[ToniCipriani]

Thought I'd leave this here, since DTEK60 is allegedly BlackBerry's first USB-C phone, and given the mess USB-C is.

List of safe to use USB-C cables.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing
https://plus.google.com/102612254593...ts/1PJZT2g61Ag

[Dunt Dunt Dunt]

Thanks... have heard of a lot of issues with USB-C. Both with cables and with manufactures and what USB-C really means... not all manufactures enable it to do the same thing.

[ToniCipriani]

The biggest problem is non-conforming cables with incorrectly wired shorts and resistors, enabling higher voltages and currents, in turn damaging equipment.

[ToniCipriani]

Also:
What to look for when buying USB-C cables and adapters | Android Central

[illlya]

Also:
What to look for when buying USB-C cables and adapters | Android Central

Always trying to out do somebody

Posted via the CrackBerry App for Android

[Joao Oliveira]

So buying an USB-C isn't as straight forward as the old mucro-usb?

[tickerguy]

They should be but....

Posted via the CrackBerry App for Android

[anon(1852343)]

Thanks OP

Blackberry Passport Running 10.3.2.2813

[ToniCipriani]

Always trying to out do somebody

Posted via the CrackBerry App for Android

Ummm... what?

[Johnny Li]

Can find any of the ones that have Suggested = 3... Guess they're not out yet?

[liquidneon]

The biggest problem is non-conforming cables with incorrectly wired shorts and resistors, enabling higher voltages and currents, in turn damaging equipment.

what in the hell!? really?!? i thought basically all cables are the same crap! glad I read this. I just bought 3 from eBay for like $5 thinking it'd make no difference! glad I read this lol.

So I probably shouldn't use these?!?
1M USB-C USB 3.1 Type-C Male Data sync Charger Cable For Nexus 5X/6P Oneplus 2 | eBay 1M USB-C USB 3.1 Type-C Male Data sync Charger Cable For Nexus 5X/6P Oneplus 2 | eBay

what a pissoff. my bundle came with the standard Phone bundle (phone+headset+charger+usb cable) as well as a case, AND a travel charger ONLY (no 2nd USB cable). I wish they didn't cheap out on the 2nd cable. Now i need to go looking for a specific USB cable?

[tickerguy]

MOST USB A-C cables are ok; they have the required 56k resistor in them.

There are a few (chineesium) ones that were built when USB-C first came out as "straight through", which was the correct setup for A-B cables to enable "AC Adapter" charge mode. That's WRONG for an A->C cable, but some people didn't bother reading the specs when they started building cables for Type C connectors.

It only matters if you (1) plug into a non-rate-limited current source with a Type A socket (not very common) and (2) the device does not negotiate or recognize one of the "quick charge" protocols (e.g. such as a laptop with a Type C port.)

QC does not rely on the resistor to negotiate charge voltage and current.

[liquidneon]

lol thanks BB:

"My DTEK60 came w/ 2 chargers, but 1 USB charging cable (Type C). How do I buy more? I don't see them in your store. Please recommend a cable I can buy, as I need more than one, and you do not offer them online. Furthermore, type C cables are known to cause issues with hardware if the wrong one is purchased.
thanks in advance.

BlackBerryHelp
Thanks for contacting @BlackBerryHelp. Your DTEK60 uses standard USB Type-C. USB 2.0 fully supported with standard USB Type C to USB Type A cable. As we do not sell charging cable, you might be able to buy one from 3rd party sellers. However, due to our policy, we would not be able to recommend or endorse any 3rd party seller. If you choose to buy one, make sure after the plug it in, your device is working properly. ^SI

[Menage]

Yes, USB-C is a scary, wild west of manufacturing screw ups, with an extremely drastic downside: frying your brand new device. Cheap USB-C cables and accessories are definitely NOT worth the risk, or saving a few bucks.

The other thing I've learned after reading a lot of Benson's material (he's invaluable), is that he also doesn't recommend any QuickCharge devices, on princple. They don't strictly conform to the USB-C standard, so he can't review them. So you're on your own. Stick to name brands with high positive reviews on Amazon.

[tickerguy]

Meh.

There is little risk with charge-only things (e.g. QC3.0 chargers)

Where the risk exists is with USB Type C things that support data too (e.g. upcoming and even maybe present laptops with Type C ports.) The issue has to do with the USB PD (power delivery) spec. It allows up to 100 watts of power delivery (negotiated) but the spec for Type C specifically disallows tampering with Vbus (which QC does) via any proprietary mechanism.

