Problems using My Ooma? Ideas on how we can make it better? You’ve come to the right place.
#110166 by Telo_BK
Tue May 21, 2013 9:43 pm
Thanks for taking your valuable time, parity_bit, to explain Bluetooth and bug reports.

I didn't say an "ordinary" rep issued a bug report. It went to Engineering, and evidently they determined it was a bug.

Bluetooth headsets are worn by humans (this is the "person" in "Personal Area Network (PAN)"). Humans move around (sometimes out of range due to distance or obstacles). That's the practical reality of how Bluetooth operates. Properly implemented Bluetooth compatible devices are designed and programmed to take that into account. Otherwise Bluetooth wouldn't be so widely deployed. When that happens (and it happens a lot), Telo re-sequences the ordinal numbers of the headsets. Instead they should tie that ordinal number to the Headset's built-in MAC address (which is fixed per-headset, and for practical purposes, unique), assigning it when each headset is paired. Then the prefix will never change. Hence- Ooma made the bug report.

I hope that clarifies it and puts to rest the troubling notion that Ooma's engineers are toiling to fix a non-existent bug- or worse- are snowing their customers into believing they're going to fix this. "Pairs with", and "works with" are not the same. "It worked in the lab", or "there are lots of bugs..." aren't satisfying to customers who expect (or even need) the product they bought on a risk-free trial to "do what it says". The product has been on the market since 2010. I'd never get away with letting something like this get out of the lab (nor would I want-to).

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests