multiple laptops connecting to net via bluetooth smartphone

Hello, I'd like to know if it is possible for two to six laptops
(piconet) to connect to the 3G internet smartphone via bluetooth. If
not, is it a limitation of Bluetooth 2.0? BT 1.2? Or a limitation
placed by cellular carriers? Spacey

Spacey Spade wrote:
> Hello, I'd like to know if it is possible for two to six laptops
> (piconet) to connect to the 3G internet smartphone via bluetooth. If
> not, is it a limitation of Bluetooth 2.0? BT 1.2? Or a limitation
> placed by cellular carriers? Spacey

Why not establish the internet connection on Laptop 1 via BT and then
network the remainder to share Laptop 1's internet connection?

Unquestionably Confused wrote:
> Spacey Spade wrote:
> > Hello, I'd like to know if it is possible for two to six laptops
> > (piconet) to connect to the 3G internet smartphone via bluetooth. If
> > not, is it a limitation of Bluetooth 2.0? BT 1.2? Or a limitation
> > placed by cellular carriers? Spacey
>
> Why not establish the internet connection on Laptop 1 via BT and then
> network the remainder to share Laptop 1's internet connection?

To give one reason... if I want to share my connection with friends
anywhere I go, I have to lug around cables and a switch/router.

Spacey Spade wrote:
> Unquestionably Confused wrote:
>> Spacey Spade wrote:
>>> Hello, I'd like to know if it is possible for two to six laptops
>>> (piconet) to connect to the 3G internet smartphone via bluetooth.
>>> If not, is it a limitation of Bluetooth 2.0? BT 1.2? Or a
>>> limitation placed by cellular carriers? Spacey
>>
>> Why not establish the internet connection on Laptop 1 via BT and then
>> network the remainder to share Laptop 1's internet connection?
>
> To give one reason... if I want to share my connection with friends
> anywhere I go, I have to lug around cables and a switch/router.

Not even close....

For instructs on how to do it search for ad hoc networking (you are thinking
infrastructure)

Try this at http://www.moorestuff.us/Networking/ad_hoc02.htm

Setting Up an Ad Hoc Network

Making the Wireless Home Network Connection in Windows XP Without a Router


Install a Simple Peer-to-Peer Wireless Network


Sharing an IP Address Using a Single Computer


How to prevent the Network Setup Wizard from creating a bridge in Windows XP

Network Setup
Install a Simple Peer-to-Peer Wireless Network
Follow these instructions to connect several computers without using a
router or hub.

You can set up a simple peer-to-peer network without a router and still
communicate with other computers on your home wireless network. In this
environment, computers on the network communicate in "Ad Hoc" mode without
the help of additional hardware, as long as each system has a network
interface card that supports the same wireless network protocol

Peter Pan wrote:
> Spacey Spade wrote:
> > Unquestionably Confused wrote:
> >> Spacey Spade wrote:
> >>> Hello, I'd like to know if it is possible for two to six laptops
> >>> (piconet) to connect to the 3G internet smartphone via bluetooth.
> >>> If not, is it a limitation of Bluetooth 2.0? BT 1.2? Or a
> >>> limitation placed by cellular carriers? Spacey
> >>
> >> Why not establish the internet connection on Laptop 1 via BT and then
> >> network the remainder to share Laptop 1's internet connection?
> >
> > To give one reason... if I want to share my connection with friends
> > anywhere I go, I have to lug around cables and a switch/router.
>
> Not even close....
>
> For instructs on how to do it search for ad hoc networking (you are thinking
> infrastructure)
>
> Try this at http://www.moorestuff.us/Networking/ad_hoc02.htm
>
> Setting Up an Ad Hoc Network
>
> Making the Wireless Home Network Connection in Windows XP Without a Router
>
>
> Install a Simple Peer-to-Peer Wireless Network
>
>
> Sharing an IP Address Using a Single Computer
>
>
> How to prevent the Network Setup Wizard from creating a bridge in Windows XP
>
> Network Setup
> Install a Simple Peer-to-Peer Wireless Network
> Follow these instructions to connect several computers without using a
> router or hub.
>
> You can set up a simple peer-to-peer network without a router and still
> communicate with other computers on your home wireless network. In this
> environment, computers on the network communicate in "Ad Hoc" mode without
> the help of additional hardware, as long as each system has a network
> interface card that supports the same wireless network protocol

