Slashdot Mirror


Palm Pre Does Not Get US Tethering Either

fermion writes "The Register is reporting that Palm has sent a note to the Pre Dev Wiki asking it to stop discussing tethering. Palm is worried that its US carrier partner, Sprint, is none too eager to have users tether the game-changing tetherable smart phone. While the communication was informal, not legal, the development forum is evidently eager to avoid any possibility of lawsuits, so has rapidly agreed. Perhaps, like the iPhone, the Pre is going have a vigorous underground. What is interesting is that the Pre, like the iPhone (allegedly), can be tethered outside of the US; but even those customers are being denied apparently lawful information to satisfy the US exclusive agents."

23 of 232 comments (clear)

  1. Ok...and? by XPeter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Was anyone really expecting the greedy phone companies to give us tethering?

    You have a better chance of TPB and Time Warner merging into one company.

    --
    "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has it's limits" - Albert Einstein
    1. Re:Ok...and? by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      My G1 tethers just fine. 3G in Dallas is phenomenal. Then again I intentionally chose a phone that wouldn't limit my choices.

      --
      "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
    2. Re:Ok...and? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's cute when an iPhone user gets miffed (who would better recognize douchiness?).

    3. Re:Ok...and? by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 4, Funny

      Was anyone really expecting the greedy phone companies to give us tethering?

      Was anyone really expecting unlimited mobile internet to include tethering?

      Does anyone really think that unlimited data for your phone and unlimited data for your laptop are really the same (or so similar) as products?

      Did people with these expectations bother to ask the salespeople to clarify or, failing that, to read their service agreement?

      Do people on slashdot always have to ask annoyingly rhetorical questions instead of simply stating what they think in declarative sentences?

      Did I just answer my own question?

    4. Re:Ok...and? by GeekWade · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Was anyone really expecting the greedy phone companies to give us tethering?

      No, but when I say to the sales guys "I will pay more if I can tether" I expect this little thing called capitalism to rear its little head and for somebody to take my money in exchange for the service that I am (wait for it....) willing to pay for! No, the incredible per kilobit fees that they threaten with in the standard "unlimited" plans do not count. Let me and the others like me pay for "unlimited+" and go upgrade your network to handle the load. When the next big thing comes along I will probably pay for that too and you can further upgrade your network. Wash, rinse, repeat...

    5. Re:Ok...and? by ahoehn · · Score: 4, Informative

      Plus, the summary does a pretty awful job of getting to the real story. I've been following the development thread and chat since the rooting of the Pre was first announced. The motivation for the development forum's choice to stop talking about tethering wasn't eagerness to avoid lawsuits, it was appreciation for the way that Palm engineers have been interacting with the "underground" community.

      Palm engineers have been involved in the unofficial dev forum threads and chat, dropping hints, giving the "hackers" knowledge that might have otherwise taken weeks or months for them to discover unaided.

      The big stories here are:
      1) Palm DIDN'T send a cease and desist. They nicely said, "Hey, if you want us to keep helping you out here, stop talking about tethering."

      2) The Pre Dev community is doing some amazing things, thanks to the fact that the Pre is essentially a little Linux box with a nifty GUI.

      3) It doesn't really matter that the affected wiki and forum aren't discussing tethering, since solutions have already been released elsewhere.

      Want to get involved yourself? Head over to the most active dev thread at Precentral.net, contribute to the Wiki, or join the chat at #webos-internals on FreeNode (irc.freenode.net).

      --
      Mod my comments down. It'll be fun.
  2. I love how it is left unsaid by gurps_npc · · Score: 4, Funny
    So many times people discuss tethering without actually describing what it means.

    For those that don't know, tethering is when you tie your phone to your computer and hit it around the computer several times, until the phone brakes your computer screen.

    Tethering is legal in all states, but some phone companies seem to object to it, so they contractually prevent you from doing this.

