Switch off WiFi and Bluetooth PERMANENTLY from Sonos One

Yes, you can use the feature - you use it when you set up the system. It is just not used for music.

You could buy a Gen 1 One or a Play:1 - bit speakers do without bluetooth.

Which Sonos speaker do you have? How were you able to confirm that Bluetooth stays on? 

Just have found another interesting piece for this thread. Reading next devices manuals, looking for one with BT off switching, there is a sentence: 

“About Bluetooth communications
Radio waves broadcast from this unit may interfere with the operation of medical devices. Make sure you turn off the power of this unit and Bluetooth device in the following locations as radio wave interference may cause malfunctions.
- Hospitals, trains, aircraft, petrol kiosks, and places where flammable gases are generated
- Near automatic doors and fire alarm”

So many potential clients are excluded this way. The possibility of switching off BT would stop their protests with banners “Network speakers for everyone!”, “Ethernet rulez!”  ;-)

Anybody who is so obviously unaffected that they can carelessly throw $200+ of electronics in the trash, and yet are angry enough to bother to register here and say so in their very first post, should be ignored.  

No warranty either.

Extreme, destructive measures for eliminating a tiny amount of RF energy (the clue is in the name ‘BLE’) when there’d doubtless be more from neighbour WiFi signals. And that’s assuming one doesn’t have WiFi of one’s own (which happens to be a Sonos system requirement). 

Hi,
I'm not a fan of tinfoil hats, but I was also interested - for other reasons - in acquiring a network speaker without BT.

Interestingly, the possibility of turning off BT is justified by the manufacturers of some speakers. I found this by searching the manuals of various devices. For example, Denon in one of its (more expensive) devices allows you to turn off both Wi-Fi and BT, justifying it in the instructions:

“Stopping Bluetooth receiver and transmitter functions reduces a source of noise that affects sound quality, enabling higher sound quality playback.”

In my case, there was another argument - I didn't want other residents of the student house (whom I don't know) to scan my equipment (intentionally or not), not to try to connect, get to know what equipment I use, etc.

In addition, we have more and more devices emitting radiation in the same ranges, which, as the example of Wi-Fi 2.4 shows, over time leads to interference at such a level that it makes work difficult.

Unfortunately, I haven't found any speakers on the market that have only Ethernet), except those intended for installation in cafes, airports, halls (definitely not for audiophiles ;-) ). So I'm stuck with speakers like these.

And now, assuming that:
- we are free people, also free to choose equipment ;-)
- the economy is based on free market principles
it would be better for Sonos to add the option to disable BT before another manufacturer does it and takes away part of the market :-)

There is one more aspect, when searching the specifications of various speakers or the connections modules (e.g. Denon, WiiM), I noticed that even if there is an option to turn off BT, it does not apply to the BT module responsible for detecting/initiating the speakers. This module (often BLE) works non-stop, fully reporting not only to household members, but also to neighbors/tenants about our equipment. It cannot be turned off. Sometimes it is strange, because, for example, the second-generation Sonos One speaker lacks BT in its specification, but in fact it has a BT BLE module for communication with the phone...
One more example, Denon in its "Home 150" speaker automatically turns off BT if it is inactive for 20 minutes, but it is not known whether there is an additional BLE module running non-stop and whether we still have emissions after turning it on for these 20 minutes (unfortunately on Denon there is not any forum like this one, there is no one to ask, questions to their support are answered by their AI...).

In my humble opinion, all this is due to laziness - both producers and users, the former want to limit their support before the flood of questions "why can't I see my speaker", the latter want everything to work without the need to consult the manual.

So we can only appeal to the manufacturer (if they read this forum?) for more flexible solutions. As the old saying goes - a satisfied customer will always return to the seller, a dissatisfied customer will never return.

Greetings to all!