Bluetooth and WiFi will interfere with each other.
>From http://www.edn.com/article/CA629312.html
Both wireless protocols operate in the 2.40- to 2.48-GHz ISM
(industrial, scientific, and medical) RF band. WiFi uses one of 12
overlapping channels of 22-MHz bandwidth each, and Bluetooth
frequency-hops among 79 1-MHz channels evenly spaced across the band.
As a result, no matter which channel of WiFi is in use, a risk exists
of interference between the two that will result in lowered data
throughput for both.

Spacey Spade wrote:
>> From http://www.edn.com/article/CA629312.html
> Both wireless protocols operate in the 2.40- to 2.48-GHz ISM
> (industrial, scientific, and medical) RF band. WiFi uses one of 12
> overlapping channels of 22-MHz bandwidth each, and Bluetooth
> frequency-hops among 79 1-MHz channels evenly spaced across the band.
> As a result, no matter which channel of WiFi is in use, a risk exists
> of interference between the two that will result in lowered data
> throughput for both.

While BT 1.0 and 1.1 may interfere, BT 2.0 will not... And that's what the
newer phones use (2.0)

Peter Pan wrote:
> Spacey Spade wrote:
>>> From http://www.edn.com/article/CA629312.html
>> Both wireless protocols operate in the 2.40- to 2.48-GHz ISM
>> (industrial, scientific, and medical) RF band. WiFi uses one of 12
>> overlapping channels of 22-MHz bandwidth each, and Bluetooth
>> frequency-hops among 79 1-MHz channels evenly spaced across the band.
>> As a result, no matter which channel of WiFi is in use, a risk exists
>> of interference between the two that will result in lowered data
>> throughput for both.
>
> While BT 1.0 and 1.1 may interfere, BT 2.0 will not... And that's
> what the newer phones use (2.0)

Oooops, hit enter for I could tell you why... A good info article is
available at
http://www.bluetomorrow.com/content/section/17/69/


A many paragraph document, but basically one sections answers your
comments/question about conflict

Bluetooth enabled devices, which all use the "hopping" method, change
frequencies 1,600 times per second. As a result, more devices can use a
portion of the radio spectrum.

The risk of a device like a cell phone or baby monitor interfering with
Bluetooth devices is minimized, since any interference on a specific
frequency will last for only a fraction of a second.

Bluetooth version 2.0 + EDR, the very latest of the Bluetooth specification
versions, uses an enhanced technology called: Adaptive Frequency Hopping
(AFH).

AFH allows Bluetooth devices to measure the quality of the wireless signal
and then determine if there are bad channels present on specific frequencies
due to interference from other wireless devices.

If bad channels are present on a specific frequency, the Bluetooth device
will adjust its hopping sequence to avoid them. As a result, the Bluetooth
connection is stronger, faster, and more reliable.

Peter Pan wrote:
> Peter Pan wrote:
> > Spacey Spade wrote:
> >>> From http://www.edn.com/article/CA629312.html
> >> Both wireless protocols operate in the 2.40- to 2.48-GHz ISM
> >> (industrial, scientific, and medical) RF band. WiFi uses one of 12
> >> overlapping channels of 22-MHz bandwidth each, and Bluetooth
> >> frequency-hops among 79 1-MHz channels evenly spaced across the band.
> >> As a result, no matter which channel of WiFi is in use, a risk exists
> >> of interference between the two that will result in lowered data
> >> throughput for both.
> >
> > While BT 1.0 and 1.1 may interfere, BT 2.0 will not... And that's
> > what the newer phones use (2.0)
>
> Oooops, hit enter for I could tell you why... A good info article is
> available at
> http://www.bluetomorrow.com/content/section/17/69/
[snip]
> If bad channels are present on a specific frequency, the Bluetooth device
> will adjust its hopping sequence to avoid them. As a result, the Bluetooth
> connection is stronger, faster, and more reliable.