    Now that I have an unlimited data plan, if I could just figure out a way to use my telephone as a modem for my computer, because hey, it's my property and fair use laws means I have the legal right to view it on any sized screen I want.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:I love how it is left unsaid by TejWC · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Reasons why cell phone companies hate tethering:
      1. Youtube. When AT&T did calculations for the iPhone, they initially didn't take youtube into account and once it was available to iPhone customers, their 3 year bandwidth projection was hit in just 3 weeks (I'll look up the citation later, but you'll have to take my word on it). Now that youtube is available to many mobile devices, I would assume that they are worried that other apps (like WoW, Skype, BitTorrent) could suck up a lot of bandwidth
      2. Tethering your computer to your phone means that your cellphone could potentially be part of a botnet from your pwned windows computer.
      3. If they can legally charge you for it, why not? Many businesses are willing to pay the fee as a "cost of doing business".

    2. Re:I love how it is left unsaid by gurps_npc · · Score: 3, Informative
      The problem is that they are trying to charge people extra for something that they are legally required to let you do. It's kind of like saying "We are charging people extra for cable if you want to hook up your own personal DVR up to.

      NO. If I bought unlimited access, they I get unlimited access and I have the right to shift content I download to anywhere I want. If you don't really want to give out unlimited access, then don't lie and claim it is unlimited access. It is called Fraud when you advertise something and don't supply it.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    3. Re:I love how it is left unsaid by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If I bought unlimited access, they I get unlimited access and I have the right to shift content I download to anywhere I want.

      If you bought unlimited access, that would be true. The terms and conditions on my wireless service (Sprint w/ unlimited data but not the Pre) simply do not state this. The terms are quite clear that I have unlimited bandwidth for use on my phone but that I may not use that bandwidth from any other device (without paying for the phone-as-modem plan). No sales person ever represented otherwise to me and I would like to see some citation to a claim to the contrary which would be the linchpin of any claim of fraud.

      Your argument that you have the right to shift content to wherever you like makes no sense -- you have a written agreement with the carrier that clearly delineates the rights and responsibilities of both parties. The fact that you don't like the term or that you believe you have the "right" to ignore those terms is entirely meaningless. In fact, if you want to talk about fraud, it's breach of contrast to willfully violate the terms of your agreement with the wireless carrier.

      As a side matter, why shouldn't the carriers (provided they advertise such a service honestly) be able to sell an "unlimited internet for your mobile device" plan? If the terms are upfront and the salefolk don't lie about it, it's up to consumers to decide if such a plan meets their needs.

    4. Re:I love how it is left unsaid by Jurily · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your argument that you have the right to shift content to wherever you like makes no sense -- you have a written agreement with the carrier that clearly delineates the rights and responsibilities of both parties. The fact that you don't like the term or that you believe you have the "right" to ignore those terms is entirely meaningless. In fact, if you want to talk about fraud, it's breach of contrast to willfully violate the terms of your agreement with the wireless carrier.

      Are you sure there is a contract powerful enough to tell me I can't transfer my data from my mobile device to my computer, based on how that data got on my device?

      Either this is bullshit, or I should be lucky I don't live anywhere near there.

    5. Re:I love how it is left unsaid by tmortn · · Score: 3, Informative

      First off let me state that tethering on a contract that state 'no tethering' is clearly a violation of the terms of said contract.

      However, that being said, just because it is in a contract you sign does not make it 'right'. The idea that the service provider has a say over what happens to content I transfer via the service once it reaches my device is absurd. I seriously doubt you could claim that someone downloading a picture/video/file to their phone and then transferring it to their computer constitutes something that is illegal given said content has no restrictions (say project Gutenburg book files). And yet that is what a 'no tethering' clause claims on at least one method of such a transfer.

      There is zero difference to the service provider if a file makes it to a computer via a network request transfered by the phone or via the phone downloading the file and then transferring the file via bluetooth or usb. The phone is in both cases providing the network access to the file in question. On what grounds (other than greed) should they have any say regarding if the secondary transfer happens as the information reaches the device or shortly there after via another means of file transfer?

      Now they may have grounds to be concerned if I exceed my bandwidth allotment. The problem with that is dealing with the word 'unlimited'. When the plan states unlimited data and then buries a bandwidth cap clause in the legalese I consider that an open case as to whether or not it is 'false advertising'.

