Switch off WiFi and Bluetooth PERMANENTLY from Sonos One

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

Sonos One g2. I used LightBlue app on iPad with bluetooth turned on. I plugged the speaker in and out to confirm the signal I saw was from the speaker. It’s very dishonest of the company that not even their support knows about this! And I believe he genuinely didn’t know. The topic interested him intellectually.

If I am to disable the buttons etc, I would switch to the cheaper version. I have a return window and being conned by the company and then proving them wrong, and then finding this thread, is reason good enough to return it. Or an older speaker where bluetooth is not a possibility, if I decide to trust Sonos partially again.

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!

The number of supposedly dissatisfied customers who keep returning, and even keep purchasing new Sonos devices, would surprise you.  If I had a dollar for every person who claimed to toss their Sonos in the trash or sell it on e-Bay who returns months later to post a complaint about some other problem or ask about a new feature, I could buy a new Sonos immersive set.  That bunny gets threatened all the time, but he never seems to die.

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 :-)

As a veteran here for 15 years, I see most of those posters as never satisfied, only happy when they are bitching about something, or issuing idle threats to get a company to give them attention and the ego boost that goes with it.   None of whom deserves to be catered to, and Sonos has demonstrated in the past they are quite aware of this fact.

And frankly, although I have no numbers to back it up, I suspect the market for non-Bluetooth speakers is significantly smaller than it is for those who have it. Either BLE, for ease of setup, or full blown Bluetooth for carrying a music signal. If it were the other way, I suspect Sonos would have jumped on it as a money generating differentiation. So far, they haven’t, which supports my expectation.

Which isn’t to say that there isn’t such a market for that, just that it’s small enough not to appeal to the Product Managers at Sonos. I could easily see another manufacturer of smaller size grabbing that market, but I would expect due to smaller number of potential sales, the cost to the consumer would be much higher for an equivalent quality speaker. 

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 :-)

I think that a large segment of BT users assume that BT simply replaces the wire. In that context BT must be constantly available.

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