Slashdot Mirror


AT&T Cracking Down On Unofficial iPhone Tethering

An anonymous reader writes "AT&T is sending warning notifications to jailbroken iPhone users who use unofficial tethering methods like MyWi and PDANet. 'Customers are being notified that their service plans need updating to subscribe to a tethering plan, and that they will be automatically subscribed to a DataPro 4GB package that costs an additional $45 per month if they continue to tether.'"

513 comments

  1. USA #1 by viablos · · Score: 2, Informative

    Do Americans know that no one else in the world does this? Not in Europe, not in Asia. They sell you the service and you use it how you want.

    But this is Apple's fault too. If you go with Windows phones you can tether how you want, as they only care about iPhone users and can't detect Windows traffic from other Windows traffic.

    1. Re:USA #1 by crossword.bob · · Score: 5, Informative

      Do Americans know that no one else in the world does this? Not in Europe, not in Asia. They sell you the service and you use it how you want.

      O2 in the UK charge £7.50/mo for a tethering + 500MB bolt-on for consumer tariffs (you can't buy the tethering without the additional data). I believe 3 offer it free, but not sure about others.

    2. Re:USA #1 by bleh-of-the-huns · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They do know this, however unlike other places in the world, we are a captive audience when it comes to wireless providers, the 4 major carriers (and now I will put on my tinfoil hat) appear to collude to a point that price and features all cost around the same. The only thing that differentiates them is how good their coverage is in the different areas.

      --
      I came, I conquered, I coredumped
    3. Re:USA #1 by drb226 · · Score: 2

      Do Americans know that no one else in the world does this?

      Well, us American slashdotters are very painfully aware. But I once (actually, twice to the same person) had to explain to a friend that I didn't need to pay for a data plan in order to use wifi on my smartphone. -_- I do not have high hopes for the general awareness of this country.

    4. Re:USA #1 by Toe,+The · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There is one simple little reason: Americans appear to be willing to pay for it.

      Most US cell phones are free or almost free. The fact that you're getting a free phone in exchange for paying thousands of dollars over two years for service seems to be lost on most consumers here.

      Americans also regularly pay over $100 per month for cable TV... and there are ads on almost every channel (often taking up a full third of every hour of programming!), not to mention pay-per-view channels.

      Indeed, how do Americans fall for this stuff while people in other nations seem to be able to get better deals? Are we really just that dumb?

    5. Re:USA #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > you can't buy the tethering without the additional data

      Err, you can if you buy a phone that doesn't give a damn.

      3UK have no idea whether my Nokia E71 is tethered or not, they just see a PPP request.

    6. Re:USA #1 by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      >>>Not in Europe, not in Asia.

      And what happens when your European neighbors are netflixing or bittorrenting at the same time, over the wireless internet? Does it slow to a crawl? That's what happens in the US.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    7. Re:USA #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a bunch of horseshit, O2, Orange and Vodaphone all charge for tethering in Europe. The only Japanese carrier I've dealt with is Softbank, they also charge for tethering (after outright banning it for years).

    8. Re:USA #1 by somersault · · Score: 2

      Do Americans know that no one else in the world does this?

      Here in the UK, some telcos try to charge for tethering. I have a custom ROM on my phone for one thing, so I can do it without paying for a package for it. I have hardly ever used it anyway, so I don't know what would actually happen if I started using it a lot. I'm on a business data plan anyway so I doubt it would matter..

      How exactly is "Windows traffic" on a phone indistinguishable from "Windows traffic" on a PC, yet somehow those are both different from iOS traffic? For one thing even the default browser user agent string is going to be different on all of these devices, and a low UID slashdotter mentioned recently that there are ways of distinguishing OS at signatures at IP level too, but I don't know what they would be or how easy it would be to spoof that.

      Anyway, it seems you're just spreading BS. Pretty much every post I've seen from a >2,000,000 UID so far is all pro-MS/anti-Apple/anti-Google bullshit..

      --
      which is totally what she said
    9. Re:USA #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They do know this, however unlike other places in the world, we are a captive audience when it comes to wireless providers, the 4 major carriers (and now I will put on my tinfoil hat) appear to collude to a point that price and features all cost around the same. The only thing that differentiates them is how good their coverage is in the different areas.

      Seemingly not entirely different from gas (petrol) stations.

    10. Re:USA #1 by agoliveira · · Score: 1

      That would impossible here in Brazil due to our consumer laws in two way I can think of: they can't limit the way I use the service (unless I'm doing something illegal) and they can't change a contract term or assign a paid service unilaterally.

      --
      Scientia est Potentia
    11. Re:USA #1 by bhagwad · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't think it has anything to do with intelligence. It's about being brought up in a culture where such stuff is the norm and thus not seen for what it is - simple exploitation. Of course, it doesn't help that a lot of Americans are simply unaware of what goes on elsewhere..

      I came to the US from India a few years ago and was absolutely stunned by how the phone thing works here. Stay locked in to a phone for two fucking years? Seriously? What if you want to upgrade your model? Two years is a loooooong time in the tech world. What if you want to change your carrier AND change your phone? What if you want a prepaid phone with as cheap service rates as a post paid one? What if you want to pop in a new SIM from another carrier. What if.....oh forget it!

    12. Re:USA #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's the problem of a big nation. The bigger a nation the easier it is for big corporations to achieve monopoly-esque structures. There's only one government to lobby/bribe, same laws, fewer mindsets, only one official language, no borders hampering expansion, less competition due to the large area, etc. It's just easier to control one big market. Might be good for big corporations, not so much for consumers.

    13. Re:USA #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems to be just another way to screw customers out of more money.... Thank god I don't have at&t.....and at this rate i never will.....
      It really shouldn't matter how you use your phone.....Oh wait....Isn't Sony in a battle like this over their PS3?
      I'm stuck wondering if the stuff we buy will ever actually be ours to use as we want......Without the You can't this and you can't that or
      we will disable it or charge you more

    14. Re:USA #1 by MoonBuggy · · Score: 1

      You're still limited to 'x' GB of data transfer, it's just that you can use it on whatever device you like. AT&T limit you to 'x' GB on your phone, and only allow you to tether if you pay extra.

    15. Re:USA #1 by mikael_j · · Score: 1

      I don't really know anyone who uses 3G/4G connections for torrenting. Youtube and similar content? Sure, but I can't say I've noticed any performance issues myself.

      A little off-topic, for wired connections, I've tested the speed of my connection (100/100 Mbps) a number of times at different times of the day and week and never gotten less than 90 Mbps downstream for any test site in Scandinavia. Outside of europe it tends to drop a bit when using only one connection but with multiple connections to various hosts outside of europe (that is, using Bittorrent) the downstream has been maxed out with no problem.

      The upstream speed seems to work about the same. For some reason single connections to the US and Asia are slower than multiple connections (that is, I can sustain four 20 Mbps streams fine but a single 80 Mbps seems almost impossible, not just with this ISP either). Feel free to speculate where the bottleneck is...

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    16. Re:USA #1 by crossword.bob · · Score: 1

      Aye, I was only talking about iPhone tariffs.

    17. Re:USA #1 by pstils · · Score: 2

      Virgin charge nothing extra - you pay for your data plan, it's your data to use how you like, through which ever device you like

    18. Re:USA #1 by andrea.sartori · · Score: 4, Informative

      Indeed, how do Americans fall for this stuff while people in other nations seem to be able to get better deals? Are we really just that dumb?

      Not that much. The "will happily pay thousands of dollars because they're giving me a free phone now" is possible thanks to a logical fallacy called "hyperbolic discounting" -- the article in the link refers to lab animals, but it's proven that it works on humans, too. Simpler descriptions here and here. Of course it's being exploited and used as a marketing method since years.
      And: not only Americans fall for this, and endless businesses all around the world use this trick to, well, screw us. We Europeans just like to think we are smarter than the yanks ;) but this marketing technique is so widespread we don't even notice anymore.

      --
      Mostly harmless.
    19. Re:USA #1 by trickyD1ck · · Score: 1

      Wrong. In Germany, I would have to pay additional fee if i wanted to tether my iPhone (at least with T-Mobile). Anyways, I bet, if you read the contract you signed you'll find out they are selling you exactly the service that you are then allowed to use.

    20. Re:USA #1 by IrrepressibleMonkey · · Score: 1

      Vodafone UK offer an additional 500MB allowance for tethered usage for £5 a month. It's automatically added to your bill when you tether with an iPhone.

    21. Re:USA #1 by icebraining · · Score: 1

      Netflix doesn't operate in Europe, you insensitive clod!

      I don't have wireless internet, but is bittorrenting a real problem? Everyone I know with smartphones also has a cable or fiber connection, which is must faster.

    22. Re:USA #1 by Compaqt · · Score: 1

      >How exactly is "Windows traffic" on a phone indistinguishable from "Windows traffic" on a PC, yet somehow those are both different from iOS traffic?

      iOS electrons wear purple with sunglasses.

      --
      I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    23. Re:USA #1 by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      well, there are a few ways to work out source and destination software that generates the data.

      But mostly they boil down to timings and packet sizes that can be used to create a profile to work out what is creating the data.
      Not sure how many levels of encapsulation it goes down to, or if 'noise' could be added... though the noise may itself be a distinguishing feature.

      So lets say iOS apps all use the same library to do network stuff and that the tethering software modifies routing tables and so bypasses the usual methods for creating network traffic.

      You'd then expect to see a different profile created from devises where the software running on them was not using those libraries on that platform/processor/memory system but from some other source. You could then infer that that source was outside of the terms of service.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    24. Re:USA #1 by SkyDude · · Score: 1

      But this is Apple's fault too.

      Heresy. Off with his head. I hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the Apple fanbois.

      Now say something un-PC about Jobs, you brute.

      --
      == First cross river, then insult alligator.
    25. Re:USA #1 by poetmatt · · Score: 0

      I can't help but notice that you left out android, where they can't detect the difference either.

    26. Re:USA #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't you know? USA is a plutocracy, run by corporations.. but don't worry, the next big glittery shiny gadget will keep you busy while they run the place..

       

    27. Re:USA #1 by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      >>>Feel free to speculate where the bottleneck is...

      I have the same problem in the opposite direction: US hosts are fast for my US-based home, while European or Asian connections are slow. It's because of the multiple hops (i.e. distance).

      It's also why Opera Turbo doesn't work properly for me. The inherent latency of loading data from a Norway proxy Negates any speed-up from the compressed webpage.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    28. Re:USA #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, I got my friend Steve out of his iPhone 3GS and into a Nexus S just in the nick of time. Who knew?

    29. Re:USA #1 by Compaqt · · Score: 1

      a >2,000,000 UID

      There are >2mil UIDs? Noobs.

      --
      I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    30. Re:USA #1 by QuantumPion · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The answer to all of the above hysterical "what if" questions is simply you pay the early termination fee - which is the difference in price between the subsidized and retail price of the phone. Or you sign up for service with no contract using a used phone you buy off craigslist/ebay.

    31. Re:USA #1 by Surt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Do Americans have a choice? I can't find a wireless carrier who has reception in my area who offers anything other than these plans.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    32. Re:USA #1 by Greyfox · · Score: 1

      Companies understand that we're bad at math and financial stuff. You could probably charge people thousands over the life of the contract as long as you do it in small chunks that don't multiply easily (Like "For just $37.73 a day we'll provide this service to you! Act now and we'll include free auto-pay through your credit card!")

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    33. Re:USA #1 by quickOnTheUptake · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Tinfoil hat indeed: The fact that the prices are tending to converge just shows that there is some competition in the market.

      --
      Mod points: Guaranteed to remove your sense of humor.
      Side effects may include gullibility and temporary retardation
    34. Re:USA #1 by poetmatt · · Score: 0

      The phone is not free. It is subsidized. You state that yourself.

      The perception is free, the reality is not.

      People pay for this stuff because people are indeed, that stupid as a whole.

    35. Re:USA #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, T-mobile has a long-standing policy of offering no support for tethering, but permitting it if you can set it up yourself. They also added a throttle-you-to-EDGE-at-5GB clause when all the other providers were moving to 5GB caps, but they don't enforce it in rural areas where a few heavy users cause no real congestion. (I've broken 60GB 4 of the last 6 months, no throttling at all.)

      Their coverage does kinda suck, though. But I'd rather have (in practice) totally unlimited usage with EDGE-only when I get way out in the boonies, than HSPA everywhere that I can't use for fear of breaking my 5GB/mo. cap.

    36. Re:USA #1 by andrea.sartori · · Score: 1

      Obligatory Stevens: Ten of them streaming across that internet and what happens to your own personal internet?
      Damn, is wireless a series of tubes too??

      --
      Mostly harmless.
    37. Re:USA #1 by The+Yuckinator · · Score: 1

      Yes.

    38. Re:USA #1 by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 1

      Hah, you were immediately refuted, yet still modded "Informative"

      Do Slashdotters understand that Europeans don't necessarily know everything, despite the constant arrogance?

    39. Re:USA #1 by green1 · · Score: 1

      Problem is, it's beyond a marketing technique, we often don't have the choice.

      The carriers don't give you any discount on the plan price if you own your own phone, so you might as well get the "free" one, after all, you're paying for it whether you get it or not. Additionally any phone you do get is locked to the carrier you are on, and some carriers go so far as to refuse you service if you don't take one of their phones.

      The net result is you can choose a free phone on a 3yr term, or you can pay several hundred dollars extra (the price of the phone) to not be locked in to the contract, but still have your phone locked to the provider (so you might as well be locked in to the contract)

      The carriers shouldn't be allowed to do that, if you don't need a subsidized phone, you shouldn't have to subsidize other people's phones, and if you pay for the phone, it shouldn't be locked to a carrier. Separating the phone from the price plan and the carrier would encourage more competition and more choice (which is of course why it doesn't happen)

    40. Re:USA #1 by MichaelKristopeit415 · · Score: 0
      you're an ignorant hypocrite.

      did you ever consider what would happen to the "deals other nations get", or service offerings entirely, if americans didn't "fall for this stuff"?

      steal your satellite and live in the park with ricky and julian and bubles.

    41. Re:USA #1 by quickOnTheUptake · · Score: 1

      What if you want a prepaid phone with as cheap service rates as a post paid one?

      Nothing is keeping you from getting one: monthly prepaid is generally quite a bit cheaper than contract. Of course the phones suck, but for what you get it can be worth it.
      Of course if you are paying by the minute you will be screwed.

      --
      Mod points: Guaranteed to remove your sense of humor.
      Side effects may include gullibility and temporary retardation
    42. Re:USA #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      An interesting feature of perfect collusion and perfect competition is that in both cases, you get essentially identical price points and feature sets. Hard to infer much about the cause from the observation.

    43. Re:USA #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Michael Kristopeit, surrender yourself and admit you're an idiot.

    44. Re:USA #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. You can check the TTLs, if you know the default TTL value on the device and it's tethering, then tether packets will have a smaller TTL than you.

      2. You can check the DNS requests. Let's say your computer's running an antivirus software and it checks for updates. That means making a DNS query for, say, "updates.symantic.com". AT&T constructs a blacklist of domains that contains every Windows software's update/DRM server. Have Photoshop installed? It phones home and suddenly AT&T knows there's a PC on their network the moment the DNS query is made.

      3. You can check the HTTP headers. User-agent in particular: Try explaining to AT&T why your "mobile browser" is suddenly Firefox (which isn't available on smartphones).

      The fact is that mobile traffic and tether traffic is actually quite different in very obvious ways. Not different enough to justify the extra data plan, but different enough for AT&T to enforce it.

    45. Re:USA #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SPRINT SPRINT SPRINT SPRINT... Sheesh! Why are people still using AT&T?

    46. Re:USA #1 by captain_sweatpants · · Score: 1

      Yes except perfect competition doesn't exist. Therefore it's collusion.

    47. Re:USA #1 by an00bis · · Score: 1

      wrong answer

    48. Re:USA #1 by bhagwad · · Score: 1

      I was talking about cell phones, not cable channels...

      In any case, the GP was making the point that it's exploitation to charge for these channels and deluge us with advertisements 1/3rd of the time.

    49. Re:USA #1 by MikeDaSpike · · Score: 1

      This happens to me as well, I host a FTP server in the US, if any of my Portuguese friends want to download anything at max speed (25Mbps) they have to use a download manager that allows them to use separate connections to download separate parts of the same file. Either that or I split the files with winrar and they download 10 files simultaneously. Note that it's not multiple peers like bittorrent, but multiple connections to the same IP. I believe there is an artificial cap in a router somewhere in the middle, but it's easily bypassed.

      The individual connection cap seems to be around 4Mbps.

    50. Re:USA #1 by xded · · Score: 2

      Americans also regularly pay over $100 per month for cable TV... and there are ads on almost every channel (often taking up a full third of every hour of programming!), not to mention pay-per-view channels.

      About that, look at the bright side: at least you are producing great stuff (tv series, documentaries) or, at least, stuff you in the end export. Here (Italy) the last consistently good stuff was produced 50 years ago.

      These days we may pay less for tv, but the stuff we get is either cr** or coming from the US a season later...

    51. Re:USA #1 by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Do Americans know that no one else in the world does this?

      Well, us American slashdotters are very painfully aware. But I once (actually, twice to the same person) had to explain to a friend that I didn't need to pay for a data plan in order to use wifi on my smartphone. -_- I do not have high hopes for the general awareness of this country.

      In fairness, your 'friend' probably knows little of networking in the same way you know very little about what goes into manufacturing a cardboard box. We follow our interests.

      In other words, there are lots of people who think you are lacking in 'general awareness', too. I bet your car mechanic thinks you shouldn't have a license to drive.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    52. Re:USA #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does it matter? One should refer to the original contract that was signed in the first place.

      1. Does the original contract stipulate that you can or cannot tether, or is it a blanket clause telling you that you have X amount of usage available to you per month? Does jailbreaking void your original contract with AT&T?

      2. Can they upgrade you without your permission? Generally an 'upgrade', which is a penalty is pretty out of scope if it wasn't detailed in the original contract.

      3. What recourse do you have in the event that you do not feel that they are honoring the terms of the contract. Cancelling without penalty? Small claims court? Class action?

      The rest of the responses aren't worth reading since they mostly are all about the outrage without providing any further insight or potential solutions.

    53. Re:USA #1 by quickOnTheUptake · · Score: 1

      Tethering the iPhone without the tethering package is--IIRC--already against the TOS.
      I think charging for tethering on an account with a monthly limit is a shitty practice but given the way they run the show I think adding the charge on is almost certainly legal.

      --
      Mod points: Guaranteed to remove your sense of humor.
      Side effects may include gullibility and temporary retardation
    54. Re:USA #1 by maxume · · Score: 1

      It's gonna get better. Virgin Mobile has a couple of okay Android phones for less than $200 and no contract. They probably market those phones with a minimal markup, but I can't imagine they are losing a huge amount on each sale.

      I don't really want them to have to wedge the circuitry in there to work on AT&T and T-Mobile, having to buy a second $100 phone is okay.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    55. Re:USA #1 by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And if our politicians make any efforts to free us from any collusion or abuse a majority of Americans rise up in arms to stop their "Fascist, communist, anti-business agenda."

      Consumer protection in the united states is seen as tantamount to tyranny. Our government isn't in the pocket of big business... our citizens are. They've been convinced by savvy lobbyists that anything which protects them will ultimately ruin their lives.

      "You want to regulate toxic chemicals leaching into your water supply? Well you *could* regulate us but then you would be unemployed, your children would be in concentration camps and you'll starve on the street destitute!"
      "Oh my God, no, keep dumping!"

    56. Re:USA #1 by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2

      Its the usage patterns that are different - desktop usage is typically significantly higher than phone-based usage, its quite easy to tell which is which.

    57. Re:USA #1 by Cheeko · · Score: 1

      Not even just Windows. I've been doing tethering since Day one on my Nexus 1 since I got it.

      This is obviously a money grab from ATT directed specifically at iPhone users.

      Yet one more reason I will never buy a locked phone. Nexus S or follow on unlocked phones for me.

    58. Re:USA #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The cell-phone thing is annoying. But I use a WinMo phone and get "free" tethering within my data plan (which is still unlimited because I don't use a fancy-pants big carrier).

      Meanwhile, Brits pay a per-device tax for television. (Hurr durr...) I'll take the opt-in American system, TYVM. And I'll not opt in. I currently get OTA digital TV, some of it high-def, for free and without having to apply for exemptions for things-that-look-like-a-TV-but-aren't-that-might-be-used-to-get-around-the-BBC-tax.

      Stupid rules aren't the sole purview of Murka.

    59. Re:USA #1 by mini+me · · Score: 1

      I do not have the necessary hardware to verify, but my mobile operator claims 20Mbps cell service in the area. The best the wired ISPs offer here is 5Mbps. Bandwidth caps hamper any notion of going all wireless, unfortunately.

    60. Re:USA #1 by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The fact that the prices are tending to converge just shows that there is some competition in the market.

      That would be true only if the profit margins were also consistently reducing - that then would be the sign of price competition.

    61. Re:USA #1 by kthreadd · · Score: 1

      iPhone

    62. Re:USA #1 by MichaelKristopeit415 · · Score: 0
      ur mum's face're an idiot.

      cower in my shadow some more, feeb.

      you're completely pathetic.

    63. Re:USA #1 by Haffner · · Score: 1

      No, they wear jeans with a black turtleneck.

      --
      "Going to war without the French is like going deer hunting without your accordion." ~General Norman Schwarzkopf
    64. Re:USA #1 by icebraining · · Score: 1

      Oh, I wouldn't expect wireless to be faster, that's odd. Here 3mbps is the minimum we can get on wired, but you can get 60, 100 or 200mbps for a reasonable price which no wireless can possibly reach.
      Even when wired was much slower (512kbps, for example) wireless was never a faster alternative.

    65. Re:USA #1 by 6ULDV8 · · Score: 1

      The "free" aspect of the phone is not forgotten. I take it because if I don't, I get no discount in cost of raw services anyway.

      --
      Pull my finger for my public key.
    66. Re:USA #1 by tm2b · · Score: 1

      I hear they're even letting people with more-than-5-digit uids in. I wish the UI let you easily filter them out.

      --
      "It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
    67. Re:USA #1 by hazem · · Score: 1

      There are actually some pretty good pre-paid programs now that offer unlimited service.

      I've used StraightTalk for a year and half now and have been pretty happy with it. The phone was $90. The service has unlimited voice, texts, and internet for $45/month.

      The phone is not bad. Mine is a Samsung with a slide out keyboard - which I use far more than I ever thought I would. It takes decent pictures as well. My biggest complaints are that there appears to be no way to tether it, its web-browser is somewhat limited, and I can't use bitpim to download and update my contacts.

      A "smart"-phone would be nice, but I'm not willing to pay so much more for the service, nor be locked into a 2-year contract.

      So overall, if you're not looking for a "smart"-phone, then there are some pretty decent prepaid phones available, with very affordable plans.

    68. Re:USA #1 by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      No artificial cap needed, the link is simply saturated and instead of taking one piece of the pie, you take 10.

      Example: (the numbers are made up for illustrative purposes only)

      Link speed: 100mb
      Number of active transfers: 100.
      Each transfer speed: 1mb
      You use 1 connection, you get 1mb

      What you've done, is instead of taking just 1 share, you're taking 10.

      So it turns into:
      Link speed: 100mb
      Number of active transfers: 109
      Each transfer speed: 0.917mb
      You use 10 connections (adding an addition 9 from before) and everyons rate drops a LITTLE bit, but since you are taking more shares, you get data faster, at 9.17mb.

      More connections actually results in slower transfers across the board once the link is saturated because of the overhead involved in using separate connections. You're in fact just making the problem worse, which is why most sites place limits on the number of connections from any one host.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    69. Re:USA #1 by MikePikeFL · · Score: 1

      They are catching up. $10/mo "smart phone charge" per line coming up and restructuring their customer plans so I'm losing one of my 2 year upgrade subsidies.

