h a l f b a k e r yThis would work fine, except in terms of success.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
There's this thing called Bluetooth which is a confusing and massively complicated specification that is supposed to ultimately make our lives easier.
The boffins that originally came up with the idea had the goal of replacing unnecessary cables. The philosophy was: setting it up would be as easy
as plugging in a cable.
Somewhere along the line, this ideal got forgotten because the whole palaver is a painful mess of "searching" for "discoverable" devices on the airwaves before we can "pair" to them. Once that's done, hopefully the two things should plug themselves together automatically from then on.
But if we wanted that process to be as simple as plugging in a cable, why not make it actually consist of nothing more than plugging in a physical cable? If the "pairing" handshake were done by wired connection, this would also have security benefits, as that's the part that's most vulnerable to wireless snooping. Most devices already have a USB port, so suggested is the re-use of that port for the following scenario:
- I buy a shiny new wireless headset, and I want to connect it to my phone
- The headset has a USB port for charging, the phone also has a USB port
- I plug a cable from one USB to the other USB, and some digital ones and zeros go up and down the cable
- I unplug the cable, and the headset can continue be used wirelessly with the phone
This has probably already been thought of, and is also possibly redundant due to other technologies replacing and fixing these things.
[link]
|
| |
Auto-pairing ? Put this up as an RFC, it might get into the next version. |
|
| |
You'd need a USB OTG adapter/cable for the phone, because they're normally a client, not a host - but that's about it, hardware wise. |
|
| |
USB is more than just a cable; it is also a communications
protocol. Bluetooth is an entirely different communications
protocol, and I don't know if it has one of USB's key
features, the ability to handle/distinguish the connections
of many devices to one computer port. |
|
| |
This is about pairing, though; a one-off PtP connection is ideal.
OK, the USB connection might be routed through a hub, but the
"new device found" protocol will handle that. |
|
| |
Once passcodes have been agreed between host and client, job
done. |
|
| |
This is simple and practical, thus making it entirely unsuitable for
the Halfbakery. |
|
| |
Suggested title change "Bluetooth Auto-pairing Via USB". |
|
| |
There's your problem, right there. |
|
| |
" ... and with that admission, your Honour, we submit that the case of the Crown versus Ian Tindale is proven beyond reasonable doubt ... " |
|
| |
//Bluetooth is an entirely different communications protocol// |
|
| |
That just means we're tunnelling one protocol through another -
which happens all the time. It's just one more level on the jenga-
stack of protocols - right? |
|
| |
... just another brick in the wall. |
|
| |
//That just means we're tunnelling one protocol through
another - which happens all the time. It's just one more
level on the jenga- stack of protocols - right?// |
|
| |
If you want to pair something a long way away, some form
of USB over IP and a few hundred feet of CAT6 should cover
it. Could probably even charge by converting USB to PoE.
How's the wifi version of PoE coming along? |
|
| |
// How's the wifi version of PoE coming along? // |
|
| |
Mr Tesla had it working perfectly back in 1906, but Vested Interests killed the project ... |
|
| |