![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Again this stupid challenging the style of reporting and writing. Yes, it might be biased to read about news and novelties, as market did not prove survivability. But Darwin did not report that criticaster have a longer standing in evolution. Look, an encyclopedia is not a museum. Hence it is highly appreciated, when 1. state of the art 2. moves in the world e.g. of technologies 3. specifics of a novelty are reported in the context of an encyclopedic article. May flash stroke all those Wikipedia policemen who like to complain about style deficiencies and being at the very same time obviously unable and unwilling to contribute to improvement. Keep your ugly minds out (not all reporting is advertisement) and your lazy hands off (only improving is helpful). Wireless friend ( talk) 11:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to the authors for the wide span of contents. And shame to the interested parties that complain and do not contribute. Two months passed and no contribution recognized. Do it better or keep hands off. Tags deleted. Wireless friend ( talk) 08:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I took the freedom to remove the "too technical" complaint tag. Who on Earth is afraid of reading specification data? I am so happy to read more than the ordinary "more or less" statements with reference to Charles Darwin or Carl Linnaeus. Wonderful Wireless friend ( talk) 11:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
That line on the table doesn't mean much without defn. I *think* it means best time to connect, send one byte, and disconnect again William M. Connolley ( talk) 10:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Might I suggest this section be reworded? It's quite hard to follow at the moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.141.100.24 ( talk) 19:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
The top of the article and the first table talks about BLE having a range of 50 m, while the second table talks about it having 200 m. Which one would be correct? A scan of the specifications from bluetooth.org doesn't give any straight answers (not that it should, given the multitude of factors that affects range of wireless signals), but I'd be inclined to believe it to be 50 m more than 200 m, since it is 'Low Energy' (Classic Bluetooth being 100 m for Class 1, as a comparison). I'll change the 200 m to 50 m for now, to reduce confusion. If there are references to the contrary, please revert and update! SiriusExcelsior ( talk) 23:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that the table gives power in units of mA (milliamperes), which of course can't be correct. I suspect the writer meant mW (milliwatts), though if that's the case, then it's not clear where s/he got the "15" figure or "power consumption" as the row heading, as the Bluetooth spec document only specifies output power (measured at the antenna terminal), and gives it as .01 to 10 mW (-20 to +10 dBm).
I'd like to update the table, but the row also contains information about NFC, which is based on ISO standards to whose documents I don't have access unless I purchase them (and they're expensive). I'll leave it to someone who already has that information to make the needed changes.
Marktomory ( talk) 00:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
An editor claimed on a Bluetooth edit summary that wibree as a name is obsolete. If so, it might be good for it to be noted here. But... do we actually need a separate article? In any event, I removed the wibree link from the Bluetooth page, as it linked directly to the BLE article. Shajure ( talk) 21:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
From several newsletters, e.g. from rutronik.com I get the impression, that Bluetooth Low Energy was renamed to Bluetooth SMART? Is this correct? Should the article be renamed from Bluetooth low energy to Bluetooth SMART? Addtional info e.g. [1] Michilans ( talk) 06:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
The referenced link to Samsung Galaxy S2 specifications lists Bluetooth 3.0+HS, while I believe Bluetooth Low Energy is a part of Bluetooth 4.0? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.136.66 ( talk) 09:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I think the S3 is the first Samsung phone to support BT SMART. Phooto ( talk) 12:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Thing is that I currently have a DevKit on my desk from NordicSemi. The nRF51822 which is BLE single mode. There are Apps out there for Android and iOS. I found that it works on IPhone 4S (stated as BT Smart Ready) and above (iOS5 and iOS6). And the problem with Andoid and BLE is known. Somehow it works with the Samsung GS3. It seems that Samsung implemented some sort of API which allows the app of NordicSemiconductor (called nRF Utility) actually to work on the Galaxy SIII. If anyone of you are interested in it, search the app in the Google Play store. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.112.126.34 ( talk) 06:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Seeing as these are core to BT SMART operation, should there be a section about GATT here? Phooto ( talk) 12:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I found this section very confusing, hard to even discern the author's intent. Don't want to edit it without understanding though, can anyone chime in? Teslacuted ( talk) 00:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I think this should be trimmed / deleted William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
This page seems a bit rambling, and says the same thing in different ways e.g. there are two slightly contradictory comparison tables. What the hell does "unilateral estimation serves for good discrimination of cohesion in operational context" mean, anyway?