      If I wasn't stuck in my contract I might jump ship TO AT&T. Sprint keeps claiming "look we're unlimited AND cheaper than AT&T"- I went to AT&T and mocked up a plan and it was the same price once they start charging these ridiculous smart phone fees.

      And my wife and I are not high data users- in the last 2 years, combined, the highest month was 500MB, average is around 300MB (again- COMBINED). These surcharges should be based on the USAGE PATTERNS not the TYPE OF PHONE WE BUY.

      --
      "Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway" -Andrew Tanenbaum
    70. Re:USA #1 by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      But this is Apple's fault too. If you go with Windows phones you can tether how you want, as they only care about iPhone users and can't detect Windows traffic from other Windows traffic

      I'm pretty sure AT&T knows what kind of phone you're on when you connect to their network, so they don't need Apple's support on it.

    71. Re:USA #1 by Dunega · · Score: 1

      Uhhh no. The fact that the prices are tending to converge could also show that they are all figuring out the point that they can continue to screw the customer over without the customer dropping the service completely.

    72. Re:USA #1 by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      How exactly is "Windows traffic" on a phone indistinguishable from "Windows traffic" on a PC, yet somehow those are both different from iOS traffic?

      Its not, they are all distinguishable for things like web traffic, SSH would be more difficult to detect, but not impossible.

      First and formost, if they see your iPhone downloading Flash files, they know you're tethering. Java is another tale tale sign that you're tethering.

      Second, HTTP headers/UserAgent strings. Obvious easy way to determine you're using something other than WebKit on iOS. Assuming you bother to change your UA string on your PC, there are other headers (Accepts comes to mind, though I don't know what webkit sends by default so it may not be useful) that can be used. The company SandVine makes a business out of being able to fingerprint connections on the fly.

      Then comes the data rate the phone is actually capable of dealing with in applications versus how quickly it can just get it from the radio and dump it to the tethered device. In most cases your tethered PC can consume data faster than any application on the phone, so thats a big indicator if you're using more data constantly than any known phone app can process it. You download a gig of data tethered faster than it can be written to flash and they know you're tethered.

      Finally, ... TCP/IP connection fingerprinting. You can detect the OS with a reasonable level of accuracy just based on the connection establishment phase. SYN/ACK handling gives a way a lot, just ask the nmap guys.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    73. Re:USA #1 by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      Most US cell phones are free or almost free. The fact that you're getting a free phone in exchange for paying thousands of dollars over two years for service seems to be lost on most consumers here.

      Its actually not that much cheaper to buy the phone separately, unless you're going for an old, cheap dumbphone. I'm on T-Mobile's contract-free, subsidy-free plan, which is about $60/month. I also bought my Galaxy S for $500. The total for 2 years comes to just under $2k.

    74. Re:USA #1 by rwven · · Score: 1

      Dumb? Open your eyes. There's really no alternative. You either pay for what it costs...or you do without. Americans aren't dumb, they just have no alternative.

      By your logic, a North Korean citizen is an idiot simply because their country has an evil totalitarian government.

    75. Re:USA #1 by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      iOS electrons wear purple with sunglasses.

      They're miniature California Raisins?

    76. Re:USA #1 by s73v3r · · Score: 2

      Just a question: Have any of you ever actually done the math between a regular, subsidized phone and a plan, and buying a phone outright? My Galaxy S cost $500, and my contract-free, subsidy-free T-Mobile plan is about $60/month. By going contract free, I save about $10-20/month, but it still comes out to $2k over 2 years.

    77. Re:USA #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fun fact: Canada has the same type of price-fixing oligopoly as the US. It's worse even as far as typical prices and such. Interestingly, despite that, they don't charge for tethering up here. They just do other things with their captive audience, like charge $75 to get a few GB of data, or 3 year contracts where the US usually has 2 year ones.

    78. Re:USA #1 by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Firefox is available on smartphones and due to broken websites my android smartphone is often claiming to be firefox or IE while using the default browser.

    79. Re:USA #1 by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I'm really wondering how they could see the difference these days, even without a VPN. A jailbroken iPhone, a (reflashed? sideloaded?) Android phone or a plain-jane N900 would all be indistinguishable from a phone tethered to a PC if the user decides to use their phone like a PC. You can run a torrent client or whatever on it, if you do it from the phone itself is it OK then?

      I could only guess that if they see user agent strings that don't match a phone's browser, they'd detect that it must be tethered - but that's a dumb, wrong assumption that's easy to work around as well.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    80. Re:USA #1 by jbernardo · · Score: 1

      3 Italy (tre) has now added to its pre-paid data plans that they are only for use on the phone. As that doesn't seem to be enforceable with many of the phones, they now start limiting the available traffic on a daily basis. If you have the 3 GB plan, you can't exceed 100MB/day or you'll be charged extra. That is why I have now switched to Wind for my data plan...

    81. Re:USA #1 by quickOnTheUptake · · Score: 1
      I didn't say there was enough competition, just that

      there is some competition in the market.

      With minimal competition prices will tend to stabilize.
      I was merely pointing out that we don't need a conspiracy theory to explain why the major carries all have prices in the same ballpark.

      --
      Mod points: Guaranteed to remove your sense of humor.
      Side effects may include gullibility and temporary retardation
    82. Re:USA #1 by eldepeche · · Score: 3, Funny

      did you really asterisk out "crap?"

    83. Re:USA #1 by MtHuurne · · Score: 2

      Most US cell phones are free or almost free. The fact that you're getting a free phone in exchange for paying thousands of dollars over two years for service seems to be lost on most consumers here.

      In Europe most people buy subsidized phones too. But unless you want a very expensive phone + plan, it will add up to hundreds of euros, not thousands, over two years. Buying phone and service separately is slightly cheaper, but not spectacularly.

      Americans also regularly pay over $100 per month for cable TV... and there are ads on almost every channel (often taking up a full third of every hour of programming!), not to mention pay-per-view channels.

      Where I live (the Netherlands), the cable networks were owned by the local governments until the 90s. When the networks were sold, it was done under strict conditions about pricing and availability of channels. I think I pay about 16 euros/month for about 30 channels of analog TV.

      Indeed, how do Americans fall for this stuff while people in other nations seem to be able to get better deals? Are we really just that dumb?

      Regulation is part of the difference. It seems many Americans are allergic to government involvement, but it does help competition if for example carriers are forced to migrate your existing phone number if you switch from one carrier to another. And the fact that you can switch carriers at all while keeping the same handset is also a consequence of regulation.

      Another difference is the way people look at contracts and laws. In the USA, it's all about the letter of the law, while in much of Europe it's about the spirit of the law. I'm exaggerating a bit here, but if you sign a contract that is a bad deal for you, in the USA you would be considered stupid for signing it and you would be stuck with it, while in Europe the other party would be considered to have offered you an unfair deal. It could lead to bad PR and parts of the contract could be declared void by a judge.

      In negotiations, the party who has more power will get the better deal. If there is a transparent market with many sellers, the buyer has the power. Telecom is a market with few sellers due to the huge infrastructure investments needed and the carriers are doing everything they can to make the market less transparent by offering complex plans that are hard to compare (subsidized phones are part of that, voice/text/data bundles as well). If you add lock-in, the power is very much on the side of the carriers unless there are other factors pushing in favor of the consumers.

    84. Re:USA #1 by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1
      I don't think it's got as much to do with it being the norm; there simply aren't any alternatives other than companies like metropcs which have shitty service.

      Here's your options:
      1. 1. Don't use a cell phone - lol; I don't see that happening
      2. 2. Put up with this pricing crap - this is what most of us do
      3. 3. Go with an unlimited budget service like metropcs or cricket. Just keep in mind you pay full price for the phone, the hardware available isn't as good as what "premium" carries like Verizon or AT&T offer, and the service is terrible.
    85. Re:USA #1 by dkleinsc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Both you and GP are wrong.

      Oligopolies naturally produce a market with somewhat artificially inflated prices. The barriers to entry into the cell phone market are ridiculously high, so the big 4 don't need to be worried about new competitors showing up. Also, society has more-or-less collectively decided that cell phone use is a necessity for nearly everyone, and most of the potential substitutes have been effectively shut down, so the big 4 don't need to be too worried about consumers deciding to do without.

      That means that each of the big 4 has only 1 incentive not to completely gouge their customers, namely competition from the other 3 of the big 4. But they have 2 ways of dealing with that while still trying to increase their profits. They could:
      A) Try to steal market share from their competitors with better service and/or lower prices. This will in the long run increase profits, but in the short run will be costly.
      B) Increase prices, but either do it in a way that the customers don't notice, or ensure that their competitors "catch up" to their pricing changes.

      If they all pick option A, laissez-faire paradise ensues with great value to customers, but not so great value to investors. If they all pick option B, it will look an awful lot like they're colluding, even though they are in fact each making the same rational decision. From what I can tell, they went with option A when the market was still pretty volatile, but nowadays stick with option B most of the time.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    86. Re:USA #1 by quickOnTheUptake · · Score: 2

      . . . they are all figuring out the point that they can continue to screw the customer over without the customer dropping the service completely.

      Isn't that the whole idea of a market: Supply and demand?
      Customers are willing to pay x for y.
      Providers are willing to provide x for y.
      Market reaches equilibrium at $x/y.
      As I said to the reply above yours: I'm not saying that there is a great deal of competition, I'm merely pointing out that we don't need a conspiracy theory to account for the fact that prices are roughly aligned.

      --
      Mod points: Guaranteed to remove your sense of humor.
      Side effects may include gullibility and temporary retardation
    87. Re:USA #1 by AxemRed · · Score: 1

      I think that providing cellular coverage in the US is a slightly different animal than in Asia or Europe. The US is a large country relatively low population density compared to many other countries (87 people per sq mi vs 659 for the UK, for example,) and a large portion of the "empty" area of the country actually has coverage. I don't doubt that cellular companies would be happy to screw us, but I also think that there's a good chance that a cellular network in the US costs more money per subscriber to maintain than networks in many other parts of the world. I'm not absolutely sure that this is the case, but I wanted to play the devil's advocate anyway.

    88. Re:USA #1 by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      "What's good for business is good for America"

    89. Re:USA #1 by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      I have 8Mbit for 20EU per month (not that cheap for the EU) and I set my public access point up for a max of 2MBit. So its not really a problem.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    90. Re:USA #1 by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Here in America, you're stupid if you don't get a free phone... the ONLY carrier that discounts service if you aren't leasing a phone is T-Mobile. If you buy a phone outright and use any other service, you're throwing money away.

    91. Re:USA #1 by quickOnTheUptake · · Score: 1
      What did I say that was wrong?
      I merely pointed out that we don't need a conspiracy theory to account for general price alignment.
      In fact that is the conclusion you reached:

      If they all pick option A, laissez-faire paradise ensues with great value to customers, but not so great value to investors. If they all pick option B, it will look an awful lot like they're colluding, even though they are in fact each making the same rational decision. From what I can tell, they went with option A when the market was still pretty volatile, but nowadays stick with option B most of the time.

      --
      Mod points: Guaranteed to remove your sense of humor.
      Side effects may include gullibility and temporary retardation
    92. Re:USA #1 by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Do they not allow bringing your own phone?

    93. Re:USA #1 by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I don't know of any islands in the Caribbean do this, and all of those countries* have a duopoly between Cable & Wireless UK and Digicel for cellular service.

      *AFAIK, I may be wrong

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    94. Re:USA #1 by AshtangiMan · · Score: 1

      No, wireless is not a series of tubes. It's a series of catapults.

    95. Re:USA #1 by magarity · · Score: 1

      Yes except perfect competition doesn't exist. Therefore it's collusion.

      Vendor A seeing Vendor B's new price on ads,etc, and changing to match is not collusion, however often, promptly and exactly they move to Vendor B's price. CEO A asking CEO B at the golf course if they should both set the price at $x is collusion.
       
      Otherwise ads along the lines of 'we shop our competition's prices so you can get the best deal here!' would be indications of antitrust violations.

    96. Re:USA #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do Americans know that no one else in the world does this? Not in Europe, not in Asia. They sell you the service and you use it how you want..

      Not entirely true. Here in Italy for example, TIM (a major carrier) does not allow tethering.

    97. Re:USA #1 by nelk · · Score: 1

      Just a question: Have any of you ever actually done the math...

      By going contract free, I save about $10-20/month, but it still comes out to $2k over 2 years.

      $20 a month * 12 months a year * 2 years == 480.

      --
      No keyboard detected. Press F1 to continue.
    98. Re:USA #1 by green1 · · Score: 1

      You can pretty much guarantee that the phones will still be provider locked though. and the prices are likely the same as the same phones on any other provider.

      The contract vs no contract thing is pretty much a joke anyway, you pay the same price either way, the only difference is how much you pay for the phone and how long you have to stay, not the cost of the plan or the ability to move your phone to another provider

    99. Re:USA #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But this is Apple's fault too. If you go with Windows phones you can tether how you want, as they only care about iPhone users and can't detect Windows traffic from other Windows traffic.

      WP7 does not support tethering by default. Some specific phones do have that ability but some of them require hacks. But it's easier to bash Apple than research facts.

    100. Re:USA #1 by AdamThor · · Score: 2

      I have been thinking lately that perhaps the increasing amount of things to be known, the specialization available in every area, makes it impossible to be more than marginally informed on a handful of subjects. This isn't so much an original thought. Recently, I've been thinking that this has been more successfully exploited that maybe in the past. Or perhaps it isn't so much a malicious and calculated attack, as much as the Information Superhighway having just increased the flow without improving the signal to noise ratio. Not sure on the malicious act / natural effect thing. Anyway, I once thought the internet would make everyone so much more informed, but now I'm starting to see that it's more difficult than that. I've been wondering how we can get past that. That's my thought.

      --
      -- "Oh. This guy again."
    101. Re:USA #1 by dotwhynot · · Score: 1

      When you want to prevent tethering all you have to do is check TTL. Easy and effective, encryption and user agent won't help you. Having a tethering app that messes with the TTL could. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_to_live

    102. Re:USA #1 by ChronoFish · · Score: 1

      "...I don't think it has anything to do with intelligence....Of course, it doesn't help that a lot of Americans are simply unaware of what goes on elsewhere.."

      Yes. American's are dumb. (speaking as an American)

      -CF

    103. Re:USA #1 by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      Indeed, how do Americans fall for this stuff while people in other nations seem to be able to get better deals? Are we really just that dumb?

      No, only you are.

      My "cable TV" is netflix streaming + free OTA HD network channels + hulu. It is easy to get a smartphone for (eventually) $35/mo for unmetered talk/text/web (I don't use the term "unlimited". It defies the laws of physics). I don't do this, because I like newer phones. I'm on a 5-line smartphone plan from Sprint that works out to just over $40/mo/line.

      Any more stupid mistakes you're making? I'm always happy to help people save money.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    104. Re:USA #1 by bhagwad · · Score: 1

      Aren't hypocrites usually pretty well informed? :D

    105. Re:USA #1 by ChronoFish · · Score: 1

      "...The fact that you're getting a free phone in exchange for paying thousands of dollars..."
      "...Americans also regularly pay over $100 per month for cable TV... "
      "...Indeed, how do Americans fall for this stuff ..."
      "...Are we really just that dumb?..."

      Yes.

      -CF

    106. Re:USA #1 by MichaelKristopeit416 · · Score: 0
      aren't questions asked in the negative a completely not not horrible way to ascertain facts?

      you're an idiot.

    107. Re:USA #1 by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      The math doesn't work out so well for the flagship devices because you are limited as to who will activate them. I bought the Sprint version (Epic 4G) for $320, but it only works on Sprint.

      On the other hand, if you're willing to go a few generations out of date, Boost offers a Moto Android phone for between $35-50/mo (depending on how long you've been a customer for). I think the phone is $200, but I forget. Virgin offers a samsung intercept for $200 or an LG Android somethingorother for $150 + $40/mo.

      Sure, those aren't top of the line devices, but that's still a pretty good deal on a smartphone.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    108. Re:USA #1 by lennier1 · · Score: 1

      It all depends on the country and the carrier. In my case only the costs for my data plan are recurring (10GB/month, after which it's throttled to GPRS speed) is recurring. I'm paying separately for phone calls, since their yearly total reaches less than 30 EUR. They don't bith about tethering but since I'm doing it on my own I also have to do my own tech support for that (in case my tablet has problems connecting through the phone).

      Add to that the price of my N900 when I bought it outright and let's compare with US contracts:
      500 EUR + 24*10 EUR + 2*30 EUR = 800 EUR

      Result: 33.33 EUR/month -> 47.18 USD/month

    109. Re:USA #1 by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      The wrong part of bleh-of-the-huns's argument was that there needed to be collusion for the price alignment. We agree on that part.

      Your mistake was assuming that all economically rational behavior is competitive behavior. If they were competing, they'd be trying to gain market share at the expense of the other players. Under these market conditions though, all of the big 4 are able to get higher profits (at customer expense) without competing, so that's what they do.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    110. Re:USA #1 by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      Do Americans have a choice? I can't find a wireless carrier who has reception in my area who offers anything other than these plans.

      Then you haven't been looking hard enough. Which "major" carrier gets good reception by you? Once you determine that, buy a prepaid plan from one of their MVNOs. Do a few minutes of research first to see which MVNOs will activate their MNO's phones.

      For instance, if you have a Sprint phone, active on Boost. If you have a Verizon phone, activate on Page Plus.

      You get the idea.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    111. Re:USA #1 by TrancePhreak · · Score: 1

      I don't pay extra for tether, but then again, I'm in a sweet grandfathered plan and have been upgrading my phones without contracts.

      --

      -]Phreak Out[-
    112. Re:USA #1 by Samus · · Score: 1

      No, he asterisked out "crud".

      --
      In Republican America phones tap you.
    113. Re:USA #1 by Unequivocal · · Score: 1

      But why should I pay the same same, inflated monthly fee for a used phone I buy off of ebay?

      If they give me a free new phone b/c they make it up on monthly fees, it stands to reason that if they don't give me a new phone, my monthly fee should be somewhat lower? From what I understand Europe uses only this later business model, with no subsidized phone/plan combos?

    114. Re:USA #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you uh... *ahem!* insinuating that cell phone providers... _seem_ to have formed one of those... whattya call... trusts?

    115. Re:USA #1 by WalkingBear · · Score: 1

      The amount of the early termination fees is greater than the retail price of the phone minus the OTC fee you paid when you got the phone in almost every contract available in the US.

      Buying from ebay/craigslist is not the answer either.

      Most of the manufacturers, Apple excluded of course, offer unlocked retail versions of their handsets through retailers such as Newegg. You can also, in some cases, buy direct from the manufacturer.

      Scott
         

    116. Re:USA #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's how corporatism rolls.

      How come in Europe you buy a dish+receiver and enjoy 100+ of free satellite channels? For example here and compare that to this.

    117. Re:USA #1 by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      how is this Apples fault? The carrier setup those terms, Apple had to comply if they wanted to sell their phones.

      Apple could care less how much data you use.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    118. Re:USA #1 by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      Try explaining to AT&T why your "mobile browser" is suddenly Firefox (which isn't available on smartphones)

      Are you sure about that? My Samsung Galaxy S seems to think differently...

      (To be fair, I find that FF's a bit of a pig on that platform; most of the time, I use Opera instead.)

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    119. Re:USA #1 by natehoy · · Score: 1

      StraightTalk does not, no. And it's unfortunate, because their pricing is actually relatively good, but you're locked into their (relatively limited) selection of phones. My father signed up for them last month, and other than a few minor quibbles he's saving a good chunk of money on his cell plan, and has more minutes and data than he knows what to do with. And if he gets sick of them, he's not under a contract (of course, he's paid basically retail for the phone, so there's no reason for him to be under contract - he basically paid the ETF up front).

      I'm still looking for a "bring your own phone" GSM plan with good pricing. I had hopes for StraightTalk, but they don't do bring-your-own.

      My wife's AT&T plan is up soon, and we're already using an unlocked Nokia MusicExpress on her plan because her original phone didn't meet her needs. Her parents, on the same plan, were forced into buying new phones two months ago when AT&T made a service change that rendered their 18-month-old phones (that AT&T provided) incompatible with AT&T's towers. AT&T tried to get them to sign up for an additional two years in return for free phones, but I bought them both unlocked $40 GSM handsets to avoid the forced renewal.

      So we're all done with subsidized phones, they aren't worth it.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    120. Re:USA #1 by natehoy · · Score: 1

      Additionally any phone you do get is locked to the carrier you are on, and some carriers go so far as to refuse you service if you don't take one of their phones.

      It depends. I have service with AT&T and we bought an unlocked phone because her original AT&T-issued phone just wasn't to her liking. We simply took the GSM chip out of her old phone, plugged it into her new phone, and Bob's your uncle. Worked great. No need to contact AT&T, and no need for a data plan at all since the unlocked phone has WiFi and AT&T can't stop us from using it (and my wife is OK with only having data at home and saving $25+ a month).

      Of course, we still don't get a discount, but at least once her contract is up we'll go month-to-month (and you can do that from the get-go with "bring your own device").

      It's even got a slot for a second SIM chip should we ever decide to get a data plan elsewhere.

      You CAN separate the carrier from the phone, if you buy the phone first and choose a carrier that allows

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    121. Re:USA #1 by sjames · · Score: 1

      That's their excuse, but you pay the same amount when you bring your own phone.

      An honest company would tell you up front what you're ACTUALLY paying for the phone, would correctly prorate that if you terminate early, and would actually not charge you for that if you bring your own phone. IIRC, one carrier in the U.S. does SOME of that.

    122. Re:USA #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other words, there are lots of people who think you are lacking in 'general awareness', too. I bet your car mechanic thinks you shouldn't have a license to drive.

      I agree, I feel much safer riding the bus.

    123. Re:USA #1 by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      I saved something like $100 dollars by getting my N1 for T-Mobile off contract.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    124. Re:USA #1 by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 1

      Here in America, you're stupid if you don't get a free phone... the ONLY carrier that discounts service if you aren't leasing a phone is T-Mobile. If you buy a phone outright and use any other service, you're throwing money away.

      How free do you think the "free" phone is? As posters above have noted, the cost of the "free" phone in monthly increments to the basic service over the duration of the contract (typically 2 years) amounts to several times what the phone would actually cost. The phone is paid for, with a heck of a margin added on.

      I bought a Desire Z for my teenage daughter a few months ago, entirely separate to the phone/data service. She has an unlimited data plan (no caps whatsoever) that adds 3euro onto the monthly fee. Her base monthly fee is 0.66euro (thats 66 eurocents), and her calls and text messages rarely even reach 5euro. The service has nothing to do with the phone, and does not even care what kind of phone she has. At home, she uses our wireless network because it's faster than the phone internet link, and connects to our media server to load music & videos onto her phone (there are no issues with or restrictions on tethering).

      The phone cost us just over 600eur including a 32GB uSDHC add-on. The monthly service including unlimited data is typically 7-9eur[*], giving a total outlay over two years of about 800eur including the phone. You do the math: how much would a comparable service cost over 24 months in the US with unlimited data, tethering, and a comparable "free" telephone (Desire Z or Desire HD or similar)?

      [*] We get service for 4 phones from the same company, so they give us an additional 10% discount on the service. I did not factor this in.

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    125. Re:USA #1 by green1 · · Score: 1

      But the point is you CAN, but it costs you more because you have to buy the phone, and you don't get a discount on the plan for bringing it.

    126. Re:USA #1 by green1 · · Score: 1

      How free do you think the "free" phone is? As posters above have noted, the cost of the "free" phone in monthly increments to the basic service over the duration of the contract (typically 2 years) amounts to several times what the phone would actually cost. The phone is paid for, with a heck of a margin added on.

