2
$\begingroup$

It is quite frustrating to have multiple adapter for connecting to desktop. For example, if I want to connect my phone to desktop I need Bluetooth/wifi; why can't I just just use the Mobile's main telecommunication.

This was the case with mobile charger wherein we had to find the correct charger to charge the mobile, now no more it is the case; we can do it with MicroSD charger which is now generally available.

Can't we connect the mobile to desktop (or other way round) each other without the need to have Bluetooth or Wifi (We do have Wireless Modem from telecom companies which work on Mobile's main telecommunication.

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ i don know for sure but i expect the cell bands are heavily regulated , allocated to specific carriers, so they can not be used for "local" comunication. $\endgroup$
    – agentp
    Commented Aug 5, 2016 at 11:40
  • $\begingroup$ but short range (50/100/250/... meters ) gsm modem can be developed; which can work on internet/mobile (for LONGER range communication) only if connected to regulated device... what about friend's mobiile communicating with friend's internet dongle... $\endgroup$
    – Googol Plex
    Commented Aug 5, 2016 at 16:11
  • $\begingroup$ It's very simple to turn off Wifi and Bluetooth and use your 3G/4G data connection only to reach your desktop. You have to add portforwarding rules to your DSL router in order to reach your desktop. And unless you're using a VPN connection, both your telco provider and your ISP can inspect your packets. Not to forget, that the connection is much slower. $\endgroup$
    – ott--
    Commented Aug 5, 2016 at 19:24
  • $\begingroup$ @ott howabout a ssh connection? $\endgroup$
    – joojaa
    Commented Aug 5, 2016 at 20:26
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @joojaa That's possible too. Needs portforwarding too. $\endgroup$
    – ott--
    Commented Aug 5, 2016 at 20:31

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
1
$\begingroup$

Several reasons.

Firstly: They're designed for different purposes. It's basically the same reason individual power tools are usually better than all-in-ones. Sacrafices in one aspect are used for gains in another. For example, bluetooth is optimised for flexibility at the expense a bit of bandwidth.

Also different frequencies have different properties. Higher frequencies tend not to go through obstacles so well, but can provide higher bandwidth. Mixing protocols on one frequency won't work.

Protocols such as GSM are designed to cope with more simultaneous users than WiFi, which is required because if the range it needs to work over to be practical.

If you think about the requirements if Bluetooth, WiFi and GSM, and tried to merge them into one, you'd find the electronics would be more expensive, things would interfere with each other more, and there would be no more space left in the airwaves

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ "...if Bluetooth, WiFi and GSM, and tried to merge them into one, you'd find the electronics would be more expensive....". Then it is better that we have only GSM/CDMA to communicate. If we keep 2 GSMs in same Iron box they wont communicate with the tower but they will communicate with themselves and may be with the computer; in the box, having Internet Dongle.... Please excuse me for concepts in Engineering; I am from Non Engineering background. $\endgroup$
    – Googol Plex
    Commented Aug 6, 2016 at 14:10
  • $\begingroup$ OH GOD!!! On right hand side list; I Just saw Li-Fi tooooo... This getting Sacry...MayBe; I will stop using SmartPhones!! $\endgroup$
    – Googol Plex
    Commented Aug 6, 2016 at 14:28
1
$\begingroup$

Several reasons but mostly bandwidth and speed.

  • It makes sense to keep all communication channels as short and local as possible. This reduces likelihood of interference, channel contention and cost.
  • It offers improved bandwidth and data transfer speed.
  • The local solution requires no maintenance. Once you've paid for your WiFi or Bluetooth device that's it. Once you go to someone else's tower you are going to have to pay.
  • Communications can be private.
  • Communications can be low power.
Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

Different frequency ranges have different characteristics. Using Phone frequencies is like shouting really really loud. Other phones are shouting too, so you need to take turns shouting. But this does not really answer why you could not do it.

WiFi is a different frequency band that has a much shorter range than GSM, it also penetrates objects less. This is a good thing because it means that the number of networks that overlap is smaller. Of you were to use Mobile ranges then the systems would have a pretty long reach which would make you see quite many more personal stations. This would be a mess, since you would lose out on connection speed as you would need to share your space with more users. You are already seeing problems with WiFi in densely populated buildings with lots of home networks. Imagine multiplying that problem by including every station in a multi kilometer range. This can give you some idea why you would want to avoid using Mobile ranges.

I'm not really convinced Bluetooth is needed. However it is designed to be very very cheap so it's easy to add to quite many places. It is also pretty low powered so that is a plus.

A second reason is the phone frequencies are owned by the phone company, in some cases they paid thousands of millions of dollars for the ownership. In essence using this range is like trespassing in a factory. The owners will not look at this very favorably. Simply it is illegal, you can end up having a lengthy and costly talk with government officials if you mess up on this space too much. Since you are using a wavelength that has quite considerable range your unlicensed use will be heard for several kilometers, the phone company will know.

There is also a third reason. Innovation and developmental reasons. If we all converged to using one standard then there would be a much slower development cycle.

So in the end what you ask would be possible. Just not very practical, and more expensive for you as end user. It is also a question of how we have chosen to allocate resources, it may be that selling the ranges to private operators ultimately will be a bad thing.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.