I propose to take an axe to this page, and extract the useful content into the following sections:
Please comment here if you're have a particular attachment to the current layout of the page. I'll hold off if you make your objections clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IanHarvey ( talk • contribs) 11:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
This has now been started. I've had a big shuffle of the existing content, although I haven't modified or deleted any of the text. Each section (particularly 'Positioning' and 'Applications') now needs individual attention. IanHarvey ( talk) 11:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I've just taken a big axe to this section as threatened, hope you like it.
Anyway, my thoughts are:
IanHarvey ( talk) 16:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I've deleted 'Operational Advantage', 'Keeping Pace' and 'Standardisation', as I felt they didn't say anything meaningful:
I'm also confused by the current 'comparison with NFC', as the two technologies are wildly different. For instance, there doesn't appear to be (e.g. on the GATT profiles page) any LE profile which addresses NFC-type applications such as mass transport, stored-value cards, or entry badges. Somebody convince me otherwise, please?
IanHarvey ( talk) 19:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Is it worthwhile to list all manufacturers sdks? HTC also has had support for BLE for some time. I am generalizing the Samsung reference to include multiple manufacturers TheMaestro73 ( talk) 15:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
So, it looks like Samsung are dropping their own BLE SDK in favour of Google's in Android 4.3 and later. I heard about this by email from Samsung; there's also a small note in the middle of http://developer.samsung.com/ble next to 'Migration Guide'. I'm not sure what HTC are doing. IanHarvey ( talk) 16:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I removed the section on security because the only provided source looked of questionable reliability, though it's an important topic to address that the article would do well to have. Does anyone have any corroborating information to add? Samyulg ( talk) 17:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Under Radio interface it is mentioned, that BLE uses DSSS instead of FHSS. Is that really correct? The mentioned source of this information is outdated I think (it is from 2011).
In the latest specification V 4.2 on page 16 to 20 (chapter 1.2 OVERVIEW OF BLUETOOTH LOW ENERGY OPERATION) you can find: Like the BR/EDR radio, the LE radio operates in the unlicensed 2.4 GHz ISM band. The LE system employs a frequency hopping transceiver to combat interference and fading and provides many FHSS carriers. LE radio operation uses a shaped, binary frequency modulation to minimize transceiver complexity. The symbol rate is 1 megasymbol per second (Ms/s) supporting the bit rate of 1 megabit per second (Mb/s).
Further you cannot find anything about DSSS in the latest specification for BLE (only for AMP). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sla1580 ( talk • contribs) 20:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Are you sure, that BLE uses only 15 channels? I have checked that and in the latest standard at Vol 6, Part A page 15 you can find:
That is also what I know. I have also checked some literature now and those are also talking about FHSS in connection with BLE. See for (one) example Getting Started with Bluetooth Low Energy, page 16 first par. after the figure.
Further see this page and search for "BLE still operates in the same ISM" (without ") - it´s "chapter" 3 - Bluetooth Low Energy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sla1580 ( talk • contribs) 07:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Alright then - let's leave it there. Sla1580 ( talk)
The table says that Bluetooth LE/Smart has a maximum throughput of 0.27Mbps, which is probably true if Data Length Extension from 4.2 is not supported. But it is much higher with Data Length Extension in 4.2. I have seen an early test doing 750kbps, but I think it should do around 800kbps in theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.185.61.94 ( talk) 23:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
https://www.bluetooth.com/news/pressreleases/2015/11/11/bluetooth-technology-to-gain-longer-range-faster-speed-mesh-networking-in-2016 William M. Connolley ( talk) 17:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Re Bluetooth 5 will quadruple the range, double the speed, and provide an eight-fold increase in data broadcasting capacity{{clarify|date=May 2017} there's a fair amount of unclarity around this. But since the spec is now out, nothing is hidden, so:
William M. Connolley ( talk) 09:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I was bit confused initially reading the article by the names used within. The article title is Bluetooth Low Energy, but most of the content uses Bluetooth Smart (the marketing name). It seems to me Bluetooth Low Energy should be used consistently throughout. Or if Bluetooth Smart really is the commonly used name now (not my impression) the article should be renamed, with Low Energy noted in the lead. Dbsseven ( talk) 21:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Bluetooth Smart WAS a marketing name for Bluetooth Low Energy, but it has been withdrawn afterwards. So either full name should be used, or Bluetooth LE if shorter form is desired. Btw, BLE is incorrect as well according to Bluetooth SIG. There is a branding document on Bluetooth webpage btw. MichalHobot ( talk) 21:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
"Bluetooth Low Energy" appears dozens of time in this article. This is an awkward noun. For readability, I'm tempted to shorten some of those to "Bluetooth LE" or "BLE". ~ Kvng ( talk) 20:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
From time to time I get to the end of an article and feel more confused than when I started reading it. Having chortled my way though this talk page, now I know why.