      When the service plan costs you the same either way, you might as well take the "free" phone, because you pay for it even if you choose not to. and that is the reality of almost any provider in north america.

    127. Re:USA #1 by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      T-mobile has everything plus, which is a BYOD plan. They only offer it in store though.

    128. Re:USA #1 by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 1

      Dumb? Open your eyes. There's really no alternative. You either pay for what it costs...or you do without. Americans aren't dumb, they just have no alternative.

      By your logic, a North Korean citizen is an idiot simply because their country has an evil totalitarian government.

      Interesting point, but I'd modify it a little.

      I have not met any North Koreans, but am willing to surmise that their intelligence as individuals has a similar range to that found in other countries. So individually, they are unlikely to be nearly all idiots. Collectively, however, they accept and endure a despotic regime, so as a nation they are indeed idiotic not to seek an alternative.

      I have met many Americans, and they exhibit the usual range of intelligence, including morons as well as brilliant individuals. Collectively, however, I am beginning to suspect that they are becoming more and more idiotic due to widespread acceptance of objectionable situations because "no alternatives" are presented to them. This slope is rather slippery, but luckily there is still quite a way to go before they resemble the population of North Korea. Maybe it's not yet too late.

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    129. Re:USA #1 by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Except it isn't subsidized either as only T-Mobile will lower the price if you bring your own phone, or don't replace your phone every two years. Yes I tested this with Verizon, I let my contract expire, and the price didn't drop.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    130. Re:USA #1 by Minwee · · Score: 1

      How exactly is "Windows traffic" on a phone indistinguishable from "Windows traffic" on a PC, yet somehow those are both different from iOS traffic?

      If you're not tethering your iPhone, how can you explain why it checks with "Windows Update" every time it connects to the network?

    131. Re:USA #1 by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      Pretty much every post I've seen from a >2,000,000 UID so far is all pro-MS/anti-Apple/anti-Google bullshit..

      I suspect you need to look up a phenomenon known as "confirmation bias."

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    132. Re:USA #1 by Auroch · · Score: 1

      Do they not allow bringing your own phone?

      Maybe he doesn't know about SIM cards, maybe it's not GSM.

      --
      Quartz Extreme and Core Image. Are there any other real reasons to spend all that money on generic hardware?
    133. Re:USA #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes.

    134. Re:USA #1 by Auroch · · Score: 1

      Anyway, it seems you're just spreading BS. Pretty much every post I've seen from a >2,000,000 UID so far is all pro-MS/anti-Apple/anti-Google bullshit..

      Heh, most of the 2,000,000 UID posts are anti-ms,pro-apple,pro-google. Don't worry, you'll be in the minority soon.

      --
      Quartz Extreme and Core Image. Are there any other real reasons to spend all that money on generic hardware?
    135. Re:USA #1 by Auroch · · Score: 1

      I think that providing cellular coverage in the US is a slightly different animal than in Asia or Europe. The US is a large country relatively low population density compared to many other countries (87 people per sq mi vs 659 for the UK, for example,)

      Sure. Throw asia out there, then talk about the UK. I'm not sure how much of rural india has coverage, but I doubt they've got the wage-overhead that the US operators do.

      --
      Quartz Extreme and Core Image. Are there any other real reasons to spend all that money on generic hardware?
    136. Re:USA #1 by somersault · · Score: 1

      I suspect you need to pay more attention. I think the first >2,000,000 post I saw (a couple of weeks ago) was a troll, and since then it's all been shills. Seriously, go have a look at the first posts on stories in the last week or two..

      --
      which is totally what she said
    137. Re:USA #1 by MichaelKristopeit419 · · Score: 0
      "no one else in the world does this" = highest level of informativeness

      "your provided information is incorrect, as these others in the world do what you are claiming none do" = highest level of informativeness

      slashdot = stagnated

    138. Re:USA #1 by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 1

      How free do you think the "free" phone is? As posters above have noted, the cost of the "free" phone in monthly increments to the basic service over the duration of the contract (typically 2 years) amounts to several times what the phone would actually cost. The phone is paid for, with a heck of a margin added on.

      When the service plan costs you the same either way, you might as well take the "free" phone, because you pay for it even if you choose not to. and that is the reality of almost any provider in north america.

      Percidere, emptor, moneo.[*]
      I suppose that might be the new motto for phone companies in the US. They certainly seem to be living up to it.

      [*] Rough translation: A reaming, customer, I warn you. It's based on the start of an epigram often posted with an effigy of Priapus on merchant's stalls in ancient Rome.

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    139. Re:USA #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I recently went through a process of comparing providers, what is offered, types of plans (contract vs pay as you go) and all I could conclude is that there's nothing but collusion and bullshit on all sides.

      Case in point, Virgin Mobile versus Sprint. Because Sprint runs Virgin Mobile, I could compare the two as far as service goes. Because the two also offer the same two models of Android phones, I could also compare the overall cost.

      I had a 400min/month, nights and weekends at 9pm, 300 text messages/mo plan with Sprint. International texts cost me extra just to receive, they cost $0.20 after 300. No data included with that, so data usage was counted by KB and added more charges on top of what I was paying for... so I had Data locked and disabled. It was an older PowerVision plan I grandfathered in each renewal because it was still better than what they offered since. (Even to this day despite it being a 7 year old plan, says a lot about the state of the cellphone industry, doesn't it?)

      It cost me $52 a month, taxes/fees included. To add unlimited data, it would raise that to $69.99/mo (taxes/fees NOT included)... change my plan to a current one that would give me 450 minutes/mo, kill my Fair and Flexible under PowerVision ($5 for 50 minute block overages, $0.10/min basically, and make it default to $0.49/min overage)...

      My peak usage, ever, was 790 minutes, including nights and weekends use. Only in 3 months in 6 years did I go over 400 minutes during the day.

      On Virgin, I have the 1200 min/mo (no nights and weekends), unlimited data and text for $43/mo (taxes/fees included).

      For the same phone, same usage and to add data... would cost me an extra $500/year on Sprint. $504 a year to include taxes and fees, which run about $15 a mo in Chicago alone, so it's closer to $1000 extra for a two year contract. Take off the $150 for paying for the Virgin Mobile Android phone up front (either one)... Still $850 extra to use Sprint for the same service with the same phones.

      I basically came down to the conclusion that there is not one phone that Sprint sells that is worth paying an extra $850 for on top of its contract discount price if you're going to stick with 3G.

      The math gets even worse if you end up getting a 4G phone and have to pay $10 extra/mo. There's another set of taxes for that. Those phones run about $200-250 contract price, so another $240 for the 4G over 2 years, $200 for the average phone cost, at least $1290 extra.

      Not worth it, not for any other phone Sprint offers because the two Android phones on Virgin are pretty much complete feature wise and can be rooted to remove all the crapware that slows it down. The race to the bottom is the best thing that has happened to cellphones in years. Hopefully soon everything will be unlimited and flat rate.

      Bonus: No more early termination fees and I can resell the phone whenever I want.

    140. Re:USA #1 by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      No, he used wildcards so that it would match "crap" and "crud." He should have written "cr??" though.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    141. Re:USA #1 by profplump · · Score: 2

      A) You can't get a contract without an early termination fee even if you bring your own equipment.
      B) The cost of the early termination fee often greatly exceeds the value of the equipment subsidy. For the high-end phones the value may be comparable, but entry-level, voice-only phones are not worth $400.
      C) On many carriers it's essentially impossible to convince their sales staff that you can create an account without a contract. Try it some time -- I have with 1 regional and 2 national carriers and was only successful at one of them (T-Mobile).

    142. Re:USA #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The UK is just a US outpost, so it really doesn't count.

    143. Re:USA #1 by somersault · · Score: 1

      Come on now, surely as a 6 digit UID user you can write a custom UI for slashdot just by coughing on the keyboard?

      --
      which is totally what she said
    144. Re:USA #1 by luther349 · · Score: 1

      i dont buy contract phones or free phone bs and im amarcan. i find my phone carrer unlocked etc and use it qith whoever is offering the best pricing etc. if more people did this maybe the bs with cell phones will end. as for cable tv sorry i dont have it i watch all my stuff online hulu netflicks etc. couse your correct 100$ for friggen cable tv has gotten out of hand. the problem is most people in amarca are middle class or ritch and dont care mutch couse they have money.

    145. Re:USA #1 by somersault · · Score: 1

      damn HTML stripping

      s/6/\<6/

      --
      which is totally what she said
    146. Re:USA #1 by luther349 · · Score: 1

      both t-mobile and virginmbile and boost mobile all offfer no contract post paid. of couse your buying a phone woth no discount.

    147. Re:USA #1 by Macrat · · Score: 1

      my contract-free, subsidy-free T-Mobile plan is about $60/month. By going contract free, I save about $10-20/month, but it still comes out to $2k over 2 years.

      $60 X 24 months = $1,440. Not quite $2K.

    148. Re:USA #1 by shmlco · · Score: 1

      "Fascist, communist, socialist, elitist, anti-business agenda."

      You forgot socialist and elitist.

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    149. Re:USA #1 by Macrat · · Score: 1

      That would impossible here in Brazil due to our consumer laws in two way I can think of: they can't limit the way I use the service (unless I'm doing something illegal) and they can't change a contract term or assign a paid service unilaterally.

      What plans/charges are the iPhones sold with in Brazil?

    150. Re:USA #1 by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Given that >=5 digit UIDs make up over 95% of the Slashdot population, if you filtered them all out you'd probably have a really hard time following the conversation (you might as well shut off nested display mode too).

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    151. Re:USA #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just a question: Have any of you ever actually done the math between a regular, subsidized phone and a plan, and buying a phone outright? My Galaxy S cost $500, and my contract-free, subsidy-free T-Mobile plan is about $60/month. By going contract free, I save about $10-20/month, but it still comes out to $2k over 2 years.

      You've done your math incorrectly. $10-20/month over 2 years (24 months) is not $2k. It's $240 - $480. (http://www.google.com/search?q=20+*+24)

      To save $2k over 2 years, you'd need a discount of $83/month.

    152. Re:USA #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "can't detect Windows traffic from other Windows traffic"

      You sir, have no idea what you are talking about. I say that with absolutely the most respect possible.

    153. Re:USA #1 by orangebox · · Score: 1

      I don't understand how they can tell the difference between a jailbroken iphone and an iphone using a lot of data. I'd assume the PC and phone are NAT'ed together, shouldn't it appear that the data is just coming from the phone instead of from multiple devices ?

    154. Re:USA #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you. The GP mentality is how we've come to blame "them" for everything wrong in the World.

      Is wasting gas bad? Let me blame the SUV drivers if I drive a Prius. Let me blame all drivers if I ride a bike.

      Amazing how, to 90% of people, 99% are dumber than Average. Amazing how 99% of people who look like Hipsters, act like Hipsters and smell like Hipsters cannot stand Hipsters.

    155. Re:USA #1 by anomnomnomymous · · Score: 1

      I'm on a T-Mobile contract for £20.00/mo with a N900; the software that comes with that phone (Nokia PC Suite) allows very easy tethering. My datalimit is capped at 2GB/mo though.

      --
      When you shoot a mime, do you use a silencer?
    156. Re:USA #1 by kju · · Score: 1

      This is incorrect. T-Mobile Germany does allow tethering without any additional charge on current iphone plans. You can even get (for a one-time fee) a second SIM card e.g. for your iPad. See the fine-print on t-mobile.de.

    157. Re:USA #1 by I(rispee_I(reme · · Score: 1

      See my sig (just updated today) for more AT&T hijinx. I'd switch if the alternative wasn't comcast.

    158. Re:USA #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, that seems like a rip off. What on earth does your plan provide you? Unlimited data and no roaming charges even off continent? On the other hand, this is one reason I still don't have a smart phone. I can't imagine the utility justifies the extra guaranteed per-month expenditure.

    159. Re:USA #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I get charging for tethering when the plan is truly unlimited usage.
      It's bullsh!t to charge me $15/mo for 200MB (or $25 for 2GB) and then another $20/mo to share that, helping to use it up faster.
      Absolute bullsh!t.
      Like 7.5 per MB or 1.22 per MB is a bullshit decision. (200MB vs 2GB plan)
      and the bullsh!t fee makes that
      17.5 per MB or 2.2 per MB...

      What is it really?
      $13.92 for the privilege of using the network, and .54 per MB
      or $33.92 for the privilege of using the network with more than one device, and .54 per MB
      @ssh0les!!!

    160. Re:USA #1 by hedwards · · Score: 1

      In that case what you do is wait until you get a notification that they're changing the ToS for your plan, then contact customer service and tell them that you reject the changes. They're legally required to either let you out of the contract or remain under the terms of the previous one. I'm not aware of any company allowing customers to remain on the previous terms of the contract so you get out without having to pay the ETF.

      Basically by changing the terms they need to have your consent, otherwise they are in breach of contract, and really even if they do let you out, they're likely still in breech of contract, but it's not worthwhile to pursue.

    161. Re:USA #1 by hedwards · · Score: 1

      For the most part we don't. The CDMA carriers typically won't activate a phone that doesn't have their logo on it, and AT&T doesn't offer a discounted contract for those that don't use the subsidy. The other GSM carriers do, but I'm only positive about T-mobile, and to an extent they do things more like European carriers do, well compared to the other options.

    162. Re:USA #1 by captain_sweatpants · · Score: 1

      Suggested reading:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy

      It's don't think it's really a false dichotomy, since the situation proposed where price points and feature sets are identical do match the theorical definitions of perfect competition and collusion, and probably (I'm not interested enough in economics to confirm this) don't meet any others definitions of competition (like feature differentiation.)

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)

      This logic is consistent as above. You could certainly disagree with my premise that perfect competition doesn't exist.

      Suggest reading for most of my posts:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_Wit

      Admittedly finishing my OP with a ! rather than a . probably would have clarified my intention somewhat! My point was that it is impossible (by my understanding of human nature and business SOP) to have perfect competition in a market with only 4 very large players. So clearly there is anti-competitive behaviour going on, although as you point out it's not necesarily collusion. In Australia our 3 big players strategy is to differentiate on how many 'free calls' they give you each month. Eg. You pay $49/month and they provide you with $300! worth of calls. The call rates are naturally in the small print and completely different to the competitors making comparison extremely difficult. At least in the US you seem to quote plans in minutes which avoids this particular type of anti-competive behaviour.

    163. Re:USA #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been no-contract with AT&T for years. The only reason I had a 1 year contract to start was because the sales person lied to me (which I confirm years later, but eh, "lying during sales" has been my experience fairly consistently with AT&T. I'm no longer shocked.)

    164. Re:USA #1 by captain_sweatpants · · Score: 1

      Yes you're correct. But this is what really happens:

      CEO A thinks: hmm this is my last quarter before I move on to my next ludicrusly overpaid CEO job and I really want to maximise my bonus. I know, I'll raise prices. By the time the market catches on, our loyal customers will send me out with record profits!

      CEO B thinks, hmm, market share is 50% for us, 50% for vendor A. Vendor A just put his prices up. Not much to gain by having a lower margin, even if we do grab a few % from vendor A. Lets match vendor As price. I bet this new marketing campaign or this stupidly complex and ultimately more expensive but superficially great value new contract scheme will grab us a few % though. Gee, I love lawyers and accountants almost as much as I love money! Winning!

    165. Re:USA #1 by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Pre paid plans have to contend more directly on price, so their monthly service is far cheaper, even though it's the same infrastructure.

      Boost mobile is the best. Unlimited everything as low as $35/mo. but the data service that comes with it isn't even dial up speed. The 3G upgrade is only available for Blackberry users, and it's an extra $10/mo.

      Alternatively, you could try virgin mobile, which is also part of sprint, like boost.

      TMobile is slightly cheaper for those who never, ever use it for anything....

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    166. Re:USA #1 by zioncat · · Score: 1

      Do Americans know that no one else in the world does this? Not in Europe, not in Asia. They sell you the service and you use it how you want.

      I'm surprised sophisticated cosmopolitan such as yourself are not aware of Japan not even allowing tethering on iPhone (or iPad) and throttling uplink at 64kbps while promoting 1.4Mbps uplink.

    167. Re:USA #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree. I live in Japan, and some if not all major providers don't allow tethering in Japan either, and will charge (or fine) you a whole lot extra to do it, just like AT+T in the states.

      It's actually worse here because you can't just pay for a "smartphone plan" and then use whichever unlocked smartphone you like. It's virtually impossible to bring your own smartphone from the US, for example, to Japan, and have them approve it for use on their network with a reasonably-priced unlimited data plan, unless it is the same as one of the models they sell/support. You may still get it to work, but if they detect that you weren't using the phone they approved you to use, they will charge you outrageous metered data/tethering fees. To them, I believe using anything other than the single approved device that goes with your unlimited data contract is considered tethering (whether it actually tethered through another device or not).

      What sucks about USA service is that they pay per msg to *receive* text messages. I think Canada may do the same.

    168. Re:USA #1 by thestallion · · Score: 1

      Boooooooo new slashdot format.

      I just wrote that anonymous comment, not intending it to be anonymous. I wasn't logged in and it never gave me the choice between logging in or posting anonymously. It just posted it anonymously! Guess I have to log in beforehand now...

      I disagree. I live in Japan, and some if not all major providers don't allow tethering in Japan either, and will charge (or fine) you a whole lot extra to do it, just like AT+T in the states.

      It's actually worse here because you can't just pay for a "smartphone plan" and then use whichever unlocked smartphone you like. It's virtually impossible to bring your own smartphone from the US, for example, to Japan, and have them approve it for use on their network with a reasonably-priced unlimited data plan, unless it is the same as one of the models they sell/support. You may still get it to work, but if they detect that you weren't using the phone they approved you to use, they will charge you outrageous metered data/tethering fees. To them, I believe using anything other than the single approved device that goes with your unlimited data contract is considered tethering (whether it actually tethered through another device or not).

      What sucks about USA service is that they pay per msg to *receive* text messages. I think Canada may do the same.

    169. Re:USA #1 by thestallion · · Score: 1

      You nailed it. So sad we can't agree upon and implement a better system that would foster actual competition and drive down unnecessary profit margins.

    170. Re:USA #1 by captain_sweatpants · · Score: 1

      I bet you and I could agree. Convincing the politicians on the other hand might be a bit more difficult! I should probably give a try sometime though.

    171. Re:USA #1 by maxume · · Score: 1

      That's the thing, the Virgin Mobile phones are cheap, and the $50 no contract plan is the "Unlimited" Voice/Text/Data (but no tethering).

      So the carrier locks are still there, but it isn't a big deal, especially with the dual standards and multiple frequency licenses in use in the U.S.

      Their coverage isn't as good as the other carriers, but it isn't terrible, and lots of people are more concerned with coverage they can use everyday than they are with coverage they might use once in a while.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    172. Re:USA #1 by FireFury03 · · Score: 1

      I'm still looking for a "bring your own phone" GSM plan with good pricing.

      Might be a silly question, but can't you just buy the cheapest of the cheap phone from them and swap the SIM into a decent handset? (and ebay the phone you had to buy)

    173. Re:USA #1 by FireFury03 · · Score: 1

      It would reduce the amount of waste too (which is another reason the phone manufacturers like it - more sales) - How many people *actually* need to upgrade their phone every 2 years (and would decline to do so if they had to pay for it)?

    174. Re:USA #1 by FireFury03 · · Score: 1

      Wow, that seems like a rip off. What on earth does your plan provide you? Unlimited data and no roaming charges even off continent? On the other hand, this is one reason I still don't have a smart phone. I can't imagine the utility justifies the extra guaranteed per-month expenditure.

      I got a HTC Dream off ebay and unlocked it (total cost: £140), stuck in a Three PAYG SIM (cost: £0). Every £5 I credit to my account gets me 150MB of free data for up to 3 months and a bunch of free SMS messages. Paying £5 will get me a "2GB for 1 month" package. There are no restrictions on tethering. I probably average somewhere around £5 / month or so, which basically is just the cost of calls since I pretty much never exceed the 150MB freebee.

      Admittedly the wifi stopped working on the phone after a couple of years, but the same would be true if I had bought it on contract so it makes little difference.

    175. Re:USA #1 by FireFury03 · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile, Brits pay a per-device tax for television. (Hurr durr...)

      No, we don't. You're misinformed.

    176. Re:USA #1 by FireFury03 · · Score: 1

      In Europe most people buy subsidized phones too. But unless you want a very expensive phone + plan, it will add up to hundreds of euros, not thousands, over two years. Buying phone and service separately is slightly cheaper, but not spectacularly.

      The big money savings can be had by buying a used phone - when the MNOs give people a subsidised upgrade to replace their 18 month old phone, those 18 month old phones often end up on ebay... and because there are so many of them (and seemingly so few people looking for them) they go for far less than the original retail price. If you're happy to have an 18 month old used phone in practically brand new condition (which the MNOs probably only stopped selling a few weeks ago) then this is a good option. Unlocking is very cheap too.

    177. Re:USA #1 by tjhart85 · · Score: 1

      His point was that for 3/4 main carriers in the US, you do NOT get a discount for bringing your own phone or being off contract (and some won't even ALLOW you to sign up as an off contract user), so you might as well just take the phone since you'll be paying the some fee monthly anyways.

    178. Re:USA #1 by FireFury03 · · Score: 1

      No artificial cap needed, the link is simply saturated and instead of taking one piece of the pie, you take 10.

      Nope, the internet doesn't work like that. If a router is receiving more data than will fit down the link it will simply drop packets stochasticly, irrespective of what logical connection they belong to. Of course, it's possible to track connections and throttle them individually, but that's not generally what routers on the internet do. I guess there may be some interesting interplay between the slow-start/fast-backoff mechanisms within the concurrent TCP sessions, but I doubt that would give you a significant gain.

    179. Re:USA #1 by Lost+Race · · Score: 1

      The "will happily pay thousands of dollars because they're giving me a free phone now" is possible thanks to a logical fallacy called "hyperbolic discounting"

      Hyperbolic discounting is not a fallacy, it's an incorporation of uncertain risk into present value calculations. Naturally this is not a formal calculation most of the time; it appears to be a heuristic approximation instinctive in many animals. See the "Explanations" section of the Wikipedia article linked above.

    180. Re:USA #1 by AdamWill · · Score: 1

      "My "cable TV" is netflix streaming + free OTA HD network channels + hulu."

      Good luck seeing any live sports.

    181. Re:USA #1 by AdamWill · · Score: 1

      There's an 'easy' solution to that, which is metro-area-only carriers, a system most countries with wide open spaces develop eventually. Are there none of those in the U.S.?

    182. Re:USA #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Australia, well Brisbane, my girlfriend is locked to a 3GS iPhone for 2 years. All I had to do was make a complaint at the store about coverage and reception (this was with 3 but I have another friend who did it with Optus) and they dropped the exit fee. Not only that, but they also cut 10 bucks a month off her phone bill until she wanted to cancel the contract.

      Sometimes all you have to do is ask. Oh and one of my mates with Optus said after a year on his plan, he can 'upgrade' plans as long as he stays with Optus. Basically it means you get a new phone on the same cap and you don't have to pay any fees. My Dad was getting an upgraded phone every 9 months with Vodafone (before they got mega crappy). It seems a lot of the business over here will do a lot to keep your business.

    183. Re:USA #1 by grouchomarxist · · Score: 1

      Softbank, the only official carrier of the iPhone in Japan, still doesn't support tethering. I don't know if they're cracking down on unofficial use though.

    184. Re:USA #1 by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      "My "cable TV" is netflix streaming + free OTA HD network channels + hulu."

      Good luck seeing any live sports.

      Huh? The networks carry most games for the local teams. If you like an out-of-market team, that could be a problem, but methinks that would be a problem anyway.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    185. Re:USA #1 by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      Plus $500 for the device.

    186. Re:USA #1 by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      No, you read my comment wrong. I said the plan total, plus device, costs $2k over 2 years. Not that I was saving $2k.