But in fact there's very little actual risk of a meltdown because the chargers that can vary Vbus (for QC2.0 and QC3.0) don't carry data (at all.) Data-providing devices (E.g. a laptop with a Type C port) won't negotiate USB PD because the phone doesn't know how to do it, and thus will charge at a maximum rate of 15 watts (3A @ 5V), also spec-compliant.

Just buy cables that have the proper pull-up resistor in them. Most do these days. And use chargers that are current-limited (most decent ones are) in case you get a bad cable.

Yes, phones that are using QC on a Type C port are violating the USB Type C connector specs. All of them. But as to whether it's likely to screw you, the answer is no.

[liquidneon]

Just buy cables that have the proper pull-up resistor in them. Most do these days. And use chargers that are current-limited (most decent ones are) in case you get a bad cable.

I appreciate the info, but please realize most people don't know what to look for and where.
If you have any recommendations for any specific cables for purchase, please share! I need to grab a few of them, as I had several for my previous 4 or 5 phones.

[Blackwidowman]

I got an OTG adapter and a couple of USB-C adapters (blue) from Canada Computers. I keep one adapter with me.

[liquidneon]

I got an OTG adapter and a couple of USB-C adapters (blue) from Canada Computers. I keep one adapter with me.

Great - do you have a link to the specific one which is compatible/safe for charging/data transfer on DTEK60?

Do OTG adapters require any specifications?

[tickerguy]

I appreciate the info, but please realize most people don't know what to look for and where.
If you have any recommendations for any specific cables for purchase, please share! I need to grab a few of them, as I had several for my previous 4 or 5 phones.

The point is that there is very little (read: none) risk with a QC charger, even if the resistor is wrong because the charger negotiates with the device.

Where the risk exists is with non-QC chargers that also have no current limiting, or with USB C port-equipped devices that break the rules (Type C port equipped chargers should *not* support QC at all as doing so breaks the spec; they may support USB-PD, but no phones I'm aware of do, so their maximum charge rate is 3A@5V or 15W and a QC2.0 or 3.0 charger is actually faster @18W maximum.) I don't know how many of the latter exist. Non-QC Type A chargers do exist, of course, and may have an incorrect cable plugged into them.

The easiest answer to this is to use a QC-compatible charger and the risk is to the charger, not the phone.

The pack of cables I bought from Aukey is out of stock at Amazon..... but all work well.

[LuvULongTime]

I ended up buying these ones from Amazon. They were tested and approved by Benson Leung. I just got them yesterday and haven't used them yet. They feel like good quality tho. Not flimsy at all.

https://www.amazon.ca/gp/product/B00...UvbUpU12668465

Benson's review:

https://www.amazon.com/review/R26RCO...UvbUpU12668465

[Blackwidowman]

For the micro to c adapter:
http://www.canadacomputers.com/produ...item_id=090240

For the OTG:
http://www.canadacomputers.com/produ...item_id=094502

OTG didn't need anything special plug and play, I use ES explorer

[tickerguy]

For those on the ledge and about to jump off on this, Benson is garfing over a point in which he is correct on a technical basis but it is very unlikely to bite you ​in the context of a phone.

He's "correct" in that breaking specs has the potential to, in the future, cause a lot of pain. This is the central point of his complaint, and in that he's correct. But the fault here does not lie with Qualcomm and phone makers, it lies with USB-IF, the group that sets standards for USB. They sat on this issue for years and it was only about a year ago that they finalized USB-PD (the power-delivery spec for Type C connectors.) Yet the need for higher-power options for USB charging has existed for a very long time. You simply cannot realistically expect phone makers and chipset makers (e.g. Qualcomm, which makes most of the chipsets used in said phones) to sit on their hands and ignore the market. The real world doesn't work like that.

So what Qualcomm did was look at the world as it is and put forward two separate specs to deal with the world as it is, since they were not about to put up with a 7.5 watt maximum charge rate for phones for the last several years and neither were you.

Now you have people garfing about it, but the reality of it is that the actual *risk* of trouble from what Qualcomm did approximates zero, and using USB Type C ports on phones means that over coming years you'll enjoy single-connector solutions that are going to make your life far more convenient.

Why?

Because the only place you will ever see QuickCharge is on a charger that has no data capacity (it's just a charger.) So while varying Vbus voltage via any means other than USB-PD on a Type C connector is a violation of the USB-IF specs, those specs were written after QC was introduced and had been in the market for several years. It is thus USB-IF that broke backward compatibility, but even though they did so the risk of that violation actually causing trouble is very close to zero. USB-IF IMHO should have included QC optionality for charge-only connections, but didn't -- they instead stuck a blanket prohibition in the spec for varying Vbus except via the USB-PD protocol.

