In Canada, you can get TWO Bluetooth handsets, the Sony T68i, and the Treo. Here, these handsets cost as much as lots of people pay PER YEAR for cellular service. Even the
T68i typically runs C$500.

You can't get access points, just laptop adapters. (I suppose I can order them from the U.S., but that would likely mean the access point costs more than a computer.)

You can get Bluetooth in some handheld devices - iPaqs, as an example. But without something to talk to, what's the point? And if I have a Treo, will I get an iPaq to go with it?

The whole profile thing is confusing. I will readily confess that I don't get it (lack of devices, what's the point), but it looks a lot like "Bluetooth" is not enough of a statement to ensure compatibility.

Bluetooth adapters for laptops are typically more expensive than WiFi, for less range and lower speed - 750kbps was the highest I found quoted. For a home DSL or cable user, that would mean a local limit that is lower than their net connection. And, of course, WiFi access points are both available and growing cheaper.

Sandisk should be shipping the SDIO WiFi adapter this month. That will WiFi enable many devices that up to now only had BT as an option.

Basically, Bluetooth seems to have aimed too narrowly. They tried to build a solution to a particular problem - cable clutter - while the industry was off reinventing devices so that everything was just wireless. BT was outflanked, and has tried to recover, but it seems poorly suited as a general wireless network solution, and the time it to took to stabilize BT for that function has left them way behind. Bluetooth still seems to do ok for single cable replacement, but the downward trend on device prices in general has left BT high and dry. It might have been ok a couple of years ago, but now it seems like a BT option is a lot of money for what you get.

That said - things seem a lot different in Europe, where BT handsets seem relatively cheap, and WiFi doesn't have the same buzz.