    187. Re:USA #1 by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      Yes, it does. That has nothing to do with my comment. I meant that the plan + device total over 2 years is about $2k.

    188. Re:USA #1 by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      I understand the math perfectly. I'd love to be able to buy a device I wanted and use it with a carrier I wanted. But the US wireless system as it is now won't let that happen. Even worse, you pay the same amount monthly whether you have a phone you're renting-to-own or have your own phone that you already own. So where's the incentive to not get a new phone from the provider for free?

      We Americans talk a good game about the "free market", but your European governments do a better job of actually enforcing one.

    189. Re:USA #1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol, I am Argentinian (Latin America) Not even here internet is that limited. Seriously guys. You need to get back your internets somehow.

  2. Detection by mehrotra.akash · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How do they detect if the users are tethering??

    1. Re:Detection by recoiledsnake · · Score: 0

      They might have some detection code running on the iPhone drivers etc. that's unremovable because of all the drm and signed apps requirements unless it's jailbroken? I dunno, just a plausible guess.

      --
      This space for rent.
    2. Re:Detection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i'd think non safari user agents for one...

    3. Re:Detection by DanTheManMS · · Score: 3, Interesting

      How do they detect if the users are tethering??

      From what I've read, it seems like they're really just looking for people who use up tons of data per month, on the suspicion that they're tethering. I've already heard a few stories of people calling them up, saying "I stream Pandora all day so why am I being charged extra for that?" and being let off the hook.

    4. Re:Detection by Cutriss · · Score: 2

      Current guess is they're snooping on user agent strings in packets to determine if PC clients are being used to browse the web.

      --
      "Mod, mod, mod...and another troll bites the dust."
    5. Re:Detection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      People view Flash based sites.

    6. Re:Detection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do they detect if the users are tethering??

      deep packet inspection anyone?

    7. Re:Detection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      just a dumb guess.

      FTFY

    8. Re:Detection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Er, you can get Opera in the AppStore ...

    9. Re:Detection by hellfire · · Score: 1

      Could simply be encoded in the network tracking. The endpoint of the TCP request is not the phone, it's the machine attached to the phone. Can you somehow track that in the network traffic regardless of the jailbreak and then cross reference with the user's AT&T account?

      --

      "All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

    10. Re:Detection by naturaverl · · Score: 2

      Quoting the summary, "unofficial tethering methods like MyWi and PDANet"... Through apple, AT&T knows what apps you have installed. If you have MyWi or PDANet installed, and you're using a larger-than-normal amount of bandwidth, then they'll claim you are tethering.

    11. Re:Detection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Presume it is from the user-agent string for browsing. Your tethering practices could probably be obsfucated if you change the user-agent you're using to match the Safari iPhone user-agent string.

    12. Re:Detection by badran · · Score: 1

      TTL

    13. Re:Detection by bleh-of-the-huns · · Score: 5, Informative

      If you look at your bill, it shows how much data per day and when the sessions started and stopped. Short sessions are not counted separately, rather grouped into the previous or next major session. I tether, and I just checked my bill, currently about 2.5 g per month is what I am running on the high side.

      here is a sample from a few days of use last month..

      336 MON 01/31/2011 9:23AM Data Transfer Data 222,366 KB DPPB AT GPRR Out 0.00
      337 MON 01/31/2011 11:30AM Data Transfer Data 75,889 KB DPPB AT GPRR Out 0.00
      338 MON 01/31/2011 11:02PM Data Transfer Data 513 KB DPPB AT GPRR Out 0.00
      339 TUE 02/01/2011 12:02AM Data Transfer Data 4,323 KB DPPB AT GPRR Out 0.00
      340 WED 02/02/2011 8:27AM Data Transfer Data 38,168 KB DPPB AT GPRR Out 0.00
      341 WED 02/02/2011 11:32AM Data Transfer Data 107,778 KB DPPB AT GPRR Out 0.00
      342 WED 02/02/2011 2:50PM Data Transfer Data 38,417 KB DPPB AT GPRR Out 0.00

      Even if I was streaming pandara all day, and surfing the internet, and using various network aware apps and youtube (which would conflict with pandora from an audio standpoint), it would still be hard to hit 220 meg between say 930am and 1130am on lines 336 and 337.

      That would be a dead giveaway. They would not even have to use deep packet inspection to pull agent strings, or anything.

      But like someone else said, they are probably just going to hit people that use exorbitant amounts of bandwidth, although as a security person, I could easily develop something automated to find the majority of those tethering without any human interaction required..

      --
      I came, I conquered, I coredumped
    14. Re:Detection by mjwx · · Score: 1

      IMEI.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    15. Re:Detection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quoting the summary, "unofficial tethering methods like MyWi and PDANet"... Through apple, AT&T knows what apps you have installed. If you have MyWi or PDANet installed, and you're using a larger-than-normal amount of bandwidth, then they'll claim you are tethering.

      Just because you have MyWi or PDANet installed doesn't mean you are using them, so that argument falls flat.

    16. Re:Detection by mark-t · · Score: 1

      And the user-agent is so impossible to change?

    17. Re:Detection by ddd0004 · · Score: 1

      Well, we could always have a look at the source code and see if this is happening. Oh wait....

    18. Re:Detection by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      It's not like they have to prove it. All they have to do is say "we think you're doing this, so you'll either pay $45 more per month, stop tethering, or break your contract (and possibly owe us a hefty termination fee)."

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    19. Re:Detection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      TTL in the packet header

    20. Re:Detection by naturaverl · · Score: 1

      Tell that to AT&T.

    21. Re:Detection by mark-t · · Score: 1

      If they aren't official, how does Apple know they are installed? If they were from the App store, in which case Apple knows you installed it, how is that not official?

    22. Re:Detection by Ruke · · Score: 1

      No, but that doesn't mean that people are doing it. There are twenty different ways that AT&T could be detecting tethering, each with a workaround that would defeat AT&T's snooping. This doesn't mean that each tethered user is aware of each of these methods, or even aware that AT&T is snooping on them in the first place. Nor should we assume that everyone with a jailbroken iPhone has the technical wherewithal to correctly implement any or all of these workarounds.

    23. Re:Detection by Desler · · Score: 1

      Not impossible to change != everyone will know to change it.

    24. Re:Detection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is just not relevant at all. This is a common misbelief on slashdot: that a restriction only makes sense if it absolutely covers 100% of the cases. Reality is that if AT&T can make morey money by UA sniffing they may do it, even if many people will be able to work around the restriction.

    25. Re:Detection by andrea.sartori · · Score: 1

      For most people it is, I'd say. Just say "user agent" around and count the number of blank stares. (Does not apply if you only hang around with techies.)

      --
      Mostly harmless.
    26. Re:Detection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are likely using the packet TTL value as said here:
      http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/g62wv/i_woke_up_this_morning_to_this_lovely_email_from/c1l6ixe

    27. Re:Detection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had been told at one point that MyWi spoofed the Useragent to look like Safari. I've never run a capture to determine if this is true though.

    28. Re:Detection by Lost+Engineer · · Score: 1

      I would imagine, in most cases, web traffic could be monitored and the browser IDs recorded. It's not foolproof, but you could get a lot of people that way.

    29. Re:Detection by Lost+Engineer · · Score: 1

      Seems to me that the use of a VPN would render AT&T snooping impossible. Is this not true?

    30. Re:Detection by DrgnDancer · · Score: 1

      A lot of apps helpfully make it easier for them too. It's not deliberate, they're trying to avoid consumer dissatisfaction with their service, but very few apps will download large files over the cellular network. Just bought a new audiobook from Audible, but I can't download it until I get to a wifi hotspot. The Audible app won't DL files larger than 20MB over the cell network. I'm fairly sure that Audible isn't in collusion with AT&T, they just don't want people to get crappy download speeds and/or data charges and blame their app. As a consequence though, people rarely download very large files over the cell network unless they're tethered.

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    31. Re:Detection by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Probably not - most likely this is just using NAT or whatever which isn't easily detected.

      More likely as others have suggested they're looking at:

      1. Bandwidth use (what they really care about anyway).
      2. User-agent strings.
      3. Various fingerprinting techniques like browser-specific behavior or OS-specific behavior if it leaks through the NAT.

      It isn't like the phone can get multiple IP leases, so there is no routing visible to the outside network.

    32. Re:Detection by sosume · · Score: 1

      Uh, isn't the burden of proof with the telco? Why would you be required to prove innocence?
      Besides that, I still can't understand it. What if your iPhone broke down and you got an Android replacement. Wouldn't that trigger the tethering detection as well? You yanks are a weird bunch ..

    33. Re:Detection by Compaqt · · Score: 1

      Maybe I'm missing something, but what are you doing on your laptop to be downloading 220MB between 9 and 11 am?

      Depending on the answer, couldn't you be plausibly doing the same thing on the phone?

      --
      I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    34. Re:Detection by ideaz · · Score: 1

      Possibly the headers.. iPhone (safari etc) headers vary from what your desktop (browsers) would have...

    35. Re:Detection by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Or a SOCKS proxy, depending on which tethering app we're talking about.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    36. Re:Detection by Svartalf · · Score: 1

      Considering that the tethering app makes it look like the phone's actually the one doing the requests...sorry, don't buy that. They're likely doing the thing suggested earlier in the comments discussion- they're presuming that there's a certain bandwidth usage that's practical on a phone (yes, there is...and it's NOT what many think it is...it can be much higher...) and you "must be tethering" by going over...

      It's either that or they've got a means to see what app inventory I have and I'd have more than a bit of an issue with that.

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    37. Re:Detection by MetalliQaZ · · Score: 0

      This isn't a court of law. When dealing with companies, the burden is always on the individual.

      --
      "Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
    38. Re:Detection by icebraining · · Score: 1

      Tethering does NAT, so the endpoint seen by the carrier is in fact the phone.

      Reliably detecting NAT isn't easy, but the most reliable way seems to be by reading the TTL values, since the PC sets them and some NAT stacks decrement them, but that can be fixed by configuring the phone NAT not to decrement them.

    39. Re:Detection by icebraining · · Score: 1

      That can be a pain since you'll get the mobile versions of some websites. I'd rather set up a VPN at home and connect through it.

    40. Re:Detection by Ruke · · Score: 1

      It would make packet sniffing impossible. It wouldn't prevent AT&T from claiming that you were tethering based on your sheer volume of traffic, and it wouldn't do you any good on the off-chance that there is something in the iPhone's hardware which indicates whether it is currently tethered to another device via USB. (Both of which have been proposed in the comments on this story.)

    41. Re:Detection by BassMan449 · · Score: 3, Informative

      The tethering app makes the network level requests look like they are coming from the phone because they are, but the application level packet data can easily enough be looked at to determine what type of traffic it actually is.

    42. Re:Detection by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      I would think that NetShare and other SOCKS-based proxies aren't detectable with that method because AFAIK TTL negotiation isn't part of the SOCKS protocol. Maybe those guys had the right idea.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    43. Re:Detection by wagnerrp · · Score: 2

      From what I've read, it seems like they're really just looking for people who use up tons of data per month, on the suspicion that they're tethering.

      Why do they care how much traffic a user is consuming? There was a report a year or two ago about AT&T having network troubles due to the iPhone, because while the average user actually consumed 1/8th the bandwidth of one with a laptop modem, the type of traffic they were sending actually put more load on the equipment. The only real reason they meter by data is it's a lot easier to explain to a user than packet throughput.

    44. Re:Detection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm betting its not too advanced, perhaps sniffing browser user agents, or looking for phones that query update.microsoft.com or something similar.

    45. Re:Detection by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      They have to prove it if they want to charge you another $45/mo, or claim you are in breach of your contract.

    46. Re:Detection by jandrese · · Score: 1

      Tethering sets up NAT on the phone, so that probably wouldn't work.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    47. Re:Detection by rbayer · · Score: 1

      Considering that the tethering app makes it look like the phone's actually the one doing the requests...sorry, don't buy that.t.

      Tethering apps, much like home NAT routers, will change IP, link, and physical layer properties of your packets but will leave the higher level stuff intact. In particular, HTTP headers are not changed by these processes and that is where the user-agent string is located. You can think of a packet you send as being something like:

      [Wireless header]
      [IP header]
      [HTTP header]
      packet contents (this gets blurry with HTTP as to what you call header and what you call data for a request)
      [HTTP footer]
      [IP footer]
      [Wireless footer]

      So this of course gets us into the whole other discussion of why a common carrier has any business looking at the packets I'm sending/receiving any more deeply than is necessary to route them where I want.

    48. Re:Detection by icebraining · · Score: 1

      220MB in 2 hours is just 250kbps; a 320kbps MP3 stream uses more than that. A video stream uses way more.

    49. Re:Detection by rbayer · · Score: 1

      Even if I was streaming pandara all day, and surfing the internet, and using various network aware apps and youtube (which would conflict with pandora from an audio standpoint), it would still be hard to hit 220 meg between say 930am and 1130am on lines 336 and 337.

      Perhaps I'm missing something, but couldn't you be doing something perfectly legitimate like streaming live baseball or even just watching YouTube videos? I imagine that would use a rather large chunk of data rather quickly.

    50. Re:Detection by nahdude812 · · Score: 1

      Hmm, Audible on Android has no compunction about downloading over the cell network. I have a NexusOne running on AT&T, and downloaded a 300mb book yesterday morning. There is a setting that lets you choose whether you only download on WiFi so you don't accidentally use up your data plan, but it defaulted to disabled (downloads with any connection).

    51. Re:Detection by DeadboltX · · Score: 1

      The TCP endpoint IS the phone, the phone uses NAT to forward the request to any other devices. All network traffic should look as if it is coming from and going to the phone. The only way to detect if the traffic is not originating form the phone is to do deep packet scans and, with uncertainty, determine that some types of traffic are not likely to originate from a phone that is designed to have limited functionality. Utilizing flash content while tethered through an iPhone would be a dead giveaway.

    52. Re:Detection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the http request you can tell what browser version is being transmitted. All they have to do is monitor traffic for a browser type that is not found on any of their phone models and trap it along with your phone number.

    53. Re:Detection by vonart · · Score: 1

      I think it might actually be at AT&T's request. I've got the Audible app on my Verizon Droid and it happily downloads larger than 20 MB files on 3G. It's a feature I use with some regularity given how much I travel in areas away from wifi.

      --
      The American Dream has too much grinding and the leveling makes no sense. -GameboyRMH (1153867)
    54. Re:Detection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um no... the endpoint of the TCP request is essentially always the phone, unless your provider is dishing out multiple IPs. If you tether, you will typically be NATing (though conceivably you can also transparently forward -- but then there is no disctinction between the "phone" and the machine attached to the phone.

      Obviously if you inspect traffic content you can make high quality inferences that will nab most users. Additionally multiple NAT is easily teased out through traffic analysis. Doesn't change the fact that there is still only one endpoint seen to the outside world.

    55. Re:Detection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because that is absolutely what he was saying. Of course, user-agents can be changed, this is Slashdot, that's news to no one, but thanks for sharing. He was making a guess, and one that I expect is right, because it will probably catch a decent number of tethering users atm and will always catch more than doing nothing at all.

    56. Re:Detection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      my kingdom for a mod point. you make an excellent point sir.

    57. Re:Detection by kannibal_klown · · Score: 1

      2 years ago we had a vendor stop by to demo some software. He was prepared to either use our Internet connection, or fallback to his 3G flip-phone via tethering.

      He said that he used the 3G tethering for a while without issue. But a couple of months prior AT&T disabled his data plan because they found out he was tethering without paying the for the plan. Of course they did this a few hours before one of his demonstrations and he had to get them to enable it ASAP.

      Even he said "I don't know how they detected it since I'm just downloading data."

    58. Re:Detection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I run a windows mobile phone on which I am able to run a bit torrent client. I can hit gigabytes per day without ever tethering the phone. I don't think that the amount used is a true indicator of weather or not a phone is tethered to a PC.

         

    59. Re:Detection by scubamage · · Score: 1
      Yup, because if they start filtering traffic, I'm pretty sure that gets rid of their safe harbor status, doesn't it? Although it would be pretty trivial to have whatever is handling the tethering do some deep packet inspection/manipulation but I don't know if an iphone can handle that kind of processing at line speed. All AT&T can monitor is the packets. So, here are the places I could see them getting detected:
      • Shoddy NAT implementation
      • User agent strings
      • Layer 5 protocols (for instance SIP, which would have the original IP hidden in it because it doesn't play well with NAT)
      • Flash content
      • Checking for presence of tethering software

      .

    60. Re:Detection by dissy · · Score: 1

      My iPhone does have MyWi installed, but I haven't received any emails from AT&T yet about tethering.

      Ironically however, the only device I really tether to it is my iPad.
      I wonder how that would effect their detection methods...

      While I do have the 3G iPad, it's $15/mo for 250mb.
      My iPhone is grandfathered in to the unlimited plan, so sometimes it's better to tether the iPad through the phone to not count against its cap, and other times it's easier and faster to just enable 3G on the iPad if what I'm planning to transfer is small.

      But seeing as any and all data transferred through my iPhone via tether would be normal iPad traffic, which should look identical to when the iPad is using 3G directly, that might be throwing off whatever means they use to detect alternate data streams.

      Of course if they are going purely by amount of data transferred, then again there would be little difference between the two devices, as I could clearly generate the same amount of traffic from my phone directly, as I could from my iPad tethered through the phone.

    61. Re:Detection by DrgnDancer · · Score: 1

      Interesting. I just scoped out the user manual for both the Android and iPhone versions of the Audible app, and they are significantly different. The Android version appears to download a standard (encrypted I think) .aac file and will let you download it over the cell network, at least partially, becasue it buffers the download. So you start downloading and can listen pretty soon thereafter once the app buffers enough of the content to keep you streaming. The iPhone version can play those standard .aac files (if you downloaded them to a computer or something then synced to the phone), but if you download directly to the phone you get a different type of file. The iPhone version is aware that you're playing an audiobook and has tags for chapters, bookmarks, and sections. It also cannot be buffered apparently. Of course it also requires wifi to download files larger than 20MB. Both appear to have advantages, I'm not sure which model I like better.

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    62. Re:Detection by scubamage · · Score: 1

      Agreed. As I mentioned earlier, I think the biggest giveaways would be layer 5 protocols (SIP sticks out since it relies heavily on IP addresses, and its notorious for not working well with NAT), and content that can't normally be displayed on a device (such as streaming video, flash, etc).

    63. Re:Detection by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      Only if you take them to court, and good luck with that. If you don't think their contracts have been written to side with them in 99.9% of all disputes, I have a bridge to sell you.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    64. Re:Detection by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      I would guess the packet profile, as in, how many packets are sent and how often, would be quite different between using the browser on your phone, and using the browser on your laptop.

    65. Re:Detection by s73v3r · · Score: 1

      I would bet though, that if three or four of the indicators come up positive, that there is a very, very good chance the user is tethering.

    66. Re:Detection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're looking at the TTL values for network packets. These are set in order to avoid infinite routing loops; every hop you make on a local network decreases this value by 1. When the TTL reaches 0, the packet is dropped.

      For an example, say your iPhone has a default TTL of 64. Through the mobile data connection, AT&T sees packets coming from your device with a TTL of 64.

      Now, tether your laptop and start generating traffic. If your laptop runs Mac OS X, it also has a default TTL of 64. But the traffic makes a hop through your iPhone, so AT&T sees packets with a TTL of 63.

      You can set the TTL on your laptop to one higher than the TTL of your iDevice; in this example, setting your Mac's default TTL to 65 will send packets with a TTL of 64 over the network, and AT&T should be none the wiser.

    67. Re:Detection by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Isn't that cute. You think a wireless carrier is competent.

    68. Re:Detection by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 1

      It would be pretty easy actually - monitor people who use a lot of bandwidth and start analyzing their traffic based on that report. Desktop pc's/laptops use more bandwidth because most websites are tailored to deliver richer content to machines with bigger screens more cpu etc.

      Anyone who has is sending user agents from desktop browsers is a likely candidate - other kinds of data that could only come from a PC (like video games like WoW or Eve or something like that).

    69. Re:Detection by secretcurse · · Score: 1

      Someone above said (and I don't claim it's true, I'm just saying it's possible) that one of the specific apps for jailbroken tethering spoofs the user agent string on HTTP requests to match the user agent string from Safari on the phone.

      --
      I'm using all of my mod points to mod ancient memes down. Please join me.
    70. Re:Detection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You certainly could, but then the websites that have iPhone specific versions will load up the mobile-centric CSS instead of the normal site...

    71. Re:Detection by garcia · · Score: 1

      I use 2+ GB a month on my phone simply from Netflix on the bus for 30 minutes a day in addition to my usual web/e-mail/Pandora/XM habits.

      I can burn through more than 250MB in 42 minutes on the treadmill with Netflix only. They better not claim I'm fucking tethering or I'm going to tell them to get stuffed.

    72. Re:Detection by microbee · · Score: 1

      They may go by browser's UA string.

      But I think using VPN would get around it.

    73. Re:Detection by nosferatu1001 · · Score: 1

      I would imagine the iPhone just tells your operator you have put tethering on.
      It sounds about right for Apple

    74. Re:Detection by smitty97 · · Score: 1

      And what user-agent string would my VPN session to my work network be using? How about my Dropbox app? Or VNC? There's more to the internet than browsers.

      --
      mod me funny
    75. Re:Detection by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      ...except that Apple only knows what apps you have installed through the App store that sync back to iTunes; they don't know about cydia apps. I know this because I have a firewall installed, and Apple never appears to ask for anything from me except through iTunes (except when I use the app store on my phone, at which point they get my installed app list right off the phone -- which doesn't include cydia apps like MyWi and PDANet).

      It is definitely possible though, that Apple receives telemetry on whether their tethering is enabled or not -- and since MyWi and PDANet just anable this, they'd still be able to notify AT&T. For that matter, it's possible that AT&T has direct access to this telemetry.

    76. Re:Detection by bleh-of-the-huns · · Score: 1

      I tether my corp laptop when I am on my client site (where I cannot connect my laptop to the network). Unfortunately, my corp policy pushed out to the laptop includes a daily backup, that is what was running around that point.. its annoying, but I cannot turn it off. I can kill the process, but sometimes I forget, and then end up with a much larger backup....

      --
      I came, I conquered, I coredumped
    77. Re:Detection by digitalsushi · · Score: 1

      Ok, you have caught my interest. What is the algorithm, very generally, to detect this?

      --
      slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
    78. Re:Detection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read up on NAT. This is slashdot for chrissakes.

    79. Re:Detection by HaveNoMouth · · Score: 1

      Could simply be encoded in the network tracking. The endpoint of the TCP request is not the phone, it's the machine attached to the phone.

      Wrong. It's NAT-mapped. The endpoint is always the phone.

    80. Re:Detection by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      It can be, yes, but is that legal?

      Anyway, a simple workaround is to enable VPN to your home (or elsewhere) so AT&T can't snoop.

    81. Re:Detection by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      What isn't clear here, and I wish they'd clarify, is if they only care about people with unlimited data plans.

      I have a 200 meg plan, and I don't come to anywhere near using it, thanks to wifi. But I also am jailbroken and have a tethering program that I can use in case of emergencies where I need data on my laptop.

      I paid for that data. I paid for 200 megs. Are they really going to bitch and moan that I downloaded some web pages in Firefox instead of their web browser, or that I checked my email in firefox so I could get the damn wifi password from it that someone just emailed me?

      Assholes using it as their sole ISP are one thing, and I was astonished that AT&T left grandfather'd plans that let people keep unlimited data. I understand fighting misuse like that.

      But are they going after people who are well under the actual limit they bought?

      Hell, I'd probably go ahead and buy tethering...if they sold it as a $5 addition instead of requiring people to buy a fucking 4 gig plan. 200meg is too much for me! If they sold a 20meg plan, I'd buy that instead, too. I am the anti-problem for AT&T's data issues...but heaven forbid if I tether.

      AT&T needs to decide what the fuck they want customers to do, and then actually sell them the plans, not bitch and moan about 'misuse'. Some of us are responsible and have our fucking wifi set up and have almost no data usage...and now they're going to threaten us if some of our microscopic data usage is because we want to fire up Google Earth on our laptop on a long drive?

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    82. Re:Detection by brunes69 · · Score: 1

      I call bull. I routinely stream HD YouTube video and HD videos from other sites (yay Android flash!) and have used over 1GB / month without tethering many times, with many sessions > 500 MB.

      Just because you don't do it doesn't mean others don't.

    83. Re:Detection by Weedhopper · · Score: 1

      App update. Especially easy to do several hundred megs in less than an hour with the 20MB limit removed on IOS.

    84. Re:Detection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't take a degree in rocket surgery to figure out that you aren't playing WOW from your iPhone.

    85. Re:Detection by CheerfulMacFanboy · · Score: 1

      If they aren't official, how does Apple know they are installed? If they were from the App store, in which case Apple knows you installed it, how is that not official?

      Duh - because Apple is both behind Cydia and most "alternative" apps. Why else would MyWi cost 30%, ermm, I mean $20?

      --
      Fandroids hate facts.
    86. Re:Detection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the user-agent is so impossible to change?

      There is no app for that.

    87. Re:Detection by GWBasic · · Score: 1
      NAT detection. From http://www.sflow.org/detectNAT/

      The NAT detection technique is based on two observations about the IP TTL (Time To Live) field.

      1. Host operating systems have characteristic initial TTL values. This property of individual operating system implementations of TCP/IP is well known and can be used as part of a "fingerprint" to identify the operating system that a host is running merely by examining its traffic. The technique is well described in Passive OS Fingerprinting: Details and Techniques by Toby Miller.
      2. NAT devices or gateways decrement the TTL on packets that they forward.
    88. Re:Detection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't believe it's data at all. I sold an iPhone to a friend who turned off the data piece on the phone, and he did not have WiFi, so he used it basically as a touchscreen phone, yet AT&T still knew that the phone was an iPhone.

      It's not through the sim either since he used his original 3G sim from his old phone. There is some piece of identification, probably hardware based much like the old serial numbers that were embedded in Intel chips, that uniquely identify a phone. For example, you can identify a brand of NIC by the Mac address embedded on it. Of course you can change those, but I'm sure there are other identifiers as well.

    89. Re:Detection by XCondE · · Score: 1

      incoming IP packet TTL. Any device being routed through the iPhony will have at least -1 in comparison to packets originating on the iPhony itself.

    90. Re:Detection by gatzke · · Score: 1

      What about a background download? App install? Those can run while you are surfing / pandoraing and eat at data. At least they run in the background on Android.

      I think PDAnet also modifies user strings, they claim it should look just like normal browser usage.

      However, I notice that normal Android browser allows you to open multiple tabs but it seems to only load the one currently in focus. This does not appear to be the case when tethering, so maybe loading five different web pages simultaneously is a tip-off?

    91. Re:Detection by nahdude812 · · Score: 1

      Yep, you can start listening a few seconds after you start the download. This is the usual method for me; buy the book in the app, and start listening a few seconds later no matter where I am. It's actually easier to buy the book from the app than it is on the website (just tap "Buy Book using 1 credit" and confirm).

      The Android version does have bookmarks and chapter marks as well, and you can choose from different formats to download from the settings. It also has listening statistics and some kind of pseudo "achievement" system (things like for total listening time, library size, listening all night, listening for X hours in a row, and so forth). You can see screenshots of some of that stuff here: https://market.android.com/details?id=com.audible.application I'm not familiar with the iOS version, so I don't know how similar they are, but when I looked at the app in the iTunes store, there weren't any screenshots to compare against.

  3. Its like the mob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Pay up or we force you to pay.

    Oh, and yeah, our service isn't really top notch. But if you try to go to someone else, we'll break your legs (well, charge you a fee anyway).

    How do Americans put up with this crap, when other countries pay so, so much less for mobile?

    1. Re:Its like the mob by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>Pay up or we force you to pay.

      This... probably shouldn't be legal. Automatic subscription to a $45/month service seems like it violates very basic principles of how agreements work.

      And to all you people that will be complaining on here, and not doing anything about it, here's something really simple you can do:
      Donate to the EFF. (www.eff.org/support/)

      They're the only organization taking a stand against all this kind of stuff.

      >>How do Americans put up with this crap, when other countries pay so, so much less for mobile?

      Because our courts will tolerate an awful lot of shit, as long as it is in a contract.

      While we do have alternative carriers that cost a *lot* less (Cricket / MetroPCS), people want their iPhones.

    2. Re:Its like the mob by Anrego · · Score: 1

      As a Canadian I wish we had things as good as they do in the US (phone plan wise that is).

      Seriously.. rates and plans are insane over here. Unless you live in one of maybe 4 areas that have anything approaching competition, you pretty much get bent over the barrel.

      I'd love a phone with GPS, and a data plan for the occasional quick search or map lookup.. but for $70 a month (which is really what you end up paying here) it's just not worth it for something I'd use a few times a week.

    3. Re:Its like the mob by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      It's a standard clause in many consumer-to-business contracts: The business just gives themselves the right to alter the conditions of the contract at any time. Sometimes requiring notice some period in advance, but said notice is typicially in the form of a letter with five pages of tiny legal print that everyone throws away. Unless you explicitly end the contract upon recieving the notification (Which, in itsself, often means a termination fee), you are assumed to have agreed to the new terms by default.

    4. Re:Its like the mob by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      >> How do Americans put up with this crap, when other countries pay so, so much less for mobile?

      Because the US government and legal system are for sale to the highest bidder, so the US system only works on the behalf of the big corporations.

    5. Re:Its like the mob by alen · · Score: 1

      the contract you sign for the service says that if you want to tether you have to buy the service

    6. Re:Its like the mob by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      It's not quite like the mob... if you don't like it, you can switch to another carrier when you contract expires. And that is the problem with subsidizing phone purchases with monthly connection fees -- companies don't get the feedback that they've screwed up until 2 years later when the contract expires.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    7. Re:Its like the mob by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      If they want to change the contract, they can, but you can also stipulate that you'll live out the contract as it was originally signed. When you do that, of course, there's no early termination fee, but your line will be disconnected five minutes after the contract expires, and so you'll lose the mobile number.

    8. Re:Its like the mob by imthesponge · · Score: 1

      You signed a contract. In America, you can't break a contract without penalty.

    9. Re:Its like the mob by trickyD1ck · · Score: 1

      Don't sign the f*cking contract! How hard is that?

    10. Re:Its like the mob by Ruke · · Score: 1

      $70-80 USD/mo is standard for a smartphone with a data plan in the United States.

    11. Re:Its like the mob by Americano · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And when you (the customer) agree to a contract that says "tethering costs extra," and then you tether anyway without paying that extra fee... aren't you violating the very basic principles of how agreements work as well?

      This isn't "changing" the contract, this is telling you, "Either abide by the contract you signed, or pay up for the services you're consuming."

      Whether or not charging extra for tethering is reasonable is certainly debatable; that you're violating the contract (in which you agree that tethering costs extra and may be added to your plan if it's offered on your phone) by tethering without paying for the plan is not debatable.

    12. Re:Its like the mob by JohnRoss1968 · · Score: 1

      Saying that just because the Canadian plan sucks more than the American plan so the American plan is a good thing to have, is like saying "He has VD and she has cancer, gee I wish I had VD"

    13. Re:Its like the mob by sosume · · Score: 1

      "The business just gives themselves the right to alter the conditions of the contract at any time"

      I'd say that is illegal practice. It is always possible to reject contract changes.

    14. Re:Its like the mob by v1 · · Score: 1

      It's a little different than that but same effect. Contract law does not allow you to stipulate you can change the terms of the contract during its effect without consequence. They CAN stipulate they have the right to make chances, but with consequence. The consequence being the other party can say "hell no" and void the contract instantly. That's why whenever your credit card wants to chance terms on you they have to send you 80 pages of fine print with the changes buried deeply, but somewhere it says 'if you don't accept these terms, call xxxx and cancel your card'. The contracts almost always say they have that right of change, but only occasionally do they advise you of your right to void the contract if they do. (they don't have to tell you, but you always have that right) They're counting on your ignorance of contract law.

      Cell phone contracts work that way also. They can specify early termination fees, and reserve the right to change conditions of the contract, but if they DO exercise their change right, you have 30 days to object to the changes. Then either they back off the changes, or the contract is voided without penalty to either party, including ETF. I've seen several people get out of their ETF when their provider wanted to chance terms. (usually to add a cap or change minutes or rates, but sometimes it's a very minor change like requiring arbitration etc)

      In all of those examples, the first TWO reps they talked with both told him he was going to get an ETF even when he explained the facts. It always took a manager to say "actually you're right, you're off the hook". I don't know if they just don't educate their infantry for "plausible deniability" or if they're flat out told to lie. But you'll never get that answer from the first drone you talk to. Just one of the many pages from their rulebook of how to play dirty.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    15. Re:Its like the mob by green1 · · Score: 1

      You can get a small voice and data plan for less than that. I have a plan from TELUS which costs $50/month (and when I say $50/month, I mean $50/month, no extra fees tacked on) and includes 200 any time minutes, unlimited evenings and weekends, "favourite 5" calling, 500mb of data, voicemail, call display, and unlimited text and picture messaging.

      And with a 3 yr contract it came with a "free" Motorola Milestone (or various other smart phone devices, but I liked the milestone)

      It's not a lot of minutes, and it's not a lot of data. but it's way more of either than I use in a month (especially being that the phone is on wifi whenever I'm at home or at work and therefore not using any of that 500mb). For someone who just wants the "occasional quick search or map lookup" it's more than enough, and about 40% lower than the price you quoted.

      And on the topic at hand, tethering is specifically allowed.

    16. Re:Its like the mob by green1 · · Score: 1

      You signed a contract. In America, you can't break a contract without penalty.

      ... Unless you're a big corporation.

    17. Re:Its like the mob by green1 · · Score: 1

      But without the contract the monthly fees and the terms and conditions are identical, AND you have to pay for a several hundred dollar phone that is STILL locked to that provider.

      So where's the benefit in not being on a contract?

    18. Re:Its like the mob by ZFox · · Score: 2

      "So where's the benefit in not being on a contract?"

      The fact that you can leave at any time without breaking the contract you agreed to.

    19. Re:Its like the mob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if you have VD, you probably had sex. So there's that in its favor.

    20. Re:Its like the mob by gknoy · · Score: 1

      Does the contract specify the means by which one is tethering? If you're not using the tethering service they offer, is that still covered by the contract?

    21. Re:Its like the mob by holmstar · · Score: 1

      The point was that you either pay the "early termination fee" upon ending the contract before stipulated, or by buying the phone out-right. Ether way you end up paying about the same amount of money, as they don't discount your monthly service just because you own your phone. You are just subsidizing their profit margin if you bring your own phone, or buy one outright from them.

    22. Re:Its like the mob by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 1

      And when you (the customer) agree to a contract that says "tethering costs extra," and then you tether anyway without paying that extra fee... aren't you violating the very basic principles of how agreements work as well?

      My internet company charges you extra if you want to buy their router, but I didn't. Should they get to charge me because I got my own?

    23. Re:Its like the mob by IICV · · Score: 1

      And when you (the customer) agree to a contract that says "tethering costs extra," and then you tether anyway without paying that extra fee... aren't you violating the very basic principles of how agreements work as well?

      Not particularly, because it is impossible to find a contract that doesn't contain that clause.

      The principles of agreements are exactly that - that two sides reach an agreement. However, for some occasionally valid reasons, there's absolutely no room for negotiation on the customer side; our only option is to either take the "agreement" as presented, or not take it. (after all, it would be difficult to do business if every single one of your millions of customers could have a unique contract, and we don't want businesses to have any difficulty, do we?)

      This is somewhat reasonable when there are multiple different companies offering different agreements - you can choose which one you want to accept. However, nowadays, all of the telecom companies are offering essentially the same agreement, which means that there is no choice on the customer's side.

      Therefore, if you agree to any of these contracts, you're not really doing so as an agent who has a choice in the matter; the binary "I agree/disagree" choice is not good enough when every single company in the market offers the same contract.

    24. Re:Its like the mob by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      Simple, the cheap carriers here are the equivalent (in cost, and square mi of coverage) of the Euro carriers. If you want a US carrier that covers not just the populated areas where most of the people live, but also the less populated areas where you just might wind up in when you absolutely need to make a phone call, you go with the more expensive carrier. 3g/4g networks arent cheap, dealing with state and local governments over tower issues, tariffs, taxes, etc isnt cheap, but most importantly covering every last square mile of an area many many times larger than any coverage zone in Europe is not cheap.

      They did shoot themselves in the foot by all choosing to compete with different technologies, thus fragmenting the handset market and making peering/roaming agreements virtually impossible with 3g/4g systems.

    25. Re:Its like the mob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because we are American!!

    26. Re:Its like the mob by Americano · · Score: 1

      Not particularly, because it is impossible to find a contract that doesn't contain that clause.

      I'm not sure where this sense of entitlement comes from. You are not entitled to "whatever service level you demand at whatever price you prefer" - if you sign the contract, you are indicating agreement with the service features & levels that you are being offered. Don't like the terms? Don't sign the contract.

      If you sign a contract, and then unilaterally violate that contract because you don't happen to like the terms that much, then you will find yourself subject to the penalties specified in that contract for violation - including cancellation of service & early termination fees. Of course, they'd much rather keep you as a subscriber, so they're offering - after you've breached the contract - to allow you to add the tethering service at the standard rate, since it's something you seem to want to use.

      Frankly, I think that's pretty generous. This is not a case where people had a contract that said "tethering is fine, no problem at all!" and suddenly ATT decided to start charging them an arm and a leg. This is people who have violated their contract, being offered the following choices:
      1) Stop the violating behaviors;
      2) Pay for the services you are using;
      3) Lose your service;

    27. Re:Its like the mob by Americano · · Score: 1

      "If you want to buy their router" assumes that there is a choice of whether or not to buy their router. Which means that "BYO Router" terms are built into the contract, and are not specifically excluded from the contract.

      If the contract says "you pay us this fee regardless of whether or not you buy a router from us," the yes, they should get to charge you, because that's the contract you agreed to. If the contract says "you can rent one from us for a monthly fee, or supply your own and not pay the fee," (my ISP offers these terms as well) then of course they shouldn't get to charge you.

      Whether or not they "should" get to charge you are entirely dependent on the terms of the contract you sign. If you don't like the terms of the contract, DO NOT sign the contract. It's really that simple.

    28. Re:Its like the mob by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      Anther failiure of US law eh? In Australia you can take your ceel number with you to any carrier and your old carrier cannot stop you. Consumer protection in the US seemingly does not exist.

    29. Re:Its like the mob by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      No, you can port your number if you still live in the area in which it was issued (why is a long, complicated, and ultimately very boring story about how telecoms are regulated in the federal structure of the various governments of the US). However, you'll have to have an active account for that to be possible. If a telco wanted to be malicious, all they have to do is specify that they will charge an ETF if you cancel service before the contract is up (transferring the number immediately cancels the service), and cancel the service themselves (releasing the number) the moment that the contract expires.

      Consumer protection laws in the US are weaker than in other countries, but that's part of why things are so much cheaper here. If the law requires (as someone else said Germany does) a two-year warranty, you'll get one - but you won't get it for free. For comparison, a new Xbox 360 Slim with a 250gb HD is USD300, EUR250 (from Amazon.de), or AUD400 (from dicksmith.com.au) - equivalent to USD 300, 350, and 400. Shipping to .au isn't THAT expensive in bulk.

    30. Re:Its like the mob by Paradoks · · Score: 1

      If you don't like the terms of the contract, DO NOT sign the contract. It's really that simple.

      If you don't want mandatory arbitration, then don't use that credit card.

      If you don't want to pay for ESPN3, then don't use that internet provider.

      etc.

      If the contract were a contract of equals, where the consumer could say, "No, I don't like this portion", cross it out, and negotiate further, then I'd agree with you.

      In a world where "contract" means "list of things we may change at any time, and you must abide by, because there's no reasonable alternative", well, even if you're right, it's not "really that simple".

    31. Re:Its like the mob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes except there are a large number of jailbroken iPhone users who signed contracts with unlimited dataplans before tethering was offered. There was no agreement to be broken because none was specified.

    32. Re:Its like the mob by Americano · · Score: 1

      If the contract were a contract of equals, where the consumer could say, "No, I don't like this portion", cross it out, and negotiate further, then I'd agree with you.

      And if consumers were willing to foot the bill for all the legal fees from the lawyers required to review all of the millions of a la carte contracts you seem to imagine could be written up in no time at all, as well as put up with the weeks of delays in getting any service from any company, I'm sure companies would be willing to offer them. But since people grumble about $50 a month, imagine if you were also whacked with a couple thousand in legal fees every time you wanted to sign up for a service, and then had to wait weeks or months for the lawyers to review and agree on the terms before your service could be activated. I think that would be a *wildly* successful business model, don't you?

      Again: if you don't like the terms under which the service is provided, do not purchase it. Or learn to accept that you make tradeoffs in which you limit your choices to a few predefined package deals in order to get cheaper service (remember those legal fees!) and faster service initiation (remember all that back and forth between their lawyers and yours before the contract is approved!)

      If this model would be such a winning recipe, there's also nothing stopping you from assembling a coalition of like-minded people, pooling your money, and starting a business that operates in exactly this fashion. Lucky for you, there's also Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection for you & your co-founders when you all find out that the world doesn't work the way you think it should, just because you earnestly wish nothing had tradeoffs and everything you want can be had for the cost of a wish.

    33. Re:Its like the mob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pay up or we force you to pay.

      Oh, and yeah, our service isn't really top notch. But if you try to go to someone else, we'll break your legs (well, charge you a fee anyway).

      How do Americans put up with this crap, when other countries pay so, so much less for mobile?

      You ought to live in Mexico as I do. They really hose you here.

  4. this really ticks me off... by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 0

    These type of claims by wireless companies are SERIOUSLY wrong.

    It's the exact same thing as if your ISP tried to charge you for using connection sharing in Windows. It's part of an O.S. you already purchased. It's taking advantage of ignorance.

    1. Re:this really ticks me off... by pehrs · · Score: 1

      You know that the primary reason that most ISP's originally limited their customers to a single IP address was to make connection sharing more complicated, right? Today they might claim it is to "conserve IP addresses" or some other BS, but don't let that fool you.

      The ISP's would happily charge you per system if they could figure out how.

    2. Re:this really ticks me off... by Rossman · · Score: 1

      Well there is certainly no shortage of ignorance.

    3. Re:this really ticks me off... by imthesponge · · Score: 1

      Well there are only about a million articles about how the Internet is running out of IPv4 addresses, so that's probably true.

    4. Re:this really ticks me off... by pehrs · · Score: 1

      Yes, we are running out of IPv4 addresses, but the ISP's couldn't care less. It doesn't cost anything to request an extra /16 from your local RIR. And a company doesn't spend money building systems to conserve something that is free. It's not like "we preserve IPv4 address space" makes great marketing.

    5. Re:this really ticks me off... by green1 · · Score: 1

      When I first got a cable Internet connection we asked our ISP how we could hook up all 3 of our computers to the one connection, they told us it was physically impossible. When I specified that I knew how, and was simply asking if it was ok, they simply repeated that it was physically impossible to hook up multiple computers to their connection. I decided that my contract didn't prohibit me from doing the physically impossible, so I connected all 3 computers up. Later on they changed the terms to specifically forbid connecting multiple computers to the same connection. Unfortunately at the time the only other option was dialup. I chose to simply not tell the cable company what I was doing.

      When DSL became available in my area I switched to a competitor who didn't forbid connection sharing (although they did strongly discourage it and refuse to offer you any support if you used it)

      These SAME companies are now offering cellular service, is it any wonder that they are trying the same thing they used to try on their wired internet services on their wireless ones?

    6. Re:this really ticks me off... by icebraining · · Score: 1

      The largest ISP where I live provides Fonera compatible routers and uses that as a competitive advantage :)

    7. Re:this really ticks me off... by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      My DSL provider still hands out a /29 to any new user. One address goes to the modem, allowing six more machines to be connected directly to the internet and pull addresses over DHCP. Since 'using a router' is just what you do these days, nearly all subscribers only ever get allocated those first two addresses.

    8. Re:this really ticks me off... by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately at the time the only other option was dialup. I chose to simply not tell the cable company what I was doing.

      Back before any kind of broadband was available in our area, I ran NAT on our local 10mb ethernet network (in our house, just dumb hubs) on a Mac Quadra 800 in the basement connected to a 56.6 modem. The NAT software would detect when a client machine was trying to access something outside the network, turn on the modem and dial. It would leave the connection up for 5 or 6 hours after the last request to reduce the 40 second of so latency it took to connect (second dedicated phone line, but the ISP would bitch if you left the sessions open for forever and ever).

      And this was like the year 2000 or so, not ancient ancient history. Surfed the web and such. Not ideal, but it worked well enough. And multiple people could surf at the same time!

      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
    9. Re:this really ticks me off... by green1 · · Score: 1

      I did that at an office of 15 computers where high speed internet wasn't an option (well we got a quote from the cable company for $40/mo..... and a $11,000 install fee to run coax in to a community that wasn't otherwise served by it)

      At home though the advantage of cable internet over dialup was worth the risk of doing something they didn't officially allow, and realistically couldn't detect at the time.

    10. Re:this really ticks me off... by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 1

      Whoever modded my comment as Troll is an asshole.

      Yeah, I know this type of comment gets modded down, but it had to be said in this case. Whoever you are you're an ASS*HOLE.

      One of the things I hate most about living in 2011 U.S.A. is companies taking advantage of people who are ignorant of the technical details. Sure this has happened in the past, but it seems to me to be happening a lot more NOW and it is SICKENING. The fact that in the U.S. we have no one, government or in the industries themselves, that will step in and try to stop it makes me almost physically ill. I express that sometimes. If you think that make me a troll maybe you're part of problem.

  5. This is wrong by Locke2005 · · Score: 2

    Charge them for how much data they use, not for how they use it. AT&T is just assuming that anybody tethering is using more bandwidth than they would otherwise. The real problem is that they hooked subscribers with a promise of "unlimited data" in the first place.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:This is wrong by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      Charge them for how much data they use, not for how they use it.

      Moving bytes doesn't cost the phone company money, once they have the towers built the cost of moving the data around is very very low. They sign up people to flat rates that theoretically oversubscribe the network because they want flat revenue to build new towers and maintain the hardware on a predictable schedule. Remember you're getting in fact two services: the bytes over the air, and the network's availability over large stretches of geography. The first thing is marginal, the second thing is what actually costs serious money.

      Paying per byte is more practical in Europe or Asia, where a national quasi-public provider owns much of the infrastructure and leases access to resellers, and the state takes on the actual risk of undersubscription. Pay-as-you-go doesn't work for people who have to build antennas, you just can't map the revenue to the expenses without making prices so awful (and unpredictable) that consumers are scared off. They really need the extra money they get from under-users to subsidize building out network, and the problem with over-subscribers they're free-riding on the flat rate. The contract is phrased in terms of services instead of bytes, but that's what the subscribers agreed to, so they should be held to their agreement.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    2. Re:This is wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm confused. If the bytes are cheap then why would the provider care if people transfer more then 5 gigabytes of data a month? I mean, other then the fact that the provider wants more money and knows that it's better off tacking on fees to "heavy" users than raising rates across the board.

    3. Re:This is wrong by dna_(c)(tm)(r) · · Score: 1

      Saying "what" - not "how" you want it, is often the more intelligent stance. This is tethering on the brink of ridiculousness.