Those who are thinking they ought to jump off a ledge are simply wrong. The only real risk related to phones is with a non-QC charger (only a charger) that is not current limited at all in combination with an improperly-wired A-C cable. That has the potential to smoke the charger, not the phone. Such combinations are likely to be very rare.

There is a more-real risk for those with laptops and other similar devices that have Type C ports on them. With those you need to be careful with the cables you buy; improper negotiation in such a case could conceivably smoke the laptop if it is capable of sourcing current -- and most of them are.

[gallopiton]

Sir , if you don't mind, can you post again the link for the cables you got? I know you did before in another thread but I don't seem to find the link now... thanks!

Edit: never mind, I found the link

The point is that there is very little (read: none) risk with a QC charger, even if the resistor is wrong because the charger negotiates with the device.

Where the risk exists is with non-QC chargers that also have no current limiting, or with USB C port-equipped devices that break the rules (Type C port equipped chargers should *not* support QC at all as doing so breaks the spec; they may support USB-PD, but no phones I'm aware of do, so their maximum charge rate is 3A@5V or 15W and a QC2.0 or 3.0 charger is actually faster @18W maximum.) I don't know how many of the latter exist. Non-QC Type A chargers do exist, of course, and may have an incorrect cable plugged into them.

The easiest answer to this is to use a QC-compatible charger and the risk is to the charger, not the phone.

The pack of cables I bought from Aukey is out of stock at Amazon..... but all work well.

[LuvULongTime]

For those on the ledge and about to jump off on this, Benson is garfing over a point in which he is correct on a technical basis but it is very unlikely to bite you ​in the context of a phone.

He's "correct" in that breaking specs has the potential to, in the future, cause a lot of pain. This is the central point of his complaint, and in that he's correct. But the fault here does not lie with Qualcomm and phone makers, it lies with USB-IF, the group that sets standards for USB. They sat on this issue for years and it was only about a year ago that they finalized USB-PD (the power-delivery spec for Type C connectors.) Yet the need for higher-power options for USB charging has existed for a very long time. You simply cannot realistically expect phone makers and chipset makers (e.g. Qualcomm, which makes most of the chipsets used in said phones) to sit on their hands and ignore the market. The real world doesn't work like that.

So what Qualcomm did was look at the world as it is and put forward two separate specs to deal with the world as it is, since they were not about to put up with a 7.5 watt maximum charge rate for phones for the last several years and neither were you.

Now you have people garfing about it, but the reality of it is that the actual *risk* of trouble from what Qualcomm did approximates zero, and using USB Type C ports on phones means that over coming years you'll enjoy single-connector solutions that are going to make your life far more convenient.

Why?

Because the only place you will ever see QuickCharge is on a charger that has no data capacity (it's just a charger.) So while varying Vbus voltage via any means other than USB-PD on a Type C connector is a violation of the USB-IF specs, those specs were written after QC was introduced and had been in the market for several years. It is thus USB-IF that broke backward compatibility, but even though they did so the risk of that violation actually causing trouble is very close to zero. USB-IF IMHO should have included QC optionality for charge-only connections, but didn't -- they instead stuck a blanket prohibition in the spec for varying Vbus except via the USB-PD protocol.

Those who are thinking they ought to jump off a ledge are simply wrong. The only real risk related to phones is with a non-QC charger (only a charger) that is not current limited at all in combination with an improperly-wired A-C cable. That has the potential to smoke the charger, not the phone. Such combinations are likely to be very rare.

There is a more-real risk for those with laptops and other similar devices that have Type C ports on them. With those you need to be careful with the cables you buy; improper negotiation in such a case could conceivably smoke the laptop if it is capable of sourcing current -- and most of them are.

Thanks!

So, if I may summarize for you:

1. Charging with a QC compliant wall charger will not fry the phone even if a non-compliant cable is used. Worst case is that the charger will blow not the phone.

2. Greater care must be taken when using non-compliant cables connected to laptops. In this case, the laptop can become damaged if a bad cable is used. (What about the connected phone?)

Please correct the above as required.

[liquidneon]

Thanks!

So, if I may summarize for you:

1. Charging with a QC compliant wall charger will not fry the phone even if a non-compliant cable is used. Worst case is that the charger will blow not the phone.

2. Greater care must be taken when using non-compliant cables connected to laptops. In this case, the laptop can become damaged if a bad cable is used. (What about the connected phone?)

Please correct the above as required.

haha thank you for the summary. I hope you are correct! I have 2 OEM BB CHARGERS... will be using no-name (prob Chinese) cables... sounds like I should be OK... otherwise I'll buy some of the ones posted.