08-08-11 08:02 PM
50 12
tools
  1. GJW's Avatar
    So all the new handsets are now announced with official specs published...and not a single word about wifi hotspot functionality!

    This still smells like RIM is trying to maintain a unique value proposition for the combo of the Playbook and Blackberry handsets. Think about it, neither iOS nor Android support bluetooth DUN (dial up networking). By removing the wifi hotspot feature, the Playbook is the only tablet on the market that can leverage bluetooth or usb tethering capabilities of BB handsets.

    Perhaps I'm being overly cynical, but this stinks! Every modern handset today supports wifi hotspot functionality. Why else would RIM exclude this functionality? All the early leaked materials we saw when info first came out about these new handsets highlighted the hotspot feature...and then suddenly, it all went quiet. Not a word from RIM about its disappearance!

    For me, this is a MAJOR feature that might be the straw that breaks the camel's back for me with respect to staying loyal to RIM.

    Who else feels cheated by this omitted feature?
    08-03-11 09:02 PM
  2. calicocat2010's Avatar
    As been said before, RIM is not in charge of this, it's the Carriers. The Carriers determine if they want to add in a Wifi Hotspot.
    08-03-11 09:13 PM
  3. ILUMINATIUNDEAD's Avatar
    What is a hot spot anyways and how much does it cost

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    08-03-11 09:46 PM
  4. T
    Carriers may very well have a lot to do with it. Sprint doesn't even allow tethering on my Simply Everything calling and data plan.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    08-03-11 10:14 PM
  5. lssanjose's Avatar
    What is a hot spot anyways and how much does it cost

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    Basically a wireless access point from which devices can gain internet access

    Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk
    08-04-11 03:22 AM
  6. Rootbrian's Avatar
    Carriers have the ultimate say on what works and what doesn't, which REALLY sucks. RIM isn't to blame. Maybe the FCC didn't want that capability? Who knows. They all went through them BEFORE the carriers get them.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    08-04-11 03:52 AM
  7. GJW's Avatar
    Android phones galore sport wifi hotspot functionality - if you notice, some of the launch materials DO talk about tethering - which some carriers don't allow (or charge for).

    So why would wifi hotspot capabilities be such a huge problem that RIM is forced to remove it completely?

    I don't buy the argument since even the iPhone now supports it.
    08-04-11 04:31 AM
  8. howarmat's Avatar
    Even if its up to the carriers, there was no mention of the functionality being built into the phone which to me means they never were able to write in the code to support the feature
    08-04-11 04:59 AM
  9. DaveyDoo's Avatar
    WiFi Mobile hotspots were mentioned on Crackberry back in March and from the look of the screenshots were pretty far advanced. I don't buy that the carriers have told RIM to remove this functionality given the numer of Android phones that have WiFi hotspot functionality.

    Surely it's up to RIM to develop this functionality and then the carriers to "turn it off" if they don't allow it.

    I live in hope that this will come to BB soon, but maybe I'm too much of an optimist.
    08-04-11 05:26 AM
  10. ILUMINATIUNDEAD's Avatar
    So if I'm correct... Your paying for wifi? I just use my home wifis connection.. Its not like wifi can follow me to school or anything

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    08-04-11 07:43 AM
  11. jlb21's Avatar
    Enze, do mix up connecting a phone to a wi-fi hotspot with USING your phone as a wi-fi hotspot (via the cell network).

    At home, your phone can connect to your wi-fi. With the hotspot functionality on a phone, you can use your phone to "serve" up internet access to OTHER devices (i.e., a PlayBook, a friend's device, a laptop, etc).
    08-04-11 07:46 AM
  12. DaveyDoo's Avatar
    So if I'm correct... Your paying for wifi? I just use my home wifis connection.. Its not like wifi can follow me to school or anything

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    No, its free to use WiFi (its a selling point for O2!!!), but if you share your data connection with other people via WiFi, then you're going to potentially have a higher data bill.

    If BBs had a mobile hotspot, you could turn your BB into a WiFi hotspot anywhere.
    08-04-11 08:10 AM
  13. jimpilot's Avatar
    Just isn't something I am willing to pay extra for (on Verizon) so it doesn't matter IMO. If I'm out of wi-fi range the bridge is good enough.
    08-04-11 10:00 AM
  14. DenverRalphy's Avatar
    As been said before, RIM is not in charge of this, it's the Carriers. The Carriers determine if they want to add in a Wifi Hotspot.
    False. Carriers may determine how you use it and how the consumer will be billed for it, but they have no control over the device's capability to do so.

    I can't think of any carriers (in North America anyway) that flat out refuse WiFi tethering in any form.
    08-04-11 10:18 AM
  15. rrrebo's Avatar
    False. Carriers may determine how you use it and how the consumer will be billed for it, but they have no control over the device's capability to do so.

    I can't think of any carriers (in North America anyway) that flat out refuse WiFi tethering in any form.
    Why do you think CDMA BlackBerries had no WiFi until, what, the Tour? Verizon would not allow it! VZW would not buy any wifi-enabled devices from RIM. Period. Carriers are the primary customers who purchase devices from RIM. They pretty much call the shots to a large degree.
    08-04-11 10:35 AM
  16. lssanjose's Avatar
    Why do you think CDMA BlackBerries had no WiFi until, what, the Tour? Verizon would not allow it! VZW would not buy any wifi-enabled devices from RIM. Period. Carriers are the primary customers who purchase devices from RIM. They pretty much call the shots to a large degree.
    This is different from RIM developing a phone; while Verizon asks RIM to castrate it. See the. Curve line, and GPS
    Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk
    08-04-11 10:41 AM
  17. DenverRalphy's Avatar
    Why do you think CDMA BlackBerries had no WiFi until, what, the Tour? Verizon would not allow it! VZW would not buy any wifi-enabled devices from RIM. Period. Carriers are the primary customers who purchase devices from RIM. They pretty much call the shots to a large degree.
    That was what... 2 years ago? What does that have to do with devices not having WiFi tethering built into devices today? In case you missed it, all the carriers are allowing WiFi enabled devices and WiFi tethering abilities now.
    08-04-11 11:14 AM
  18. bbmark's Avatar
    I just have a really hard time agreeing with the post that lack of wi-fi hotspot functionality is carrier driven. Rogers in Canada allows for that on android and iPhones, so clearly that's not the issue here. I would tend to agree with the poster who said that RIM is trying to keep the exclusive bridge functionality with the playbook. Having said that though, there are people, like myself who have, gasp, a blackberry and an iPad. Therefore, the lack of wi-fi hotspot functionality is a deal breaker when I'm looking at upgrading to their new phones or not.