By the way, now see what you've done. MinorProphet ( talk) 13:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
The topic of security is important and needs discussion. A section on this was deleted in 2014 due to concerns about the reliability of the reference. I have reinstated it as it was, but with an up-to-date and reliable reference. It probably needs attention; but it's such an important issue that even an empty stub-section Security section is better than nothing for now. The original reference [1] had detailed information and seemed useful, though it was dismissed as unreliable.
I'm not expert on the topic, so won't do much with this section beyond simply recopying it in. [Added: but I later expanded the section with information about BT LE security risks when used for covid-19 tracking]
Subject to my being completely wrong, there are I think two issues:
memo explained how an NHS app could work, using Bluetooth LE, a standard feature that runs constantly and automatically on all mobile devices, to take “soundings” from other nearby phones through the day. People who have been in sustained proximity with someone who may have Covid-19 could then be warned and advised to self–isolate, without revealing the identity of the infected individual.
However, the memo stated that "more controversially" the app could use device IDs, which are unique to all smartphones, "to enable de-anonymisation if ministers judge that to be proportionate at some stage". It did not say why ministers might want to identify app users, or under what circumstances doing so would be proportionate.
It added that alternatives to building an NHS app included "making use of existing apps and other functions already installed on people’s phones (eg Google Maps)."
Over and out, Pol098 ( talk) 14:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, this is important and this feature running silently on phones has widespread ramifications. Captain Macheath ( talk) 14:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
The current section is stating things that aren't even relevant to the source. It needs to be completely revised and more sources are needed. Until it is properly done it should be deleted. 47.144.150.134 ( talk) 17:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
I have heard that BLE is normally enabled on a phone even if Bluetooth is not. I'd ask those who know to add to this article and related articles Digital contact tracing#Bluetooth proximity tracing, Contact tracing#Mobile phones some sourced information on this in a prominent place (introduction and body). If it's already there and I've missed it, apologies but maybe it's not prominent enough. Possible answers are Bluetooth needs to be enabled; BLE is always enabled even if BT is not; it depends upon the particular operating system/phone ROM/phone hardware. By the way, this would also be a security issue if always on. Pol098 ( talk) 11:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
Again this stupid challenging the style of reporting and writing. Yes, it might be biased to read about news and novelties, as market did not prove survivability. But Darwin did not report that criticaster have a longer standing in evolution. Look, an encyclopedia is not a museum. Hence it is highly appreciated, when 1. state of the art 2. moves in the world e.g. of technologies 3. specifics of a novelty are reported in the context of an encyclopedic article. May flash stroke all those Wikipedia policemen who like to complain about style deficiencies and being at the very same time obviously unable and unwilling to contribute to improvement. Keep your ugly minds out (not all reporting is advertisement) and your lazy hands off (only improving is helpful). Wireless friend ( talk) 11:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to the authors for the wide span of contents. And shame to the interested parties that complain and do not contribute. Two months passed and no contribution recognized. Do it better or keep hands off. Tags deleted. Wireless friend ( talk) 08:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I took the freedom to remove the "too technical" complaint tag. Who on Earth is afraid of reading specification data? I am so happy to read more than the ordinary "more or less" statements with reference to Charles Darwin or Carl Linnaeus. Wonderful Wireless friend ( talk) 11:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
That line on the table doesn't mean much without defn. I *think* it means best time to connect, send one byte, and disconnect again William M. Connolley ( talk) 10:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Might I suggest this section be reworded? It's quite hard to follow at the moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.141.100.24 ( talk) 19:13, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
The top of the article and the first table talks about BLE having a range of 50 m, while the second table talks about it having 200 m. Which one would be correct? A scan of the specifications from bluetooth.org doesn't give any straight answers (not that it should, given the multitude of factors that affects range of wireless signals), but I'd be inclined to believe it to be 50 m more than 200 m, since it is 'Low Energy' (Classic Bluetooth being 100 m for Class 1, as a comparison). I'll change the 200 m to 50 m for now, to reduce confusion. If there are references to the contrary, please revert and update! SiriusExcelsior ( talk) 23:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that the table gives power in units of mA (milliamperes), which of course can't be correct. I suspect the writer meant mW (milliwatts), though if that's the case, then it's not clear where s/he got the "15" figure or "power consumption" as the row heading, as the Bluetooth spec document only specifies output power (measured at the antenna terminal), and gives it as .01 to 10 mW (-20 to +10 dBm).
I'd like to update the table, but the row also contains information about NFC, which is based on ISO standards to whose documents I don't have access unless I purchase them (and they're expensive). I'll leave it to someone who already has that information to make the needed changes.
Marktomory ( talk) 00:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
An editor claimed on a Bluetooth edit summary that wibree as a name is obsolete. If so, it might be good for it to be noted here. But... do we actually need a separate article? In any event, I removed the wibree link from the Bluetooth page, as it linked directly to the BLE article. Shajure ( talk) 21:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
From several newsletters, e.g. from rutronik.com I get the impression, that Bluetooth Low Energy was renamed to Bluetooth SMART? Is this correct? Should the article be renamed from Bluetooth low energy to Bluetooth SMART? Addtional info e.g. [1] Michilans ( talk) 06:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
The referenced link to Samsung Galaxy S2 specifications lists Bluetooth 3.0+HS, while I believe Bluetooth Low Energy is a part of Bluetooth 4.0? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.136.66 ( talk) 09:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I think the S3 is the first Samsung phone to support BT SMART. Phooto ( talk) 12:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Thing is that I currently have a DevKit on my desk from NordicSemi. The nRF51822 which is BLE single mode. There are Apps out there for Android and iOS. I found that it works on IPhone 4S (stated as BT Smart Ready) and above (iOS5 and iOS6). And the problem with Andoid and BLE is known. Somehow it works with the Samsung GS3. It seems that Samsung implemented some sort of API which allows the app of NordicSemiconductor (called nRF Utility) actually to work on the Galaxy SIII. If anyone of you are interested in it, search the app in the Google Play store. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.112.126.34 ( talk) 06:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Seeing as these are core to BT SMART operation, should there be a section about GATT here? Phooto ( talk) 12:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I found this section very confusing, hard to even discern the author's intent. Don't want to edit it without understanding though, can anyone chime in? Teslacuted ( talk) 00:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I think this should be trimmed / deleted William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
This page seems a bit rambling, and says the same thing in different ways e.g. there are two slightly contradictory comparison tables. What the hell does "unilateral estimation serves for good discrimination of cohesion in operational context" mean, anyway?
I propose to take an axe to this page, and extract the useful content into the following sections:
Please comment here if you're have a particular attachment to the current layout of the page. I'll hold off if you make your objections clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IanHarvey ( talk • contribs) 11:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
This has now been started. I've had a big shuffle of the existing content, although I haven't modified or deleted any of the text. Each section (particularly 'Positioning' and 'Applications') now needs individual attention. IanHarvey ( talk) 11:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I've just taken a big axe to this section as threatened, hope you like it.
Anyway, my thoughts are:
IanHarvey ( talk) 16:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I've deleted 'Operational Advantage', 'Keeping Pace' and 'Standardisation', as I felt they didn't say anything meaningful:
I'm also confused by the current 'comparison with NFC', as the two technologies are wildly different. For instance, there doesn't appear to be (e.g. on the GATT profiles page) any LE profile which addresses NFC-type applications such as mass transport, stored-value cards, or entry badges. Somebody convince me otherwise, please?
IanHarvey ( talk) 19:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Is it worthwhile to list all manufacturers sdks? HTC also has had support for BLE for some time. I am generalizing the Samsung reference to include multiple manufacturers TheMaestro73 ( talk) 15:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
So, it looks like Samsung are dropping their own BLE SDK in favour of Google's in Android 4.3 and later. I heard about this by email from Samsung; there's also a small note in the middle of http://developer.samsung.com/ble next to 'Migration Guide'. I'm not sure what HTC are doing. IanHarvey ( talk) 16:35, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I removed the section on security because the only provided source looked of questionable reliability, though it's an important topic to address that the article would do well to have. Does anyone have any corroborating information to add? Samyulg ( talk) 17:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Under Radio interface it is mentioned, that BLE uses DSSS instead of FHSS. Is that really correct? The mentioned source of this information is outdated I think (it is from 2011).
In the latest specification V 4.2 on page 16 to 20 (chapter 1.2 OVERVIEW OF BLUETOOTH LOW ENERGY OPERATION) you can find: Like the BR/EDR radio, the LE radio operates in the unlicensed 2.4 GHz ISM band. The LE system employs a frequency hopping transceiver to combat interference and fading and provides many FHSS carriers. LE radio operation uses a shaped, binary frequency modulation to minimize transceiver complexity. The symbol rate is 1 megasymbol per second (Ms/s) supporting the bit rate of 1 megabit per second (Mb/s).
Further you cannot find anything about DSSS in the latest specification for BLE (only for AMP). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sla1580 ( talk • contribs) 20:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Are you sure, that BLE uses only 15 channels? I have checked that and in the latest standard at Vol 6, Part A page 15 you can find:
That is also what I know. I have also checked some literature now and those are also talking about FHSS in connection with BLE. See for (one) example Getting Started with Bluetooth Low Energy, page 16 first par. after the figure.
Further see this page and search for "BLE still operates in the same ISM" (without ") - it´s "chapter" 3 - Bluetooth Low Energy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sla1580 ( talk • contribs) 07:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Alright then - let's leave it there. Sla1580 ( talk)
The table says that Bluetooth LE/Smart has a maximum throughput of 0.27Mbps, which is probably true if Data Length Extension from 4.2 is not supported. But it is much higher with Data Length Extension in 4.2. I have seen an early test doing 750kbps, but I think it should do around 800kbps in theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.185.61.94 ( talk) 23:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
https://www.bluetooth.com/news/pressreleases/2015/11/11/bluetooth-technology-to-gain-longer-range-faster-speed-mesh-networking-in-2016 William M. Connolley ( talk) 17:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Re Bluetooth 5 will quadruple the range, double the speed, and provide an eight-fold increase in data broadcasting capacity{{clarify|date=May 2017} there's a fair amount of unclarity around this. But since the spec is now out, nothing is hidden, so:
William M. Connolley ( talk) 09:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
I was bit confused initially reading the article by the names used within. The article title is Bluetooth Low Energy, but most of the content uses Bluetooth Smart (the marketing name). It seems to me Bluetooth Low Energy should be used consistently throughout. Or if Bluetooth Smart really is the commonly used name now (not my impression) the article should be renamed, with Low Energy noted in the lead. Dbsseven ( talk) 21:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Bluetooth Smart WAS a marketing name for Bluetooth Low Energy, but it has been withdrawn afterwards. So either full name should be used, or Bluetooth LE if shorter form is desired. Btw, BLE is incorrect as well according to Bluetooth SIG. There is a branding document on Bluetooth webpage btw. MichalHobot ( talk) 21:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
"Bluetooth Low Energy" appears dozens of time in this article. This is an awkward noun. For readability, I'm tempted to shorten some of those to "Bluetooth LE" or "BLE". ~ Kvng ( talk) 20:27, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
From time to time I get to the end of an article and feel more confused than when I started reading it. Having chortled my way though this talk page, now I know why.
By the way, now see what you've done. MinorProphet ( talk) 13:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
The topic of security is important and needs discussion. A section on this was deleted in 2014 due to concerns about the reliability of the reference. I have reinstated it as it was, but with an up-to-date and reliable reference. It probably needs attention; but it's such an important issue that even an empty stub-section Security section is better than nothing for now. The original reference [1] had detailed information and seemed useful, though it was dismissed as unreliable.
I'm not expert on the topic, so won't do much with this section beyond simply recopying it in. [Added: but I later expanded the section with information about BT LE security risks when used for covid-19 tracking]
Subject to my being completely wrong, there are I think two issues:
memo explained how an NHS app could work, using Bluetooth LE, a standard feature that runs constantly and automatically on all mobile devices, to take “soundings” from other nearby phones through the day. People who have been in sustained proximity with someone who may have Covid-19 could then be warned and advised to self–isolate, without revealing the identity of the infected individual.
However, the memo stated that "more controversially" the app could use device IDs, which are unique to all smartphones, "to enable de-anonymisation if ministers judge that to be proportionate at some stage". It did not say why ministers might want to identify app users, or under what circumstances doing so would be proportionate.
It added that alternatives to building an NHS app included "making use of existing apps and other functions already installed on people’s phones (eg Google Maps)."
Over and out, Pol098 ( talk) 14:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, this is important and this feature running silently on phones has widespread ramifications. Captain Macheath ( talk) 14:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
The current section is stating things that aren't even relevant to the source. It needs to be completely revised and more sources are needed. Until it is properly done it should be deleted. 47.144.150.134 ( talk) 17:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
I have heard that BLE is normally enabled on a phone even if Bluetooth is not. I'd ask those who know to add to this article and related articles Digital contact tracing#Bluetooth proximity tracing, Contact tracing#Mobile phones some sourced information on this in a prominent place (introduction and body). If it's already there and I've missed it, apologies but maybe it's not prominent enough. Possible answers are Bluetooth needs to be enabled; BLE is always enabled even if BT is not; it depends upon the particular operating system/phone ROM/phone hardware. By the way, this would also be a security issue if always on. Pol098 ( talk) 11:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)