 6 Bluetooth Core Specification 4.0
LMP 7 Bluetooth Core Specification 4.1
LMP 8 Bluetooth Core Specification 4.2
LMP 9 Bluetooth Core Specification 5.0
LMP 10 Bluetooth Core Specification 5.1
LMP 11 Bluetooth Core Specification 5.2

"Core" means anything which is labeled "Optional"
in the spec is not supported. It's possible a
proprietary stack might support a different
feature set.

Which is different than in the past, when
the stack came on the driver CD.

It's possible a device that has Windows IoT installed,
will work differently.

"Who can say, because it's Bluetooth, an enigma wrapped in toilet paper"

Do all the modulation schemes interwork ? Or is it like
USB3, where you can't use USB3 rate, until the negotiation
using USB2 mode completes first. Does a part of the
equipment switch back and forth, like when pairing ?

Paul