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.'"

Comments

USA #1

[viablos]

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.

Re:USA #1

[crossword.bob]

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.

Re:USA #1

[bleh-of-the-huns]

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.

Re:USA #1

[drb226]

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.

Re:USA #1

[Toe, The]

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?

Re:USA #1

[somersault]

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..

Re:USA #1

[bhagwad]

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!

Re:USA #1

[pstils]

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

Re:USA #1

[andrea.sartori]

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.

Re:USA #1

[QuantumPion]

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.

Re:USA #1

[Surt]

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.

Re:USA #1

[xded]

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...

Re:USA #1

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

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.

Re:USA #1

[im_thatoneguy]

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!"

Re:USA #1

[Richard_at_work]

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.

Re:USA #1

[shutdown -p now]

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.

Re:USA #1

[s73v3r]

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.

Re:USA #1

[eldepeche]

did you really asterisk out "crap?"

Re:USA #1

[MtHuurne]

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.

Re:USA #1

[dkleinsc]

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.

Re:USA #1

[quickOnTheUptake]

. . . 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.

Re:USA #1

[AdamThor]

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.

Re:USA #1

[profplump]

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).

Detection

[mehrotra.akash]

How do they detect if the users are tethering??

Re:Detection

[DanTheManMS]

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.

Re:Detection

[Cutriss]

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

Re:Detection

[naturaverl]

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.

Re:Detection

[bleh-of-the-huns]

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..

Re:Detection

[BassMan449]

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.

Re:Detection

[wagnerrp]

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.

Its like the mob

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Its like the mob

[Americano]

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.

Re:Its like the mob

[ZFox]

"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.

This is wrong

[Locke2005]

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.

That makes sense

[macemoneta]

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.

Legality?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:Legality?

[jambarama]

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.

Re:Legality?

[wickerprints]

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.

Hmmmm...

[Drakkenmensch]

Isn't it against regulation to force you into an added-charge service unless you opt out?

Re:Hmmmm...

[TheSpoom]

Regulation? In the United States? Surely you jest...

Net Neutrality violation

[mozumder]

so, this is why we need net neutrality, so that ISPs don't charge based on content type (iPhone data vs. tethered data).

Having owned both, Android wins

[ClioCJS]

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).

Re:What's the problem, in the end?

[webdog314]

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.

Re:Honesty

[erroneus]

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.

ETFs on Verizon, Sprint, and AT&T

[tepples]

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.

Even More Plus by T-Mobile

[tepples]

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?

Correction!

[tanveer1979]

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!"

It's easy to detect NAT routers

[Anonymous Coward]

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. :)

Re:Maybe I'm missing something here....

[HaveNoMouth]

... 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 ;)

So...how do they know?

[RapmasterT]

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.

Why does the phone company even care?

[davesag]

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.