Why do you think the Wi-Fi Ad Hoc with WinXP ICS is a better solution
than a Bluetooth Piconet?

Spacey Spade wrote:
>
> Why do you think the Wi-Fi Ad Hoc with WinXP ICS is a better solution
> than a Bluetooth Piconet?

For what it's worth, actually I didn't/don't.. I have BOTH a wifi and a
Bluetooth network set up here (a linksys wrt54g for wifi, and an anycom
ap-2002 bluetooth access point plugged into the router part of the linksys,
gives me both.. The wifi part is way faster than the BT part (handy since I
have several TERAbytes of network storage for audio and video), even the
cable (next week dsl) connections are way faster than BT.. I only use BT cuz
I have two PDA's (and one laptop with a dead wifi card, but a USB BT Dongle)
that only support BT. When traveling (in my RV) I used to just go to ad-hoc
on the laptops and share my tethered cell phone between them. (now I have a
Kyocera kr1 router that takes a cell/data card, and give me an AP whereever
I am in a pocket sized device). That first way sounded similar to what you
were originally asking (sharing one connection with multiple machines).. To
answer your q, and why I don't just use BT at home, it's a matter of
speed... When using the cable/dsl or the network storage to transfer
music/video, the wifi connection is a LOT faster than BT can handle (like
over 50 times faster).

Seems to me that if you ever want to consider getting a high speed
connection and share it, you would end up with WiFi instead of BT, why not
look into doing it before you need it?

Peter Pan wrote:
> Spacey Spade wrote:
> >
> > Why do you think the Wi-Fi Ad Hoc with WinXP ICS is a better solution
> > than a Bluetooth Piconet?
>
> For what it's worth, actually I didn't/don't.. I have BOTH a wifi and a
> Bluetooth network set up here (a linksys wrt54g for wifi, and an anycom
> ap-2002 bluetooth access point plugged into the router part of the linksys,
> gives me both.. The wifi part is way faster than the BT part (handy since I
> have several TERAbytes of network storage for audio and video), even the
> cable (next week dsl) connections are way faster than BT..

BT 2.0 is 2.1Mbit/s, which will match standard 1.5Mbit/s DSL. I don't
have lots of network storage. If on occasion I have to transfer a
large file within my network, I don't mind waiting. Waiting for
websites for an extra second drives me crazy, but the cause of that has
less to do with bandwidth than it does with ping time and waiting for a
server response.

> I only use BT cuz
> I have two PDA's (and one laptop with a dead wifi card, but a USB BT Dongle)
> that only support BT. When traveling (in my RV) I used to just go to ad-hoc
> on the laptops and share my tethered cell phone between them. (now I have a
> Kyocera kr1 router that takes a cell/data card, and give me an AP whereever
> I am in a pocket sized device).

Don't you have to pay extra for having a data card? I hear it has its
own tel number.
Also, what are ping times like? Comparing to DSL, 3G is slow not
because of bandwidth, but because ping times are 5 to 10 times greater
(on order of 500ms to a website, which I tested on a friend's laptop
connected at 114kbps via T-Mobile). What are the ping times to google
within your RV, compared to your DSL or Cable?

>That first way sounded similar to what you
> were originally asking (sharing one connection with multiple machines).. To
> answer your q, and why I don't just use BT at home, it's a matter of
> speed... When using the cable/dsl or the network storage to transfer
> music/video, the wifi connection is a LOT faster than BT can handle (like
> over 50 times faster).

Bluetooth 1.x, or 2.0? You notice this surfing the web, or downloading
a large file?

> Seems to me that if you ever want to consider getting a high speed
> connection and share it, you would end up with WiFi instead of BT, why not
> look into doing it before you need it?