      The definition of 'unlimited' should always be clearly defined and not buried in the terms of service. I would argue that to use the word unlimited the provider must define a quality of service rate accessible for the duration of the contract. I would suggest the average transfer rate the device is capable of across the providers network times the length of the contract. Anything less should not legally be allowed to advertise as an 'unlimited' data plan.

      For example having a monthly 1gb bandwidth cap on an 'unlimited' plan attached to a device capable of downloading multiple gb's of data on any given day (before even considering tethering) is an unacceptable stretch of the term 'unlimited'. And even if they removed the word unlimited and explicitly advertised a monthly 1gb data plan they would still have no dog in the 'tethering' fight. Only the right to gig me if I exceeded 1gb of bandwidth in the alloted period of my service contract.

      Obviously for any of this to take effect challenges will have to be brought in court based on enforcement of these contract terms. Oddly enough if you read up on people that do run afoul of the 'no tethering' clause you find they are generally penalized on bandwidth grounds... not the tethering. Consequences are in my experience always driven by dealing with the bandwidth usage... ie paying for overage and/or having your account upgraded to allow for the increased usage. The reason is that the bandwidth overages are far far far easier for the service provider to pursue in court. Here is the common sense reason why. The terms of service to often explicitly state what constitutes excess bandwidth usage. They do not clearly show why 1gb of 'tethered' data is any different from 1gb of "untethered" data... because there is none.

      --
      I don't ask you to be me. I only ask you not expect me to be you.
  3. Dumb by m3rck · · Score: 5, Informative

    Sprint allows the these phones to tether:

    Blackberry 8703e, Blackberry 8130, Blackberry 8330, Blackberry 8830, 1HTC Touch, 1HTC Mogul (6800), 1HTC Apache (6700), LG Fusic LX-500, LG Muziq, Motorola KRZR, Motorola RAZR V3c, Motorola, RAZR2, Motorola Q, Motorola Q9c, Palm Centro, Palm 700w, Palm 755p, Samsung A900, Samsung A900M. Samsung A920, Samsung ACE, Samsung i830, Samsung SPH-m520,Sanyo SCP-8400. Sanyo Katana, Sanyo Katana 2, Sanyo M

    The Pre is nothing special, and Sprint has no idea what it is doning.

    1. Re:Dumb by guruevi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      None of those phones are very popular. The Blackberries are either too expensive or only for business people (who don't mind paying a lot) and are too large for most people. The Motorola's are a pain in the butt so nobody uses them, the Samsungs, Sanyo's and LG's have been reflashed with provider-specific firmware which cripples usage of the phone and makes tethering all but impossible since the Bluetooth connection is very, very slow (My Samsung did 10s for 1MB).

      The Palm Pre and the iPhone is (going to be) very popular, have fast Bluetooth and raw processing power and have the ability for user-level programs and firmware which the provider doesn't control. The iPhone can already get up to 100kbps on the average over EDGE and has promised to deliver us HDSPA (Mbit range) something the providers in the US simply aren't and really don't want to get prepared for.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  4. we've known about this for awhile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Sprint removed it from their website back in February.

    Did you really think that an industry that charges 15 cents for 50 bytes of text (IM) that could easily be stuffed into the header overhead of routine handset-to-tower comms would give you tethering for free? really?

    1. Re:we've known about this for awhile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sprint removed it from their website back in February.

      Did you really think that an industry that charges 15 cents for 50 bytes of text (IM) that could easily be stuffed into the header overhead of routine handset-to-tower comms...

      Not "could be stuffed into the header overhead", *is*. SMS messages are carried using spare capacity on the control channel (which is used to tell your phone an incoming call's coming in otherwise, and for telling it if it should change to another channel or cell site... in the other direction, the phone uses it to initiate outgoing calls.) Now, they do have it popular enough now that the control channel fills up, and they have to install a second control channel...so the cost isn't really 0 in those areas.

  5. Re:Well that doesn't surprise me one bit by camperdave · · Score: 5, Funny

    you know who else was adamantly against tethering?

    NASA?