OK, show me those statistics :-)
I'm joking of course. Research shows that many consumers rationalize their expectations after purchasing, in other words, people justify to themselves that what was previously a lack for them is not really the case. It costs them less commitment than processing returns, than admitting a mistake in the purchase. Our brain takes care of us so that we don't go crazy :-)
Rather, the idea is that an additional product feature can attract new audiences (before someone else attracts them).
However... I'm a realist and I think that, diplomatically speaking, Sonos will treat arguments like mine as moderately important :-)

The inverse square law applies. So in today’s environment in this case with walls, furniture and wiring, the impact of other devices including cell phones will be lessened. Cell phones may be concern however as in areas of poor reception such as flats, they will increase their radiation output when ‘engaging’ with a cell tower, even when not in use. So if the phone is not in use, it is best to leave it in a different room as mitigation. Electro hypersensitive people have ‘degrees’ of symptoms and are good barometers for localised EMF. The Quantum Biology research at The University of Surrey has in 2022 (before your post) ratified and confirmed mitigation with the inverse square law in mind.
Whilst it is best practice not to live in areas of high population density, the fear mongering of reports saying cell phones, smart meters or wifi of neighbours is just as bad is alarmist considering the below:-
“𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐠𝐧𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐟𝐢𝐞𝐥𝐝, 𝐬𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐚𝐬 𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐨𝐫 𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐨 𝐰𝐚𝐯𝐞𝐬, 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐪𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐞. 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐟 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐝𝐨𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐜𝐞, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐛𝐞 𝐨𝐧𝐞-𝐟𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭𝐡 𝐚𝐬 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐠.”

The subject of EHS has been misunderstood over the years due to the limitations of investigative techniques and measurement techniques in the past. The emergence of Quantum Biology (University of Surrey in the UK and elsewhere) is confirming the sensitivity of people in different measure. The manifestation of symptoms varies especially for neurological conditions. Myelin sheath which is underdeveloped (in children it is almost non existence until reaching 20+ years old is a synapse protection plays a big part symptoms.
As a simplistic comparison, people have varying degrees of sensitivity to sunlight, X-Rays, fluorescent light and blue light from LED and screens. The blue light receptor melanopsin is in the eye and recently discovered in skin and subcutaneous fat, adding to the science that we didn’t know only 20 years and less ago.    The apparent lack of sensitivity in some people masks the problems caused when our body physiology, controlled by electrochemical processes at a mitochondrial level. This is the domain of quantum biology the emergence of which is not taught in medical school. In fact, chemistry, biology and physics are closely intertwined but not addressed. Evidence is emerging from the Large Hadron collider in Switzerland which confirms how physics is closely related to biology and has tremendous effects on our cellular body signalling.  Dr Doug Wallace the father of mitochondrial research , responsible for the term ‘Mitochondrial Eve’, the tracking of human development through our maternal DNA refers to the epigenetic influences of mitcohondial DNA on our genomic DNA. We are adding to the soup of epigenetic adverse health influences. Bio chemical cellular activity is adversely influenced by our use of tec.
Wikipedia is not a good resource on this occasion as it is outdated very quickly in the new fields of research.

Business speculations certainly make some sense, but I am wondering about the logic of this whole situation.

Namely, it is impossible for a speaker to use two (or even three) media at the same time.

Therefore, it is logical to turn off those media that we do not use, at least to save energy (I deliberately do not want to write that for ecology, because the topic is as controversial as the impact of radiation on living cells ;-) ). Not to mention the reduction of the endlessly growing interference in the airwaves, or the issue of making public what equipment each neighbor has.
Only logic and consistency. Or the lack thereof.

They allow us to turn off Wi-Fi, but not BT - what could be the reason for such manufacturers' logic?

Earlier I described the issue of laziness on both sides, but I still have the issue of some threshold that cannot be overcome. Maybe BT BLE chips are designed from the beginning in such a way that they cannot be turned on/off programmatically because someone assumed that? (no... probably no...).

P.S.

I am wrong, BLE can be switched off, I have a smart watch, a Garmin, which has a BLE, used for all functions of communication between smart watch and smartphone. That is the only transmission medium of that watch. No other one. And you know what? I can switch off that BLE in smartwatch, really. This is the kind od logic I love :-)

Maybe, but it doesn't mean it could not be switched off, see my smartwatch example above.