I already have WiFi. Guess I'll be trying things out for myself as
well. I will overlap a couple of months having both Cable internet and
3G, but hope to move to just 3G to save money without losing mobility.
I work at home mostly. I thought it would be an experience to work in
public places. It's an effort for me to fight complacency and give
this a try... I really like all the conveniences of being in my own
place (refridgerator with snacks, cooking, shower, bed, resident cat,
printer, multiple computers, changes of clothes, etc). Say, is there a
limit on the size of RV that can park downtown at a meter (or two) or a
parking lot? Spacey

Spacey Spade wrote:

>
> Don't you have to pay extra for having a data card? I hear it has its
> own tel number.
> Also, what are ping times like? Comparing to DSL, 3G is slow not
> because of bandwidth, but because ping times are 5 to 10 times greater
> (on order of 500ms to a website, which I tested on a friend's laptop
> connected at 114kbps via T-Mobile). What are the ping times to google
> within your RV, compared to your DSL or Cable?
>
>> That first way sounded similar to what you
>> were originally asking (sharing one connection with multiple
>> machines).. To answer your q, and why I don't just use BT at home,
>> it's a matter of speed... When using the cable/dsl or the network
>> storage to transfer music/video, the wifi connection is a LOT faster
>> than BT can handle (like over 50 times faster).
>
> Bluetooth 1.x, or 2.0? You notice this surfing the web, or
> downloading a large file?
>
>> Seems to me that if you ever want to consider getting a high speed
>> connection and share it, you would end up with WiFi instead of BT,
>> why not look into doing it before you need it?
>
> I already have WiFi. Guess I'll be trying things out for myself as
> well. I will overlap a couple of months having both Cable internet
> and 3G, but hope to move to just 3G to save money without losing
> mobility. I work at home mostly. I thought it would be an experience
> to work in public places. It's an effort for me to fight complacency
> and give this a try... I really like all the conveniences of being in
> my own place (refridgerator with snacks, cooking, shower, bed,
> resident cat, printer, multiple computers, changes of clothes, etc).
> Say, is there a limit on the size of RV that can park downtown at a
> meter (or two) or a parking lot? Spacey

Wouldn't recommend a big rv (class a or class c) for downtown.. a pain on
the streets, however check into class B's (built on a van chassis)...

As for the data card, ping times are atrocious, however, it's a work
requirement and they pay for it (I do computer tech support, they pay for
the cell phone too).. Many of the places I go to in the RV are way out from
big cities, and the speed is that of 1x rather than EVDO (about 100 Kbps,
but better than traveling 40+ miles into a city to use a higher speed)..
Interestingly enuf, I have been out in the west a lot lately, and they have
HUGE wifi hotspots (like several HUNDRED square miles!) (this is in northern
Idaho, see the coverage maps at
http://www.onelasvegas.com/wireless/ID.html )... That actually works way
better/faster (when available) than the data card.. Have a USB WiFi thing on
the roof of the RV with extension cables to inside, so I can leave the cell
data card in the laptops and use the USB WiFi thing by just plugging it in.

When using the WiFi at home to transfer video/audio, it runs at about 54Mbps
between machines.. Fast enuf for small stuff, but some of the video files
are 10-20 GIGAbytes (or more)... Fraid I'm way too impatient for the slower
BT speed... Heck, I have 5 laptops, and they all have built in WiFi
(actually have 6 but the wifi died on one, and thats the one I use a BT usb
dongle on), and one PDA has both WiFi and BT (the other only has BT).. So it
made sense to do both, and the fact that I found a Bluetooth AP that plugged
into the WiFI wap/router made it perfect/easy...

Sorry if I didn't answer all your q's, I'm getting older and forget
things... That's why two pda's. so I can have task lists and notes on a
pocket sized device...
Have the 5-6 Mbps cable connection now, and the FIOS (Fiber Optic Stuff) is
being installed next week, it runs at 15-20 Mbps... Both way way faster than
BT can handle, even 2.0