    4. Re:This is wrong by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      If the bytes are cheap then why would the provider care if people transfer more then 5 gigabytes of data a month?

      This is right, the bandwidth is a limited commodity, but moving traffic to and from a saturated cell doesn't cost much more than a quiet cell. It will eventually hurt the provider because people will cancel their service, though, so they have to impose controls on how much service you get in a unit of time, otherwise nobody will ever be able to get on. If enough people cancel their service then the provider has to roll up their service and then nobody can get on, wether they're willing to pay or not.

      The cost of maintaing availability, the price a consumer is willing to pay (or stated better, the deal a consumer is willing to accept), and the amount of traffic on the system at whatever priority level are all things that have to be balanced, the cost to get a byte from a tower in LA to a tower in San Francisco though is a very, very small part of the equation.

      Run the question backwards: You might ask, why do you have to pay for a byte THIS month and a byte NEXT month, when you've already paid for the tower the first time? Why are they double-charging you for the network when it's already built?

      In the end there are different kinds of bytes:

      • a byte on a very busy cell at 5pm
      • a byte on a quiet cell at 3 am
      • a byte that has to go 1500 miles over several ASs, crossing several gateways, peering agreements and tax boundaries.
      • a byte that goes 1 mile down the road to the next aerial and never leaves your phone company's property

      Any price structure that assigns the same costs to all of these bytes is going to be in a lot of trouble, and any system that attempted to assign cost to these bytes on the basis of their true cost of carriage would be complicated in the extreme.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    5. Re:This is wrong by Wireless+Joe · · Score: 1

      Charge them for how much data they use, not for how they use it.

      So...tiered data? I thought we were against tiered data plans?

    6. Re:This is wrong by Wireless+Joe · · Score: 1

      Charge them for how much data they use, not for how they use it.

      So...tiered data plans? I thought we were against tiered plans. In any case, tetherers are most likely being caught by excessive usage, so isn't the tethering surcharge just a different way of charging people for using more data? If you tether and don't use more data than a regular iPhone user, you're probably not likely to be caught.

    7. Re:This is wrong by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Thank you for agreeing with me. Tethering isn't the problem, excessive bandwidth use is.

      And by the way, contrary to popular opinion there is no monolithic slashdot "we". Yes, many have argued in favor of unlimited bandwidth and rejected my argument that the internet is subject to the Tragedy of the Commons, but few have switched opinions as a result.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    8. Re:This is wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real problem is that they hooked subscribers with a promise of "unlimited data" in the first place.

      Amen. And in this country, when you sell someone unlimited, you better be able to provide enough to make them happy. Hows about a gool 'ol fashioned class action case against these bait and hooksters! I say, give em the Missouri boat ride!

    9. Re:This is wrong by ChronoFish · · Score: 1

      "...I thought we were against tiered data plans?..." This is a Net Neutrality misnomer, and a product of a press industry that couldn't wrap their head around the issue.

      There has always been tiered data plans (dialup vs DSL vs Cable vs T1 vs FiOS .....)

      Net Neutrality is all-about charging for bytes - not charging for what the Bytes represent. Hence "neutral".

      It makes sense to charge for through-put. You push more data, you pay for more data. What Net Neutrality advocates DON'T want is for the ISP to say "We'll charge you $20/GB/Month for text data and $50/GB/Month for video data and you can't hook up a video phone and you can't hook up a router and you can't hook up your network to a video game console - unless it's a console that we approve......"

      Packet inspection and routing/pricing based on content is what Net Neutrality advocates are against.

      In the Mobile Internet arena there is the additional desire to clarify the word "unlimited". Where consumers think "unlimited" means "unlimited" and network operators think "unlimited" means "reasonable" (where the operator defines what "reasonable" is).

      -CF

    10. Re:This is wrong by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Exactly.

      I understand AT&T has an overloaded network. I understand they need to control how much data goes over it, both in an absolute amount, and worries about the packet size and stuff. (Which probably just means they need to worry about total packet size, instead of payload size.) They can charge people whatever they think is reasonable for that, in different ways, with different plans.

      But I don't quite see why they have the right to worry about where the data is coming from or going. I know they claim to have such a right, and perhaps they do under the law, but I don't understand why they would have that right.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    11. Re:This is wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (only tangently related)
      Here in Europe, we tend to get a text message if you cross a border, giving you prices of roaming.
      The other day, I noticed the following gem: "...internet: 2.99 Euro/MB, BlackBerry Internet: 7.99 Euro/MB"

      Someone since told me that Blackberry uses a separate network to connect to. I wouldn't know, but the enormous difference (a factor 4) just stunned me.

    12. Re:This is wrong by hedwards · · Score: 1

      That's the point. AT&T charges you by the amount of bandwidth you use, unless you're grandfathered in on unlimited, and feels the need to charge additionally for the ability to use that bandwidth to tether. It's basically just another scam like the one covering the outrageous cost of text messaging and not counting checking ones voicemail as in network calling, but failing to adequately explain that it's the case.

      I know that on libertarian /. arguing for more regulation is bad, but come on, at some point it gets to the point of being a scam. And in this case I'd be perfectly fine with people losing their jobs if it means a more reasonable market place.

    13. Re:This is wrong by FireFury03 · · Score: 1

      Amen. And in this country, when you sell someone unlimited, you better be able to provide enough to make them happy. Hows about a gool 'ol fashioned class action case against these bait and hooksters! I say, give em the Missouri boat ride!

      Sadly, here in the UK the advertising standards agency ruled that it is completely acceptable for ISPs to use the word "unlimited" to describe services that were in no sense unlimited...

  6. Go ahead, make my day! by Geraden · · Score: 1

    I'm past my contract terms with them and sick of them, to boot! If they do this to me, then I'll tell them to take their plan and shove it.

    1. Re:Go ahead, make my day! by JohnRoss1968 · · Score: 1

      That sounds like an awesome title for a country song. "Take your Plan and Shove it"
      Its just a pity its not our country singing it.

  7. That makes sense by macemoneta · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's like when your ISP charges you more to use a desktop than a notebook or tablet. Oh wait, no they don't. That would be crazy.

    --

    Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.

    1. Re:That makes sense by Lost+Engineer · · Score: 1

      Gogo charges less on the plane for a mobile-only connection.

    2. Re:That makes sense by bkpark · · Score: 1

      It's like when your ISP charges you more to use a desktop than a notebook or tablet. Oh wait, no they don't. That would be crazy.

      Yeah, because they already charge you the desktop price even if you're just using a tablet. Maybe AT&T should do that, too.

    3. Re:That makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please don't give them any ideas. They already suck enough money from people and offer crappy service in return. That is all we need...more ISP charges.

    4. Re:That makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was a time when ISPs *did* charge by how many devices were connected. Unfortunately for them, most of us with multiple devices hid them behind a gateway / router, so the ISP only saw one mac address.

    5. Re:That makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Back in the days before cheap SOHO routers with linux you had to build your own router if you wanted to use more than one computer on your dialup. Several ISPs tried to push contract terms that stated you could only use one computer at a time with their products unless you paid extra. There was of course absolutely nothing the ISPs could do about it in practice, although some of the more retarded ones carried on the pretence well after everyone else way using afforementioned cheap SOHO routers.

  8. I smell... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

    ...a Class Action.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:I smell... by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Nothing of note actually happening.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    2. Re:I smell... by ChronoFish · · Score: 1

      I would love to see it. If nothing else just so they stop using the word "unlimited" when they really mean "a high cap that most of our customers can deal with - and with limited use".

      -CF

  9. Legality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How is this even allowed? I pay for 2GB of data per month. Whether the traffic goes to my iPhone or to my iPhone and then to my iPad isn't really any of AT&T's concern. There is no extra overhead, no extra work on their side. All the routing is done on the phone itself. This sounds like a double charge on a single service. Am I missing something?

    1. Re:Legality? by MichaelKristopeit414 · · Score: 1

      Am I missing something?

      an identity.

      AT&T made deals concerning devices with guaranteed lacking features. circumventing those guarantees violate all infrastructure designs based on them.

    2. Re:Legality? by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 1

      How is this even allowed? I pay for 2GB of data per month. Whether the traffic goes to my iPhone or to my iPhone and then to my iPad isn't really any of AT&T's concern. There is no extra overhead, no extra work on their side. All the routing is done on the phone itself. This sounds like a double charge on a single service. Am I missing something?

      Your phone company squeezing more charge for something they don't even provide themselves, and netting hundreds of thousands of subscriptions because many people will likely not even pay attention to that notice that was sent out? I'd say you figured out exactly the whole situation with crystal clear insight.

    3. Re:Legality? by rritterson · · Score: 1

      Not if you contractually agree not to tether when you sign up for service.

      Of course, if they change my plan to charge me for tethering and I'm NOT tethering, well, that would probably not be legal.

      --
      -Ryan
      AUWYHSTOT (Acronyms are Useless When You Have to Spell Them Out Too)
    4. Re:Legality? by jambarama · · Score: 4, Informative
      Yep, you're missing the incredibly 1-sided contracts users sign to access any cell networks. Here are some relevant gems from the AT&T contract:

      We may, at our discretion, suspend your account if we believe your data usage is excessive, unusual or is better suited to another rate plan.

      Furthermore, plans (unless specifically designated for tethering usage) cannot be used for any applications that tether the device (through use of, including without limitation, connection kits, other phone/smartphone to computer accessories, BLUETOOTH\® or any other wireless technology) to Personal Computers (including without limitation, laptops), or other equipment for any purpose.

      Accordingly, AT&T reserves the right to (i) deny, disconnect, modify and/or terminate Service, without notice, to anyone it believes is using the Service in any manner prohibited or whose usage adversely impacts its wireless network or service levels or hinders access to its wireless network...

      Tethering without a tethering plan breaches your contract, so they can refuse to provide service, request you pay more for your plan, or do about anything.

    5. Re:Legality? by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 1

      How is this even allowed? I pay for 2GB of data per month. Whether the traffic goes to my iPhone or to my iPhone and then to my iPad isn't really any of AT&T's concern. There is no extra overhead, no extra work on their side. All the routing is done on the phone itself. This sounds like a double charge on a single service. Am I missing something?

      You are missing the plain terms of the contract that forbid this. You don't like the contract terms, I'm sure but that doesn't change the fact that the consumer did not enter an agreement whereby they can consume their 2GB of data per month on any device they want.

      Whether or not there is extra overhead or work on their side is not relevant to those terms. Individuals contract all the time with conditions that are not relating to extra overhead or work. My house lease forbids overnight guests for staying more than 3 days at a time, I agreed to that irrespective of whether overnight guests cause the landlord to do more work (pretty sure not) because overall the terms of the lease were acceptable to me. I can't turn around and say "well I pay to lease the house I can have guests over as long as I want, lease be damned" just because it seems to me that the landlord ought not to care. It's not my position to tell him what he cares about or not, we drew up an agreement precisely to spell that out.

      IOW, you are making arguments that are totally irrelevant to AT&Ts position. By the plain black-on-white terms of their agreement, you purchased 2GB of data to be used on the mobile device. That's what it says, that's what was agreed to, that's the end of it.

        [ I do think that automatically upgrading the plan to a tethering one is a particularly poor remedy. If I were AT&T, I would cut off the data and give the subscriber a call to explain the terms of their data agreement and that they are in breach of those terms. This is a matter of good customer service, that's all. ]

    6. Re:Legality? by Aaron.SD · · Score: 1

      Am I missing something?

      Yes, in my opinion, like a lot of companies offering data services, they assume that a large majority of the people that subscribe have no specific needs and will quickly under-use their plans after the novelty wears off. (How much web-browsing, video streaming would you realistically do on a 2-4 inch screen?)
      This allows them to offer large or unlimited packages even though technically their networks can't really manage it.

      So, when Hardware/Software comes along that's makes utilizing that data/bandwidth much easier and more useful; that large majority of under-utilized data/bandwidth starts to quickly diminish and risks exposing the technical inadequacies of the underlying network.

      The solution is to wrap this concern in a subterfuge of legalese about how said Hardware/Software violates usage policies and TOS.

      Comparable markets would be Cable Internet providers that restrict outgoing port 80 traffic or charge more for "Business" accounts; when you boil it down, you're supposedly purchasing bandwidth, but really you're purchasing a share of a limited resource and the more freedom you want to use that resource, the more you have to pony-up.

    7. Re:Legality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That about sums it up. And here's a source.

    8. Re:Legality? by Cheeko · · Score: 1

      Except that when I paid for my last ATT contract it was 2005 and NOBODY was tethering. I got a razr with their "unlimited" data plan. Since then I've been using a collection of unlocked devices as upgrades (Currently a Nexus One). I signed nothing that restricted my data use. Admittedly at the time the most I could use in a month was MAYBE 100KB from java apps for gmail, etc, but still I paid for unlimited and I am still paying for the terms of THAT contract.

      That being said I'm sure there is some BS in there about how they can amend and alter the terms of the contract at any time, which seems to pretty much defeat the point of a contract in the first place.

    9. Re:Legality? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      AT&T made deals concerning devices with guaranteed lacking features. circumventing those guarantees violate all infrastructure designs based on them.

      That's too bad, because it's not illegal to add features to a device that you own

    10. Re:Legality? by gknoy · · Score: 1

      Are we contractually obligated to behave in the way that they expected us to, though?

    11. Re:Legality? by MichaelKristopeit415 · · Score: 0
      what does legality have to do with it when the terms of the service contract specifically forbid it?

      you're an idiot.

      cower in my shadow behind your command line interface based chosen pseudonym some more, feeb.

      you're completely pathetic.

    12. Re:Legality? by Grizzley9 · · Score: 1

      If they are telling the users they must get the 4GB tether plan, then these are likely that use more than their 2GB per month and likely are the grandfathered unlimited accounts that are trying to see what "unlimited" really is.

    13. Re:Legality? by MichaelKristopeit416 · · Score: 0
      you are obligated to behave according to the terms of the contract, lest it is void.

      who is "we"?

      you are NOTHING.

    14. Re:Legality? by ChronoFish · · Score: 1

      "...AT&T made deals concerning devices with guaranteed lacking features. circumventing those guarantees violate all infrastructure designs based on them...."

      I have no problem with that. I have a problem with them marketing this as an "unlimited data plan" (or anything that conveys the belief that their plan is unlimited) That is blatant false advertisement.

      -CF

    15. Re:Legality? by fabregas256 · · Score: 1

      You do not pay for 2 GB a month

      You pay for the right to use the Internet on your mobile device for a month up to 2 GB. It is a big difference.

      If carriers want they can charge people by the MB and then you would have the right to use it for whatever you want, but most Americans don't prefer that business model.

    16. Re:Legality? by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      I challenge someone on here to modify the contract, initial the modifications, and then sign. Perfectly legal, and most salespeople wouldn't know enough to spot a problem. Then present the modified contract when they approach you. The worst thing they can do is exit the contract leaving you with no phone service (unless you added text saying they couldn't do this without paying you a fee for your inconvenience -- the court probably wouldn't uphold this clause though).

    17. Re:Legality? by MichaelKristopeit418 · · Score: 0
      it is RELATIVELY unlimited.

      considering you are acknowledging the messages as advertisements, you can assume all claims are relative to the terms of the product being offered.

      cower in my shadow behind your chosen aquamarine based pseudonym some more, feeb.

      you're completely pathetic.

    18. Re:Legality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I got a job at Convergys, a company that handles AT&T customer service. They have a 6 week training program. During this training program, I got into an argument with the instructor over this very issue. He asked the class if he took his phone to his brother's house in Mexico, and hooked up to his Wi-Fi, would he be charged for int'l data. The obvious answer should be no, but it was not. I asked him how they can charge for service they are not providing, and how they dealt with the fact the phone can still be used in this manner without the sim card inserted. He basically admitted that AT&T are ripping people off.

      AT&T also 'grades' their customers, on a scale from 0-5. 0's are the people who call in often for adjustments, or other issues, and the level of actual service rendered to them is way less than a 5, who they will bend over backwards to keep happy. The 5's are the ones who never complain about anything, and always pay their huge bills on time.

    19. Re:Legality? by rotor · · Score: 1

      Actually, that contract has expired and you're living month to month. They can raise your rates at any time now even if the contract lacked the BS about being able to amend terms at any time.

      --
      Addlepated - punk & metal
    20. Re:Legality? by wickerprints · · Score: 3

      I had my data plan abruptly terminated for a month because AT&T figured out that I chopped up my SIM into a micro-SIM to fit in my iPad. Never mind the fact that I could only use one device at a time. They wanted me to pay the extra $25/month for a data plan on the iPad. It wasn't even high usage--I basically did it to browse the occasional website and use Google Maps.

      And on top of that, I was billed the entire amount for the data plan during the month that it was cut off--in effect, AT&T charged me for a service it deliberately refused to deliver.

    21. Re:Legality? by PureRain · · Score: 1

      Amazing stuff.

      The thing with contracts is that they are an agreement between two parties. In this case a large corporation with money and bunches of legal experts, and a teenager who wants the latest iConsumable. In B2B, both parties NEGOTIATE the terms of the contract to an acceptable level for both, but a consumer cannot do this as they don't have the power.

      The only real answer is either:
      1) Buy a phone outright, or second hand and don't sign one of these draconian contracts (win for you but nobody else), or
      2) Somehow get a massive group of consumers together which then have power, and using the media to assist, force the company to amend the terms of the contract. Unfortunately this is difficult to do.

      It's really sad that large companies now treat consumers like this.

    22. Re:Legality? by SmilingSalmon · · Score: 1

      If I interpret those AT&T terms of service literally then the Nike iPhone app violates those terms. It uses "equipment for any other purpose" and "without limitation" using "BLUETOOTH" to send data to the iPhone where the Nike app is running which then forwards the data on via the internet. Sounds an awful lot like what a tethering app does.

    23. Re:Legality? by tivoKlr · · Score: 1

      [ I do think that automatically upgrading the plan to a tethering one is a particularly poor remedy. If I were AT&T, I would cut off the data and give the subscriber a call to explain the terms of their data agreement and that they are in breach of those terms. This is a matter of good customer service, that's all. ]

      This would be great for the customer, but when has AT$T made a move that has been good for their customers (like, how about putting up another tower near my house?!). Charging a pile of customers 45 extra bucks for even one month is AWESOME for the company. Easy choice...

      --
      Ocean is land, covered with water.
  10. Using Android by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I use my Nexus One as a tether and WiFi hotspot. Not sure if AT&T can detect that, but I haven't heard anything from them yet.

    1. Re:Using Android by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      Its not about detection so much as total amount used. If you use more then the average they will just assume you are in violation and charge you.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    2. Re:Using Android by Elbart · · Score: 1

      Isn't the nature of averages(?) that there are results above it?

    3. Re:Using Android by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      Of course, but we are talking mega corporations looking for a way to screw people. They don't use 'our' logic.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  11. Hmmmm... by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Isn't it against regulation to force you into an added-charge service unless you opt out?

    1. Re:Hmmmm... by TheSpoom · · Score: 2

      Regulation? In the United States? Surely you jest...

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    2. Re:Hmmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. I assume you are free to drop AT&T service for no charge, like when they change TOS.

    3. Re:Hmmmm... by Xacid · · Score: 1

      That's a negative.

    4. Re:Hmmmm... by Xacid · · Score: 1

      Correction: That's a negative - unless you're willing to spend hours on a phone chasing your way up the management chain until you *maybe* get your way.

    5. Re:Hmmmm... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Or sue. Of course there you have two choices:

      1. Wait for them to charge you a termination fee and refuse to pay it until they put a black mark on your credit record (which might involve a fight with your credit card company if they have your number - which they probably do). Then sue the phone company and possibly your credit card company as well to have them remove the credit report. Most likely you'll get a day in court, but have a damaged credit history in the meantime.

      2. Sue first and ask for injunctive relief against the phone company and/or credit card company to try to protect your credit history before the fact. Now you have to convince a court to even hear the case as an added bonus.

      At best you'll just end up spending a lot of time and possibly money (lost wages at least) fighting over court just to end up not having to pay a $200 bill.

      It is WAY to easy to put a black mark on a credit history. Credit histories should only reflect civil judgments awarded by a court. Right now anybody can say anything bad about you that they want (especially if they are a big corporation). The only thing you can do is say something good about yourself in response. Most companies don't care if you have a good reason for not paying a bill, so they will ignore anything you write. Why? Simple - they know that someday they too might want to charge you for something that you have a good reason not to pay, but they still want you to pay it. They want to know that you roll over and pay bills, not that you need to be persuaded or given good service.

      Think about it - you are considering loaning money to a guy to buy a house. A credit search indicates that the last three times a bank did this, they were sued by the borrower over doing something improper and the court ruled that the borrower didn't have to pay the loan but got to keep the house. Now, legally the borrower is in the right. However, nobody would want to lend money to that guy anyway, since they don't want a court to rule against them if they do something wrong.

      For this reason companies shouldn't even be able to find out if you had disputes with other companies if they were decided in your favor.

    6. Re:Hmmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't it against regulation to force you into an added-charge service unless you opt out?

      Wait, you think that we still have regulations here? On Telecoms???

      Good one!

    7. Re:Hmmmm... by Mana+Mana · · Score: 1

      > Isn't it against regulation to force you into [X]

      Better yet, isn't this a way to cancel your contract without paying the cancel fee?! Ha? Ha?

      So as with Sprint(?), continuous calls to Customer Service got you booted off, scot-free!

  12. What's the problem, in the end? by VincenzoRomano · · Score: 1

    As long as the customers pay for the services I don't see any problem with tethering (whatever medium they sue).
    It could be an EULA issue. But then it'd be an issue between Apple and the users ...
    What's the problem, in the end?

    --
    Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
    For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
    1. Re:What's the problem, in the end? by webdog314 · · Score: 2

      The problem is that they offered "unlimited" data plans and still (stupidly) honor them. People tethering with an unlimited plan would be a huge drain on their network. The solution is to finally face the music and drop the pretense of "unlimited data". Like you said, if you're paying for the service (the "service" being a set amount of data per month 2/4/6 gig etc) then what's the big deal? If I only have 2 gigs of data to burn through, tethered or not, I'm not going to waste it on Netflix. Maybe some people are willing to pay $200 a month for 20 gigs of data to their phone... but if they allow that kind of plan then they're idiots. They need to stop offering what they can't support. Period. Unlike wired services (cable, fibre, dsl) overall mobile bandwidth *does* have a limit. More towers only makes for better coverage, not more bandwidth to split between the users in that area, so carriers need to realistically sell that bandwidth so as to not overload their networks.

    2. Re:What's the problem, in the end? by DrgnDancer · · Score: 1

      They're trying to correct this, but they have a long history of grandfathering services that they're having a hard time getting away from. We upgraded my wife's 3G to a 4 a couple months ago, and even though the 4 is supposed to have a 4GB limit on downloads, they just grandfathered her old plan to keep us happy. I seriously doubt she uses 4 GB of data a month and I went in perfectly willing to change to the "new" plan, but I wasn't going to turn them down when they said I could keep the old one either. I'm also still on my old SGI sponsored voice plan that costs me about $15 a month less than any of the newer ones. Not only do I not work for SGI anymore, the company, as such, doesn't even exist.

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    3. Re:What's the problem, in the end? by green1 · · Score: 1

      Unlike wired services (cable, fibre, dsl) overall mobile bandwidth *does* have a limit. More towers only makes for better coverage, not more bandwidth to split between the users in that area, so carriers need to realistically sell that bandwidth so as to not overload their networks.

      If you have one tower covering an area, and you split that "cell" on to 2 towers, and you are splitting the bandwidth between users anyway, you DO have more bandwidth, in fact DOUBLE as much. In fact this is exactly how cell companies deal with areas that become crowded with more people, more towers covering smaller areas each. A rural tower may cover a positively enormous area, while a tower located downtown in a major city may only cover one office building, or even less. In fact even if you are trying to get more bandwidth to a single customer, you can do it by pairing data channels (My local cellular provider now offers devices that double their throughput using 2 data channels instead of one)

      The only part you're right on is that carriers need to realistically sell their bandwidth so as not to overload their networks. But at the same time, as speeds increase, and more applications need more bandwidth, cellular providers need to realize that their limits just don't make sense any more and work around it. My provider is now advertising their first true 4G phone, with download speeds so fast that on their largest data plan you can max out your monthly allotment in half an hour, for an extra $1,000 in overage fees in the next hour after that you can hit their maximum allowed overage usage before being cut off completely. I think it's time they re-evaluate their limits. Even if that involves some substantial network upgrades.

    4. Re:What's the problem, in the end? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $200 a month for 20 gigs of data? You guy are fucked and screwed.
      I get 20GB and then limited to 200kb/s for $35.

      I could theoretically download something like 85GB a mounth.

    5. Re:What's the problem, in the end? by webdog314 · · Score: 1

      No, that's incorrect. You would be right if density were not a factor. A radio signal can only be split into so many distinct parcels at any given time, so simply adding more towers (that are all using the same spectrum range) in an already saturated area does *not* in fact give you more bandwidth. If the full range of signal space is being actively utilized, then your infrastructure no longer matters. This is happening in some of the larger, denser cities (New York, San Fransisco) at peak times. During non-peak, when the signal space is not fully utilized, yes, your can split the signal onto multiple towers and effectively increase bandwidth, but that's a little like the cable company offering 25 Mbps internet connections but failing to mention that 25 Mbps is split across the whole local node. So when you (and fifty of your nearest neighbors) all come home and watch Netflix after work, the individual bandwidth drops into the toilet.

      I have never really understood having a "super fast" mobile network. Sure, I can get that web page to load a few seconds faster, but so what? If the overall bandwidth cap is the issue, then who really cares how fast I can exceed it? Yes, if I wanted to download that 12 gig video to my phone, having a zippy network would be nice, but our current mobile technology isn't really set up for those kinds of features yet, regardless of the claims of Verizon and AT&T. Maybe someday we will have the infrastructure for that, but it's incredibly unrealistic to think you can stream full video to your phone without seriously impacting overall performance.

    6. Re:What's the problem, in the end? by green1 · · Score: 1

      You don't "just add another tower" you ALSO reduce the power of neighbouring towers to accommodate it.

      This is something providers do all the time. you can say it's impossible all you like, but it's done daily by cellular providers all over the world.

      The spectrum isn't saturated, and even if it was, you just add more towers and lower the power on each one to get around the problem. it's not that difficult. It's the same reason that when I use my wifi in Canada it doesn't decrease your bandwidth on your wifi in the US even though they're on the same channel, the signal simply doesn't travel far enough to interfere. Same deal. if the 2 are closer together you put them on seperate channels or lower the power, or both.

  13. Net Neutrality violation by mozumder · · Score: 2

    so, this is why we need net neutrality, so that ISPs don't charge based on content type (iPhone data vs. tethered data).

    1. Re:Net Neutrality violation by MichaelKristopeit415 · · Score: 0
      who is "we"?

      you are NOTHING

    2. Re:Net Neutrality violation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have read the Bill, that wouldn't be covered it's not a content issue. Net Neutrality is not for the benefit of end-users at all. READ THE BILL before you support it.

    3. Re:Net Neutrality violation by green1 · · Score: 1

      He said we needed net neutrality, not that we needed the ridiculous bill put before congress by the same name. There's an important difference there. I think I prefer our Canadian method of naming bills, we don't, they all have a number, and that way they don't pervert the english language with this sort of misunderstanding. Suddenly you can't be for net-neutrality without being for all the perversions of law in the act, you can't be patriotic without giving the government the ability to spy on you and detain you without charge, and any of a number of other named laws that say one thing and mean the other (with the amazing exception of the CANSPAM act which does exactly what it says, give permission to spam...)

      We DO need net neutrality. I want to be provided with a pipe that I can do anything I want on, whenever I want, and without any interference from my service provider. THAT is net neutrality.

  14. Having owned both, Android wins by ClioCJS · · Score: 2

    heh, when i ran 100+ connections and d/l 12G of torrents in 2 days on my wife's non-jailbroke android phone, which we tethered when a drunk driver took out our internet for 12 days, all we got was a warning after 10-12G that we'd be reduced to dialup speeds. Which, considering I had no dial tone (also due to drunk driver who smashed telephone pole[3rd time]), was better than the alternative, and apparently better than if we'd done this with my jailbroken iPhone (which I got for free, and would never buy, but also would not just throw in the trash).

    --
    -Clio
    Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
    Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    1. Re:Having owned both, Android wins by Xacid · · Score: 1

      "all we got was a warning after 10-12G that we'd be reduced to dialup speeds."

      This is how it should be. Charging for simply enabling another device to use bandwidth that you're ALREADY paying for is fucking stupid. I don't even understand how that makes sense or why customers would tolerate it.

      Anywho - with that said - which companies out there offer android/iphones, allow tethering, and don't ream their customers? I'm an ATT customer (since 2003) and pretty much ready to jump ship.

    2. Re:Having owned both, Android wins by ClioCJS · · Score: 1

      this was a T-Mobile HTC Dream (like $130 in 2007??), based in northern Virginia ("heart of the internet" area).

      --
      -Clio
      Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
      Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
    3. Re:Having owned both, Android wins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Eh, I hate iPhone as much as the next guy, but I'm pretty sure that's a T-mo >> ATT story, not an Android >> iPhone story.

    4. Re:Having owned both, Android wins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rogers Wireless here in Canada offers free tethering with your data plan.

    5. Re:Having owned both, Android wins by tukang · · Score: 1

      T-mobile has a built in tethering option (on the G2 at least) and using it is as simple as plugging the phone into the usb and checking the "usb tethering" checkbox. Both windows and linux automatically see the new connection. Excellent for accessing the net at work!

    6. Re:Having owned both, Android wins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      T-mobile has free tethering on the mytouch 4g. I use it all the time, not that I use a lot of bandwidth, but sometimes it's just easier to use a full size laptop to surf the internet when I'm not at home. The best part is that the phone comes with the app! I don't know if it will be free to tether forever, but when that happens, I'm sure there will be an app to fix it.

    7. Re:Having owned both, Android wins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps it would be easier if you just quit drinking so much.

    8. Re:Having owned both, Android wins by FireFury03 · · Score: 1

      Anywho - with that said - which companies out there offer android/iphones, allow tethering, and don't ream their customers? I'm an ATT customer (since 2003) and pretty much ready to jump ship.

      Three in the UK have no exclusions regarding tethering in their T&Cs. That said, the "mobile internet" packages are clearly not intended for use in this way because they offer "mobile broadband" packages at about twice the price for that... as far as I can tell there is no difference between them.

  15. What about Android? by parann0yed · · Score: 1

    Being new to Android I wonder if they would be able to tell if we were tethering. Looking at a couple of videos on how this is done, I don't see any additional apps that need to be installed.

    1. Re:What about Android? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      With a little peeking at the packets, yes - just look at an HTTP request, see the user agent. Wouldn't even be hard.

  16. Enough by drb226 · · Score: 1

    Dear American entrepreneurs,

    These data "plans" are absurd. Please start a few competing wireless data service companies that actually charge a fair price: pay for what you use. None of these 'unlimited' data lies, none of this "pay for each device that connects" crap, no throttling traffic types you deem 'less important', just let us pay for the bandwidth we use. Bonus points if you charge less during non-peak hours. Sure, studies have "shown" this is not an optimal business plan. But honestly, screwing customers is not a good business plan; if you screw your customers just a little less, you should be able to beat the competition.

    1. Re:Enough by LoudNoiseElitist · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'll get right on that. Surely building up a company to take on AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile shouldn't be too hard.

    2. Re:Enough by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Every time pay-per-byte is mentioned on this site, people get frothy at the mouth. I'd suggest that your idea is doomed on that basis.

    3. Re:Enough by Xacid · · Score: 1

      Actually there are a few smaller ones that have sprouted up recently(ish). I have no experience with them but their prices seem more reasonable.

      http://www.boostmobile.com/
      http://www.mycricket.com/

    4. Re:Enough by LoudNoiseElitist · · Score: 1

      The two you mentioned are *terrible*.

    5. Re:Enough by Xacid · · Score: 1

      Which aspect(s)? Support? Coverage? Etc?

    6. Re:Enough by JohnRoss1968 · · Score: 1

      Cricket has been around for quite awhile in the Knoxville TN area. I had them for awhile and never had a problem with them at all.

    7. Re:Enough by LoudNoiseElitist · · Score: 1

      Cricket's coverage is deplorable. I can't speak directly for Boost, however, like some other people have mentioned, they lack backing by hardware manufacturers. Unless you've got the latest and greatest, it's going to be hard to really get in the game.

    8. Re:Enough by praxis · · Score: 1

      I'm not even remotely interested in getting the investors necessary involved in order to buy the spectrum I'd need.

  17. Actually... by scurker · · Score: 1

    It sounds more like AT&T is targeting users who are using too much data. It seems to me that if you are staying within reasonable data limits and not using up crazy bandwidth you should be fine.

    1. Re:Actually... by Binestar · · Score: 1

      They have an "unlimited" contract for their data. Why is it unreasonable to believe that their contract actually means "unlimited"? If they don't want to give you unlimited access, then why are they being sold unlimited access?

      --
      Do you Gentoo!?
    2. Re:Actually... by JohnRoss1968 · · Score: 1

      On an UNLIMITED plan.....Unlimited seems reasonable to me, and the dictionary.
      On a 2.5 Gig per month plan......2.5 Gigs per month sounds just as reasonable.

    3. Re:Actually... by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      They have an "unlimited" contract for their data.

      Your contract also says you agree not to tether.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
  18. Maybe I'm missing something here.... by mark-t · · Score: 1

    ... but how do they know if a phone is being tethered?

    1. Re:Maybe I'm missing something here.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can scan the "user-agent" of your browser and see if you are using Firefox on Windows XP or an Android (etc) browser.
      The Firefox plug-in "User Agent Switcher" allows you to pretend to be using Android even when using Firefox. That has worked for me so far to overcome T-mobile's tethering restrictions. I use the android agent string:
      Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.2; en-us; HTC Dream Build/FRF91) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1

    2. Re:Maybe I'm missing something here.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're using a browser on the tethered machine, the UID strings would be easy to check.

      That said, they've probably got something in the iPhone firmware itself that reports tethering to the network. When you've got a a near-monopoly on infrastructure for a major market for a device, it's fairly easy to dictate specifications to anyone trying to sell equipment for that market.

    3. Re:Maybe I'm missing something here.... by HaveNoMouth · · Score: 2

      ... but how do they know if a phone is being tethered?

      Several possibilities:

      1. User-agent sniffing. Remedy: Change the UA string on your laptop's browser to match the one on your phone. Downside: Be ready to surf crappy "mobile-enabled" sites on your laptop.
      2. Deep packet inspection. P2P protocols etc are unlikely to be coming from your phone. Remedy: Use a VPN or an SSH tunnel.
      3. Traffic volume. Statistically higher traffic volumes suggest (but do not prove) tethering. Remedy: Use fewer bits ;)
  19. Doesn't make sense for limited plans. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You could argue for this being a reasonable restriction for unlimited plans, but for limited plans it makes no more sense then a utility charging differently depending on how I use water or electricity.

    1. Re:Doesn't make sense for limited plans. by praxis · · Score: 1

      Why does it make sense for an unlimited plan? Does that change the silliness of charging differently depending on how rather than how much data you use?

  20. Honesty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If you have an I-phone guess what? You signed a contract with AT&T. You agreed that you would not tether without a tether plan. If you bought an I-phone you agreed not to jailbreak it or fuck with it in ways that are prohibited by Apple. If you do not agree to these ideas then stop supporting these companies. It is as simple as that. I do question the legality of forcing the 4 GB tether plan, but good luck to anyone who tries to fight it in court. "Well you see judge, I was violating my contract with AT&T, because I did not want to pay for tethering and they charged me for tethering anyway even though I did not sign up for it. Guess the moral of the story is to be honest and not try and cheat the system. If you disagree with the system, then work to change it.

    1. Re:Honesty by erroneus · · Score: 2

      Such requirements signed in an agreement does not necessarily mean it's legal or enforceable. Various states have various laws which guarantee certain rights and limitations against things like this. Ever hear or read those disclaimers stating "void where prohibited"? They are talking about stuff like that.

    2. Re:Honesty by JohnRoss1968 · · Score: 1

      I would say the moral of the story is always try to cheat a DISHONEST SYSTEM.

  21. Error in summary: $20 more per month, not $45. by BcNexus · · Score: 1

    If you would like to continue tethering...here are details on the plan:
    -DataPro 4GB for Smartphone Tethering
    --$45 per month (this gives you 4GB in total, combining both your smartphone data plan for $25 and the tethering feature, $20)

    1. Re:Error in summary: $20 more per month, not $45. by ptbarnett · · Score: 1

      Error in summary: $20 more per month, not $45.

      Mod the parent up. The error is in the original article, as well.

      AT&T charges $25/month for the 2 gigabytes/month data plan for the iPhone. Adding tethering increases the charge to $45/month for 4 gigabytes/month. However, if you are currently on the $30/month "unlimited" plan, it's only $15/month more to change to the 4 gigabytes/month + tethering plan.

      I switched from the unlimited dataplan when iOS 4.3 was released, as I could finally replace my Sprint MiFi hotspot with my iPhone. I didn't feel like I was giving up anything significant, because I never used more than 200 megabytes/month on my iPhone alone.

      When I used the MiFi all day at a client, I never exceeded 100 megabytes/day, and was usually in the 50-60 megabyte/day range. I could use 100 megabytes/day all month, and still have 1 gigabyte/month left for my iPhone usage. In the unlikely event I exceed the 4 gigabyte/month cap, it's only $10/gigabyte, or 1 cent per megabyte -- and I can live with that.

    2. Re:Error in summary: $20 more per month, not $45. by MoonBuggy · · Score: 1

      However, if you are currently on the $30/month "unlimited" plan, it's only $15/month more to change to the 4 gigabytes/month + tethering plan.

      Only $15/month extra for a significant reduction in data transfer? How can I lose?!

  22. Dump AT&T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is real simple people. Cancel your service with AT&T. They are seeing a MASS defection right now.

    I did it 3 weeks ago and went with Verizon. Could not be happier. Verizon even matched my unlimited data plan from AT&T.

    1. Re:Dump AT&T by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      Enjoy that unlimited plan while you have it. Verizon wants more money for tethering, more money for voice services, and gives less data for the same fee at the low end of the bracket. Oh, and as a bonus, their phones won't work outside the US (I try to get to the USVI in the winter). They're not much of an alternative.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    2. Re:Dump AT&T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Verizon charges for tethering also.

  23. How bad will it have to get? by erroneus · · Score: 1

    You know, there was a certain tipping point, and I'm not entirely sure when that was, when congress and others in government was forced into taking action against "telecom." In the past, did you know you were not allowed to use any phone other than one provided by your carrier? And you could not own your own phone! The cost for the use of the phone or phones was "abusive" to say the least. And for each phone jack you had in your house, there was a chance you might get billed for it. Eventually, government did step in and make it all better.

    But here we are again. We're talking about wireless versus wired, but we are still talking about an area where the government is providing the right-of-way for radio signaling equipment which enables these telecoms to progressively and continuously abuse the consumer. You can own your own phone, it's true, but as an example, if I want to use my android phone, I have to pay for the data plan to go with it. So, I pay a higher rate, regardless of what I actually do with it, because I have a better device. (And to be frank, I would be perfectly happy with my phone if my data over 3G were severely limited... I use WiFi where possible already.) The way I see it, we are suffering exactly the same abuses that we did decades ago... abuses which led to government intervention. So how far does it have to go before we get some backing here?

  24. Slashdot comes through for me! by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 1

    Once again, an Apple related story brings out the Slashdot retardation like no other.

    Keep it up fellas! You really bring the laughs. It's even better knowing you're really like this! It's not an act! Killer!

  25. just look at an HTTP request, see the user agent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    except I use a desktop user agent on my android browser...

  26. If they had more options by samspock · · Score: 1

    My wife has an iPhone and the one option I don't feel comfortable with jailbreaking it. Instead I would like to see an on-the-fly tethering option. Something like $20 and you can tether for 30 days or so. She goes out of town once or twice a year to her mother's. Her mother does not have internet access. I don't want to pay a recurring $20 charge and loose her unlimited plan just so she can use her laptop for 10 days a year. I wonder if any of the users who jailbroke their phone did it just for this type occasional use? More options means more people will follow the rules.

  27. Not Surprised by TheMeth0D · · Score: 1

    My wife used her upgrade discount to surprise me with an iPhone4 on my birthday. I started using it and within 2 weeks ATT sent me an email stating that they had "upgraded" my account from my Unlimited data plan to their 2GB iPhone data plan and my bill went up by $15/mo. I'd cancel but I'm still on a contract and would get shafted with a termination fee... called att and complained but it was a waste of time, they've got me on the hook and they know it. F-U AT&T!!!

    1. Re:Not Surprised by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Actually is sounds like THEY broke the contract by modifying your bill. You might tell them to go to hell, but IANAL.....

    2. Re:Not Surprised by schnikies79 · · Score: 1

      The 2gb data plan is cheaper than unlimited. $25 for 2gb, $15 for 200mb or $30 for unlimited.

      If you get a tethering plan, it's 4gb for $45.

      --
      Gone!
    3. Re:Not Surprised by TheMeth0D · · Score: 1

      I told them as much when I called them... their response "we can modify the contract, it's in the contract you signed" or something to that effect. What they're doing is illegal IMO, but who can/will hold them accountable? Some days I wish I was a lawyer with the time and money.

    4. Re:Not Surprised by TheMeth0D · · Score: 1

      Not if you had kept your Media Net plan from 6+ years ago. My data plan was $15/mo for unlimited data.

    5. Re:Not Surprised by schnikies79 · · Score: 1

      You can still get the unlimited medianet plan (if you're on a dumbphone). AT&T won't let you use/keep it with a smartphone, well an iphone at least.

      It's $15 for unlimited or $10 if you have unlimited messaging.

      --
      Gone!
    6. Re:Not Surprised by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      MediaNet was not for smart phones or phones with keyboards or iPhones - any CS rep knows that 's the case. Either you're utterly oblivious to everything phone service related, or just pissed that they found you out. Besides, iPhones have their own plan, and they have since day 1. Looks like they found out you were on the wrong plan and switched you (they probably did it on day 1, too).

      I know because I tricked my way into a Media Net plan when I had my HTC/AT&T 8525.

      FWIW, my wife and I are perfectly happy with 250MB cap - actually, it's a bummer they won't let us share a single cap, as we combine for less than 150MB/mo in data.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  28. Get out of jail free. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tethering like that is probably against the ToS in the contract, and you should be able to go free without an early cancelation fee.

  29. ETFs on Verizon, Sprint, and AT&T by tepples · · Score: 2

    The answer to all of the above hysterical "what if" questions is simply you pay the early termination fee - which is the difference in price between the subsidized and retail price of the phone.

    Say I have finished the contract. Or say I bring my own phone instead of taking a subsidized phone in the first place. Then why don't I get a discount of (ETF / length of contract) off Verizon, Sprint, or AT&T monthly service? At least T-Mobile is honest about its subsidies and offers such a discount (ask about "Even More Plus" in any T-Mobile store), but it also reportedly has the worst coverage among the big four.

    1. Re:ETFs on Verizon, Sprint, and AT&T by AJH16 · · Score: 1

      Verizon doesn't advertise it, but if you have had a contract with them and are at the end and don't get a new phone, you will get a call from them asking if they could interest you in a discount and/or free extras on your service to get you to agree to another contract term (and you can still make use of your phone upgrade any time you want.) They just really like having the guaranteed revenue stream in the US market. My guess is it is probably largely related to how much more they have to build out the network and plan long term due to how spread out we are in the US. (Which makes cellular service far more expensive in the US.)

      --
      AJ Henderson
    2. Re:ETFs on Verizon, Sprint, and AT&T by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      Say I have finished the contract. Or say I bring my own phone instead of taking a subsidized phone in the first place. Then why don't I get a discount of (ETF / length of contract) off Verizon, Sprint, or AT&T monthly service?

      The big guys won't do it for you, but the MVNOs usually will.

      If you have a Sprint device, activate it on Boost for $35/mo for unlimited talk/text/web. I believe cricket will activate Sprint devices too, but don't quote me on that. For Verizon, activate on Page Plus. I forget what they offer, but people seem to like them. If you're on GSM, you can choose whichever provider you want.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    3. Re:ETFs on Verizon, Sprint, and AT&T by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      I've heard some places have terrible T-Mobile coverage, but I've never had a problem with coverage. In fact my coverage is generally great. Do your research first, but if you're not going to be in areas where T-Mo has poor coverage I think they are by far the best option.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    4. Re:ETFs on Verizon, Sprint, and AT&T by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      For Verizon, activate on Page Plus.

      Has anybody here done this successfully? They only appear to support a few models of phones on their webpage. I like my phone, don't want to get a different one.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    5. Re:ETFs on Verizon, Sprint, and AT&T by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      For Verizon, activate on Page Plus.

      Has anybody here done this successfully? They only appear to support a few models of phones on their webpage. I like my phone, don't want to get a different one.

      Yes, people have done this successfully.

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    6. Re:ETFs on Verizon, Sprint, and AT&T by jonbtn · · Score: 1

      Yep, sure have. They support almost all of the Verizon programmed phones, except Blackberries and iPhones. Check out http://www.howardforums.com/forumdisplay.php/364-Page-Plus-Cellular for more information.

    7. Re:ETFs on Verizon, Sprint, and AT&T by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      T-Mobile is not bad, and they're pretty much the only way to get UMA access on a BlackBerry in the US.

      But their data coverage doesn't even include the interstate-adjacent section of flyover states -- between Des Moines and Chicago on I-35 I was without data coverage 90% of the time.

    8. Re:ETFs on Verizon, Sprint, and AT&T by rrossman2 · · Score: 1

      Easy.. if you bring your own phone, then you don't enter the 2 year agreement that subsidizes the phone. Pretty damn easy to figure out. That's what I've done in the past, and currently did when I got VZW to unlock my Storm, and moved it over to Immix Wireless (GSM provider). No need for a contract since they weren't subsidizing my phone.

    9. Re:ETFs on Verizon, Sprint, and AT&T by tepples · · Score: 1

      f you bring your own phone, then you don't enter the 2 year agreement that subsidizes the phone.

      But V, S, and A also don't give a discount on the service charge for bringing your own phone instead of entering a 2-year agreement, unlike T-Mobile. So I'd end up paying a $20 premium for month-to-month service.

    10. Re:ETFs on Verizon, Sprint, and AT&T by RobbieThe1st · · Score: 1

      Um... Pay As You Go?
      T-mobile has that; it only cost me like $10 for a sim and some credit off their website, stuck it in my N900, and now I have phone service for really cheap.
      I can even get unlimited internet for $1.50/24hrs(or $45 a month if I used it every day), which is very nice IMHO.

  30. Even More Plus by T-Mobile by tepples · · Score: 3, Informative

    T-Mobile offers the SIM-only "Even More Plus" plan, a cheaper plan designed for people who have bought a phone separately. Last time I checked, the discount was 10 USD off voice or 20 USD off voice and data. So do I understand correctly that you can't get T-Mobile where you live?

    1. Re:Even More Plus by T-Mobile by drtsystems · · Score: 1

      T-Mobile sucks. I hate when people say "oh well sprint does this" or "t-mobile has this plan." Some of us venture outside of major city centers and need coverage. T-mobile is hit or miss even in big cities a lot of times due to its use of the 1900mhz frequency which has more trouble penetrating walls than the 850/900 mhz that Verizon and AT&T (in some places) use.

    2. Re:Even More Plus by T-Mobile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely. T-Mobile is great in this regard. Their coverage is not as good as Verizon or AT&T though. I don't care because they let me pay for a SIM card and use my Android phone (that I paid cash for) however I feel. I can and do tether. No problems.

    3. Re:Even More Plus by T-Mobile by Surt · · Score: 1

      Yeah, tmobile doesn't reach my home, and I don't have a landline. At the moment att and verizon are the only carriers with reception.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    4. Re:Even More Plus by T-Mobile by Macrat · · Score: 1

      T-Mobile offers the SIM-only "Even More Plus" plan, a cheaper plan designed for people who have bought a phone separately. Last time I checked, the discount was 10 USD off voice or 20 USD off voice and data. So do I understand correctly that you can't get T-Mobile where you live?

      I'm using an iPhone 3GS purchased factory unlocked from the Hong Kong Apple Store on T-Mobile US.

      I'm getting clear calls & data where iPhone on AT&T users are getting dropped calls.

    5. Re:Even More Plus by T-Mobile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      T-Mobile has the least coverage and the least amount of areas with 3G compared to the other 3 national carriers. It's not a practical choice for some people.

    6. Re:Even More Plus by T-Mobile by dfries · · Score: 1

      I bought the N900 and have the Even More Plus plan, and it was $10 less per month for the voice only plan at the time. Unfortunately T-Mobile no longer lists the Even More Plus plan price on their web site, you have to go to one of their stores to find out. I think that's pretty clear that they are no longer promoting it.

    7. Re:Even More Plus by T-Mobile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      T-Mobile offers the SIM-only "Even More Plus" plan, a cheaper plan designed for people who have bought a phone separately. Last time I checked, the discount was 10 USD off voice or 20 USD off voice and data. So do I understand correctly that you can't get T-Mobile where you live?

      Not so surprising, where we live (here in South Dakota) the only choices are Verizon and AT&T, and the coverage for either is spotty at best.

  31. Maybe it's just me by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

    Isn't "datapro" and "4GB" an oxymoron?

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  32. Correction! by tanveer1979 · · Score: 2

    Vodaphone does it for iPhone users in India too.
    If you have a smarphone, and want a 2.5GB GPRS (EDGE 2G) plan? Price = 199/month (4$ approx)
    If you have an iPhone?
    You need to buy iPhone GPRS plan which costs 450rs for 500MB/mo :)

    So its like the carriers saying "We know you iPhone uses are dumbos who will pay extra for nothing.... so we will take your money, thank you!"

    --
    My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
    FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
    1. Re:Correction! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vodaphone does it for iPhone users in India too.
      If you have a smarphone, and want a 2.5GB GPRS (EDGE 2G) plan? Price = 199/month (4$ approx)
      If you have an iPhone?
      You need to buy iPhone GPRS plan which costs 450rs for 500MB/mo :)

      So its like the carriers saying "We know you iPhone uses are dumbos who will pay extra for nothing.... so we will take your money, thank you!"

      So we will take your money, fuck you!

  33. I'm out of contract by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm out of contract and I sometimes tether. If I get a letter like this, the only way AT&T will hear from me is when T-Mobile contacts them to transfer my number to the T-Mobile service.

  34. Re:just look at an HTTP request, see the user agen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    me too.. hate getting those silly "mobile" versions of sites when I have a perfectly capable browser.
    never tether as i have a free VZ aircard thing from work, so if they try to claim i've tethered b/c of user agent i will be pissed.

  35. AT&T can ... by DaMattster · · Score: 1

    Fuck off! Thank God for having a choice of wireless services in America! I'd love to see just where in the terms and services AT&T can just unilaterally make that change. I am willing to bet, this will constitute a change in the contract. As we all know, a change in the contract means it is effectively broken by AT&T and you would not have to pay an Early Termination Fee.

    1. Re:AT&T can ... by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      Huh? There's a clause in there specifically about tethering, and if you do, you have to pay the advertised rates. They're not suggesting a penalty - just that you pay if you're using the "service".

      Is it bullshit? Of course. Do you have a choice? Not really - Verizon is even more expensive and the rest of the carriers, even if they work marginaly with the iPhone (the 3G freqs differ) have lower density coverage.

      I'm on the 250MB plan, and most months I'm around 60-70MB for all my data needs, and I'm on the damned thing nearly all the time. If I could tether, I'd still be under 250MB because I just don't need it very often. A tethering plan is a waste of money for me for the 1-2 times a month it would be convenient to have. As soon as there's a real alternative I'm in, but I'm not holding my breath.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
  36. It would be good to know why AT&T thinks by idontgno · · Score: 1
    the people they're sending notifications to are tethering, and how AT&T will know when they've stopped.

    If we donâ(TM)t hear from you, weâ(TM)ll plan to automatically enroll you into DataPro 4GB after March 27, 2011. The new plan â" whether you sign up on your own or we automatically enroll you â" will replace your current smartphone data plan, including if you are on an unlimited data plan.

    If you discontinue tethering, no changes to your current plan will be required.

    Doesn't that sound like ED-209?

    ED-209: [menacingly] Please put down your tethering applications. You have 20 seconds to comply.
    AT&T Contract VP: I think you better do as he says, Mr. Customer.
    [Mr. Kinney uninstalls the tethering app. ED-209 advances, growling]
    ED-209: You now have 15 seconds to comply.
    [Mr. Customer turns to AT&T VP, who looks nervous]
    ED-209: You are in direct violation of Contract Code 1.13, Section 9.
    [entire room of people in full panic trying to stay out of the line of fire, especially Mr. Customer]
    ED-209: You have 5 seconds to comply.
    Customer: Help me!
    ED-209: Four... three... two... one... I am now authorized to use contractual force!
    [ED-209 opens fire and shreds Mr. Customer]

    --
    Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  37. Instead of using the iPhone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You could use the internet on your, you know, computer.

    1. Re:Instead of using the iPhone by sqrt(2) · · Score: 1

      I'm using the internet from an Amtrak train right now, using my unofficial AT&T jailbroken tethering ;)

      Until Amtrak joins the rest of the Western world and gets internet in their trains I will keep doing this. I set my user agent string to the iPhone just in case. If they threaten to charge me an extra $45 a month I'll happily take the opportunity in the change of contract to cancel without a termination fee. They can shove it. I signed up a few years ago for one of their *truly* unlimited plans and I haven't renewed since so they have nothing they can do except cancel me and turn me into a Verizon user.

      --
      If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
    2. Re:Instead of using the iPhone by MichaelKristopeit415 · · Score: 0
      enforcement of contract =/= change of contract.

      you're an idiot.

  38. It's easy to detect NAT routers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Probably not - most likely this is just using NAT or whatever which isn't easily detected.

    Ha! I wrote a paper on NAT detection and NAT client-counting in grad school. It's really easy.

    1) Looks for IP packets with weird TTLs. If any packet originating from a "normal" phone has a TTL of 128 or 64 or whatever, and you see a bunch of packets hitting your gateway with 127 or 63 TTL values, that means there's a network device (your phone's NAT software) between the packet-originator (computer that's tethered) and the network. It's *especially* glaring if you have a mix of TTL values, like 63 & 127, which means there are probably multiple machines behind the NAT (I think Linux/UNIX IP stack uses 128, and Windows uses 64, or maybe the reverse. But they're different).

    2) IP packets have a header field called "IP ID" that is optional and the OS can do pretty much whatever it wants with it, *and* most NAT routers leave the field untouched (don't rewrite it). A lot of OSes use is as a universal packet-counter (every time a packet goes out, it increments the field by one), or some OSes increment the field every time a new source port is used to send a packet (which makes it much harder to count clients). If you see a pattern like this in the IP ID field of packets inbound to your network:

    465,466,467,128,129,468,130,131,469,470,471,132

    it's pretty obvious there are 2 computers talking through the NAT, one numbering 465-471, the other 128-132.

    So yeah, it can be done, REALLY easily. Of course, you could easily write a stealth NAT routing algorithm that replaces all TTL values with 128 or 64, or re-writes the IP ID field to make it look like one machine, but as far as I know normal commercial products don't do that. Maybe the PDANet authors were smart enough to do that. But the things I outlined let you do it without deep packet inspection, you can just check the headers.

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/u055738wk18835l0/

    Posting anon so you can't link my real identity (Kenneth Straka) to my Slashdot ID. :)

  39. Contract Termination by TheNinjaroach · · Score: 1

    Fight the automatic opt-in for this fee and AT&T will say "Hey, you're violating the terms of our contract by tethering without authorization and we are now terminating our agreement.

    By the way, here is your $300 early termination fee."

    --
    I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
  40. T-Mobile: Zero bars in more places. by tepples · · Score: 1

    Just a question: Have any of you ever actually done the math between a regular, subsidized phone and a plan, and buying a phone outright?

    Yes. For any major U.S. cellular carrier that isn't T-Mobile, buying the phone outright is far more expensive because Verizon, Sprint, and AT&T offer no plan with a discount for bringing your own phone. I talked to an AT&T sales representative a few weeks ago while helping my aunt pick out a phone for her son, and he sounded surprised that T-Mobile would even offer Even More Plus. As for T-Mobile, that isn't an option for a lot of people who have posted comments to this and other Slashdot stories. I take it they would have already switched to T-Mobile if it weren't for the lack of coverage.

    1. Re:T-Mobile: Zero bars in more places. by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 1

      I'm actually quite happy with T-Mobile. I've noticed the coverage on the East Coast is a bit better than the West, but I often have to travel from Northern Nevada down to Los Angeles or up to Seattle and I have a consistent signal and at least 3G for most of the way. Obviously YMMV.

      --
      "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
  41. Do Any US Carriers Allow Tethering? by abe+ferlman · · Score: 1

    I'd really like to know if any US carriers allow tethering without ridiculous additional fees. I use very little data, but occasionally need to use my laptop for a task (usually connecting somewhere via ssh) that would be inconvenient on an iphone, and since I "upgraded" to 4.x I can't tether anymore. It's kind of ironic that I probably use less than 1/2GB data per month, but because I want to use it in a way that's convenient for me they want to charge me double for no additional work on their end.

    --
    microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
  42. Just make a felony to have tethering w/o paying by mykos · · Score: 1

    I mean, it's already illegal to listen to a song or watch a movie without paying. Why not make free tethering illegal as well? In fact, make everything that big corporations don't like a felony.

  43. Too bad...it's still a contract by Chirs · · Score: 1

    The fact that you don't like the selection doesn't mean that you have the right to break the contract.

    If you want tethering, but don't want to pay what the contract says, the only ethical thing to do is *not tether*.

  44. Stop complaining bitches! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're the ones who bought the DRM infested piece of iShit.

  45. This is just absurd by Kosi · · Score: 1

    Why would anyone pay extra for something that's just a usual function of a mobile phone? It's like trying to charge more for a call when using a headset instead of holding the phone to your head. Absurd and ridiculous!

    The Telekom in Germany also tried it for a while, but I guess not enough people were stupid enough to step into that trap.

  46. Maximizing markeshare != maximizing profits by sjbe · · Score: 1

    If they were competing, they'd be trying to gain market share at the expense of the other players.

    Not necessarily true. It's easy to show situations where gains in market share result in losses of profits. Happens with the car companies all the time. The fiduciary duty of company is to maximize profits for the shareholders, not market share. You can gain huge amounts of market share by selling $2 for $1 but you'll be hugely unprofitable doing so.

    The folks running the big telecoms are engaging in some game theory. They have little to gain from a price war and they all know it so they tacitly signal (read collude) their strategies to maintain prices at levels you'd expect from an oligopoly. They have little to fear from new market entrants and they've been playing this game with each other for quite some time. As a result prices tend to remain artificially high despite the fact that cell phone minutes are pretty much the definition of a commodity.

    There really is no other rational explanation for the fact that text messaging, which costs them basically nothing, remains ridiculously expensive. These companies are purposely not competing in order to maximize profits. It may not be collusion in the smoke filled back room sense but the effect is basically the same.

  47. My $0.02 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I am paying AT&T $25/month for 2Gig Data, isn't it should up to me me..How I used the data allowance....If i want to use all 2 Gig data allowance in a day, week or a month with tethering or without tethering?
    What next you can't go to Google site you can only go to Yahoo? That's why i don't have AT&T crap!

    -AJ

  48. Are we really just that dumb? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    No. We just are at the mercy of virtual monopolies.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  49. Why? by kuzb · · Score: 1

    How is it that they are legally allowed to do this? Tethering does not magically allow you to use more data than your plan allows, and it doesn't use more network resources other than the bandwidth you've already paid for. What is the justification for the tethering cost?

    --
    BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
    1. Re:Why? by Red_Chaos1 · · Score: 1

      Greed. Pure and simple. Why let you use wifi and get data/Inet for free when they can contractually force you to use their egregiously overpriced data plan?

  50. They detect tethered traffic with the TTL field by astrashe · · Score: 1

    I agree with you that we should be able to do what we want with our bandwidth. But they can detect traffic without looking for "Windows traffic".

    Every time a packet goes from one hop to the next, the TTL field gets decremented. If traffic originates from the iPhone, it has a TTL of 64. If you tether some other device (even another iPhone, connected to the first via wi-fi), it will have a different TTL.

  51. Love T-Mobile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WiFi tethering and good speeds with my MyTouch 4G (1-4 Mb/s down, a bit less up, in most places). All you can eat data for $30/month.

    1. Re:Love T-Mobile by gearloos · · Score: 1

      agree- 1) buy Nexus S- 2) Get Tmo - 3) tether- done. Unlimited here in the US for 24.99 to 30.00 a month. Ive heard they might change that but that is THE reason to go Tmo and if they change, well they aren't big enough to lose the loyal customer base. they are actually almost cult status. Non Mainstream Service.

      --
      "Computers are a lot like Air Conditioners" "They both work great until you start opening Windows"
  52. So...how do they know? by RapmasterT · · Score: 2

    I'm wondering how AT&T is going to justify how they know you're tethering in the first place? They can base it solely on amount of data consumed...but that's in no way accurate. Are they going to admit that they're monitoring your data stream without your permission or notification? Ouch...that's gonna get ugly. Are they going to admit they've backdoor'd your phone to see what apps you're running...double ouch.

    I don't see any way for AT&T to definitively identify people who are tethering without a fairly egregious privacy violation.

  53. You are living proof by Falconhell · · Score: 1

    No one ever lost money betting on the stupidity of americans.

    1. Re:You are living proof by MichaelKristopeit422 · · Score: 1
      ur mum's face are living proof no one ever lost money betting on the stupidity of ur mum's face.

      cower in my shadow behind your chosen aviary religion based pseudonym some more, feeb.

      you're completely pathetic.

    2. Re:You are living proof by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      Thank you for so effectively demonmstrating my point.

    3. Re:You are living proof by MichaelKristopeit409 · · Score: 0
      you are an ignorant hypocrite.

      cower in my shadow behind your chosen aviary religion based pseudonym some more, feeb.

      you're completely pathetic.

  54. Why does the phone company even care? by davesag · · Score: 2

    What I don't get is what is the real difference between data used by my phone when, say, streaming some video from YouTube, or data that's being used by my phone to provide net access to my laptop? Assuming the phone company simply bills for the data, or has a plan with some sort of cap, as is normal here in Australia anyway, surely they'd want to encourage more use of that data so as to increase their billing? I really don't understand why tethering isn't just another always-available function of the phone, rather than something you are expected to arrange specially with your phone company.

    Here my iPhone and iPad are both on Telstra but I can only tether with my phone, but not my iPad. It's just annoying, and I can't see it's any of Telstra's business what I do with my data, so long as I pay my bill and am not breaking the law.

    --
    I used to have a better sig than this, but I got tired of it
  55. False Positive by Fuzzzy · · Score: 1

    The contacts legally includes tethering tax. However, the weak point is false positives -- users wrongly charged for tethering.
    A certain user is suspected for tethering due to an unusual network usage pattern. AT&T charges him for extra $45 for tethering. Since he did not use tethering, they cannot charge him the extra tethering tax. He takes AT&T to the court, and AT&T fails to prove he was tethering. One successful class action is all that is needed to put an end to tethering tax.

  56. Where to try before buying? by tepples · · Score: 1

    T-mobile has that; it only cost me like $10 for a sim and some credit off their website, stuck it in my N900

    Thanks for the recommendation. I seem to remember wanting to try T-Mobile prepaid before, but I realized I'd need a phone to use it with. Where can I try an N900 or any other factory-unlocked phone before buying it? I checked in Best Buy, RadioShack, and a T-Mobile store in Fort Wayne, Indiana, some time ago, and none carried it. Or from which web store do you recommend that I buy one that doesn't have a prohibitive restocking fee should I find it unusable? And what do you recommend for people living outside T-Mobile's coverage?

    1. Re:Where to try before buying? by RobbieThe1st · · Score: 1

      I don't know.
      I just looked at various reviews, saw the fact that the N900's as free as it's predecessors(Full root terminal easily, no bootloader lock, plenty of Linux stuff available), and bought mine used off ebay.

      As far as outside coverage goes, I'm sort of there - I get one bar where I am, with just about -any- phone. I've taken to setting up Google Voice with a sip provider as well as my t-mobile number, and auto connect to that on my n900 when I'm at home. It actually works well: The N900's got excellent integration with sip providers(right through the phone app) -- Though the battery life connected to sip is poor. Oh well.

    2. Re:Where to try before buying? by tepples · · Score: 1

      All the "free" in the world doesn't make a device usable if the display is hard to see and the touch unresponsive.

    3. Re:Where to try before buying? by RobbieThe1st · · Score: 1

      I suppose it's up to the user. Personally, I've had good luck with it(Browsing slashdot right now on it).
      The screen's 230dpi, so everything's sharp - You may have to zoom in on webpages to see small text if you're vision's not great, though.
      Responsiveness is excellent for a resistive screen: You have to actually touch the screen with light pressure to register a click - something that capacitative screens don't need, apparently.
      Overall OS responsiveness is OK, though stock transitions are jerky. There is, of course, mods that increase responsiveness lots. Mine's responsive enough that it's a good replacement for my laptop for most tasks. And better than it for some.

       

  57. US phone plans are actually quite cheap! by thestallion · · Score: 1

    I know everyone's having a jolly good time bashing how stupid Americans are for the weaknesses in their phone plan options, but what about the strengths of what AT+T offers? I will focus on non-data users, where the US offerings are particularly appealing. First of all, it can be really cheap. If you get a few friends on a "family plan" with AT+T, you can basically get unlimited voice calling for a family of four for like $20 per person per month, including free phones for all. Talk to anyone anywhere in the US, any time of day, as much as you like, and don't pay more than $20. Ok now, I'm stretching the truth a little, because the minutes are not actually unlimited, however if your family consists of normal/typical Americans, it's very unlikely that they would all talk enough to use up the minutes that come with the plan. I talked for hours nearly every day, as did my brother, and we never hit the limit. Also, mobile-to-mobile AT+T minutes don't count against your balance, which would typically include a lot of people who you would be calling anyways.

    I've traveled through a LOT of countries in the past couple of years, and for someone who actually likes to TALK on the phone, few places beat the USA pricewise. Many countries, like Australia or Japan, do not offer many "talking" minutes. Prepaid 3G internet via USB stick was surprisingly cheap in NZ and Australia, but voice calls were not. The locals told me they usually only SMS each other since they can't make many calls without paying loads. Japan is similar with messages being used because calls are prohibitively expensive. In Los Angeles, people talk for hours every day while sitting in traffic just to entertain themselves, and they don't have to pay much for it. When I returned to LA from my travels, I added myself to my family's plan for only $15 extra a month, and did not get locked into a contract. $15 a month for virtually unlimited calling and no contract, using my a phone I already owned (a free phone from AT+T would have required a contract). Even without a family plan to mooch off of, prices for plans with massive amounts of talking minutes but additional fees for data or texts are still quite cheap. If you can call instead of text, good luck finding service with that many talking minutes at that price in many other countries.

    Almost every country screws you in one way or another on your cell phone communications. In the US, it's tethering fees, expensive data plans, trying to lock you into contracts, and outrageous per-msg fees for sending or receiving(!) texts unless you also pay an outrageous additional $15 per month for unlimited texts. In many countries it's expensive talk times that prohibit your ability to have long unimportant conversations with your friends. At least there's Skype for jailbroken data users :) My cell phone and plan options here in Japan super-suck and I really wish I were getting a US type of plan. On the bright side, having email in your cell phones without a data plan is quite nice though.

    One last point of interest. Those "free phones" from AT+T in the US can actually make money for you! I know a guy who would unlock/jailbreak his free iPhone from AT+T, then as soon as he's eligible to upgrade to a new model (for free or heavily discounted) and renew his contract with AT+T, he would sell the unlocked/jailbroken phone on Ebay for a lot of money. Repeating this every year or however often they offer it ends up getting him an awful lot of money back on what he's paying them.

  58. Re:Detection - most simple by ncgnu08 · · Score: 1

    I think all of the suggestions so far are very good, but I doubt AT$T (the $ is on purpose) is going that far. Most likely, IMO, is that anything over, say 4-6gb, and AT&T will just assume tethering is going on, simply based on usage. At that point, they send the notice out to requiring a switch to a tethering plan. Now we are left with just a few responses:
    1) customer is tethering and thinks they are caught (surely AT&T can see they are tethering), so they switch to a tethering plan in order to keep using the feature which said customer has grown accustomed to using. RESULT: AT&T increases profit
    2)customer is not tethering, has no idea what tethering means, but changes plan in order to keep using their precious iPhone. RESULT: AT&T increases profit dramatically
    3)customer is tethering, but doesn't want to pay $45 fee so they stop tethering or at least limit their usage below 4gb. RESULT: AT&T frees up bandwidth on their already strained network
    4)customer, tethering or not, calls AT&T and denies tethering to avoid paying $45 fee. At this point either AT&T can produce the "goods" (evidence) or they can't. RESULT: mixed

    Having worked many years in the wireless industry, including but not limited to AT&T, I can promise most responses are going to be either 1 or 2. Customers rarely understand the technology behind the features, even the features they use; they just know it works or it doesn't work, and that is the scope of their understanding. Both 1 and 2 are going to increase the profit for AT&T, which is the whole point of this exercise. Far fewer responses are going to be 3, but this will still help AT&T by reducing the usage of their network (this is still a big WIN for AT&T). 4 is going to be the least likely response, and probably includes the few users that are tech say enough to understand how the feature works. Based on their interaction with the inbound call rep, they will either pay up or not. But this is such a small percentage, it is negligible to AT&T, therefore AT&T doesn't really care. AT&T has already accomplished their goal of maximizing profit with responses 1 and 2.

    I think this is the most likely scenario based on how the whole issue is being handled. If AT&T really could tell with any certainty when an iPhone was being tethered, I believe the plan would automatically switch as soon as the first tethered connection was made. Since this notice is only sent after an approximately 4gb threshold is reached (even then it is still a notice that is sent first, not an automatic switch; this is for response 3) I doubt they can tell with any amount of certainty. Also, being able to detect tethering, even on jailbreaks, would require AT&T to add (or activate) some sort of software or hardware upgrade/technology to their own network backbone, which would cost money. Even just implementing an already existing GSM feature would cost something. These telco's are all about maximizing profit; keyword being MAXIMIZE, ie making the MOST INCOME while having the LEAST EXPENSES. My scenario would accomplish just this.

    Please note this is only IMHO (I'm 99% sure this is what is going on) and not based on any inside knowledge or information other than knowing how these companies work and my observation skills, so please do not shoot the messenger....

    --
    Member of American Sarcasm Society - Motto: "Like we need your help!"