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  6. Game-changing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Palm is worried that its US carrier partner, Sprint, is none too eager to have users tether the game-changing tetherable smart phone.

    "This phone is a game-changer. But don't talk about changing the game. The guy who owns the field will kick us all out if we do anything actually innovative. We're the players, you're the audience. We want our money from your tickets, and neither we, nor the guy who owns the field, cares if you actually see a good game. As long as the stadium's sold out, we really don't care if we forfeit the game before the coin toss."

  7. Hey carriers! I have a solution that pleases most by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Here's a simple solution I offer to all carriers free of charge.

    Write a custom tethering app for each phone, that starts a recording of the volume of data sent via tethering - give me a low price or free option for some smallish amount of data to be used via tethering, with some increasing tier thereafter.

    This would satisfy 90% of people that just want to occasionally tether a laptop at a sucky hotel or airport.

    People who want to use it as a primary ISP would of course be forced to pay more, and that is fine.

    Could people work around it easily? Why yes they could, just as they can jailbreak these phones and get tethering for free. Isn't some money better than no money?

    Would it record phone data as part of the tethering data? Yes it would but if you're tethering then you're mostly using a laptop, right?

    Furthermore unreasonable tethering prices or locking down tethering will force a LOT more people to jailbreak phones (OK, not force, but greatly encourage). Along with that come all the other network hogging behaviors in addition to tethering you never get to charge for again.

    Give us 90% of us a reasonable option for occasional tethering at low cost and everyone will be happy.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  8. Re:My VZW Blackberry can tether, what's the proble by nine-times · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why are other phone companies against tethering, or am I completely misunderstanding something?

    Simply: they want you to pay for service, but they don't want you to really use it very much. They want to charge you a hefty fee for data access, and justify the price by saying it's "unlimited", but they really don't want you to use the service very much, because lots of people using it means they have to spend money to expand their infrastructure. If you can tether it to your computer, you'll probably use more bandwidth. Obviously they'd much prefer that you paid for their most expensive data plan and then never used it at all.

  9. Re:Tethering on a G1 by Obfuscant · · Score: 3
    Last I checked, the G1 is only available through T-Mobile. The terms of their agreements PROHIBIT tethering on any phone, including the G1.

    That's funny. When I got my W490 T-Mobile was quite happy to try to sell me an internet package which would allow me to use bluetooth from my laptop to my phone to access the Internet. Maybe that's not called "tethering", but that would seem to fit the definition I've seen.

  10. Re:Application-level proxy softare? by jtownatpunk.net · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Sure. Or they can add a routine to their firmware that looks for this type of connection and, when detected, cripple the phone. I grabbed a 3G iphone the week they were jailbroke and ran one of the socks proxy programs that was available. The iphone would not charge when data was being passed through the socks proxy. I could have the data connection active and do all the streaming audio I wanted on the phone through Pandora (hours and hours and hours) and it charged fine. But, as soon as I started putting data through the socks proxy, the phone stopped taking external power. Tried a number of socks proxys (all that were available at the time) and the behavior was the same. Data passing to/from the phone = battery charges. Data passing THROUGH the phone = no charging. Just having a telnet session open was enough to disable charging. So active tethering sessions were limited to a few hours. That may not sound like a big deal but it really kills the phone. A couple hours of tethered access and the battery's almost dead and you can't swap it out even if you were willing to schlep around extra batteries.

    This is much more devious than making such use outright impossible. Since most people don't know what the heck they're doing, they won't be able to troubleshoot and isolate the problem. Maybe they'll think tethering just takes too much power and that's why it's not supported. [cough]bullshit[/cough] AT&T and Apple get to keep their revenue stream while the customer gets conditioned to avoid the behavior AT&T dislikes. The customer give up on tethering or only use it as a last resort.

    I took the phone back after a few days of testing my charging theory. Currently using a Blackjack 2 which had to be mildly hacked to restore band selection and a couple other options. Tethered 8-10 hours a day as a method of external access testing.

  11. Re:I did not know what it was. by MichaelSmith · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't understand why the phone operators don't just charge for the traffic.