    As much as I was excited to see and hear about the new phones, I was more interested to see if the new software would allow for new features like this. Sadly, it looks more like an evolution of BB6.

    Adding wi-fi hotspot would have just been another reason to stick with BB and now I'm not so sure.
    08-04-11 11:59 AM
  19. rrrebo's Avatar
    That was what... 2 years ago? What does that have to do with devices not having WiFi tethering built into devices today? In case you missed it, all the carriers are allowing WiFi enabled devices and WiFi tethering abilities now.
    That is just an example of how carriers absolutely DO have control over device capabilities. VZW used to cripple Bluetooth in firmware when BT first came out. There was a class-action lawsuit for that. Mind you, that was a feature built into the device by Motorola, but Verizon didn't want their customers using it.

    VZW has stated in the past that their network was so good their customers had no need for wifi. When RIM started developing BlackBerries with wifi, VZW wasn't buying them. So they got RIM to develop devices without it expressly for them.

    Why is it so hard to believe that carriers may not want to allow BlackBerries to have hotspot capabilities? I don't know if it's fact, but it is most certainly a possibility.
    08-04-11 12:28 PM
  20. Tre Lawrence's Avatar
    That would DEFINITELY impact my purchasing decision. Heck, one reason I picked BlackBerry originally was for wired tethering capability.

    Now that I know how useful wireless tethering is, it is something I refuse to be without.
    08-04-11 12:51 PM
  21. T
    That would certainly affect my purchasing decision as far as carriers are concerned. (If hotspot meant that much to me.) But why would VZW be opposed to Bluetooth???

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    08-04-11 01:21 PM
  22. DenverRalphy's Avatar
    That is just an example of how carriers absolutely DO have control over device capabilities. VZW used to cripple Bluetooth in firmware when BT first came out. There was a class-action lawsuit for that. Mind you, that was a feature built into the device by Motorola, but Verizon didn't want their customers using it.

    VZW has stated in the past that their network was so good their customers had no need for wifi. When RIM started developing BlackBerries with wifi, VZW wasn't buying them. So they got RIM to develop devices without it expressly for them.

    Why is it so hard to believe that carriers may not want to allow BlackBerries to have hotspot capabilities? I don't know if it's fact, but it is most certainly a possibility.
    A carrier can freely choose not to carry a device, or to limit a device's ability to perform a function on their network if they so choose. But what they can not do is dictate what features a manufacturer builds into their own products.

    A carrier like VZW can custom order a device with specific feature sets all they wish if the manufacturer is willing to take their order. But it has absolutely nothing to do with whether a manufacturer decides to design and build certain device capabilities in their own products.

    The question posed in this thread is why BB doesn't have WiFi tethering. The carriers do not mandate the decision. At best, the carriers can choose not to carry the product or custom order their own device.
    08-04-11 01:32 PM
  23. Tre Lawrence's Avatar
    That would certainly affect my purchasing decision as far as carriers are concerned. (If hotspot meant that much to me.) But why would VZW be opposed to Bluetooth???

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    If I recall correctly, VZW used to cripple BT to prevent "fraud." Yes... they were looking out for their customers. They wanted to protect them from bluejacking.

    What I think they were trying to protect was their money stream from charging folks extra at the time to email pictures (versus transfer to computer via bluetooth). Also, they wanted to stop Palm users (Treo?) from Bluetooth modem capabilities.
    08-04-11 01:33 PM
  24. rrrebo's Avatar
    A carrier can freely choose not to carry a device, or to limit a device's ability to perform a function on their network if they so choose. But what they can not do is dictate what features a manufacturer builds into their own products.

    A carrier like VZW can custom order a device with specific feature sets all they wish if the manufacturer is willing to take their order. But it has absolutely nothing to do with whether a manufacturer decides to design and build certain device capabilities in their own products.

    The question posed in this thread is why BB doesn't have WiFi tethering. The carriers do not mandate the decision. At best, the carriers can choose not to carry the product or custom order their own device.
    So if Big Red tells RIM "We will choose not to purchase any BlackBerry with hotspot capability. Make us one without it." you don't think that has ANY influence over what RIM chooses to commit its resources to producing?

    If a smartphone is designed in the forest, but no carrier wants it, does it make a sound?
    08-04-11 02:02 PM
  25. DenverRalphy's Avatar
    So if Big Red tells RIM "We will choose not to purchase any BlackBerry with hotspot capability. Make us one without it." you don't think that has ANY influence over what RIM chooses to commit its resources to producing?

    If a smartphone is designed in the forest, but no carrier wants it, does it make a sound?
    Why should it? It didn't influence manufacturers of other platforms now did it?

    It didn't slow down the other manufacturers, and what happened? VZW adopted their devices. And who was it that fell in market share to two other platforms who built what they were going to build regardless what carriers may think?
    08-04-11 02:31 PM
50 12
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD