Google Allows Carriers To Ban Tethering Apps

iluvcapra writes "Google, in its continuing struggle to provide phone carriers (if not its end users) with an open platform, is now banning tethering apps from the Android market. These apps haven't disappeared and can still be sideloaded, insofar as your carrier doesn't lock this functionality or snoop on your packets."

Comments

Not Banned

[Nerdfest]

From what I've seen (from screenshots) they're not banned as such, but they will not load to a specific carrier if that carrier has asked that it be blocked. You can still side-load it, with your carrier's data charges being incurred at your peril.

Re:Not Banned

[RandomAdam]

I have read about this practice many times...but it still blows my mind.....users in the US allow their carriers to charge them twice for the same service???? Bits to the phone is bits to the phone....doesn't matter if the phone then routes those bits to a computer or not. I live in New Zealand....tethering is standard practice (I'm posting this from my laptop through WiFi on my nexus), how has this situation been allowed to develop over there?

Re:Not Banned

[bhtooefr]

Multiple reasons.

#1: The carriers that are tolerant of unpaid tethering tend to be smaller, and often have poor coverage areas. The carriers that aren't, collude.
#2: Phone exclusivity. In many cases, if you want a certain phone, you go to a certain carrier to get it.
#3: The bigger carriers have enough money to buy off the FCC.

Damn.

[MrEricSir]

But the plan said "unlimited"! Now how will I BitTorrent 50GB Blu-Ray rips?

Re:Damn.

[MoonBuggy]

By jailbreaking your handset, and telling the carrier to be more honest in their marketing next time if they complain?

Re:Damn.

[MoonBuggy]

Also, while I'm aware that this could only be considered 'on topic' by the most tenuous of standards, I'm surprised we got a term so positive as 'jailbreak' into mainstream usage. The connotation that the phone as-provided is trapped in a jail, and that the user is freeing it by hacking the OS, seems like a reasonable analogy to me, it's just that I would've expected the carriers to go for a bit of negative PR. Something along the lines of "Sure, you could install that evil communist app that hasn't been authorised by an upstanding corporation's store, but you'd need to terrorist-molest your phone to do so. You don't want to do that, do you?"

Re:Damn.

[DigitalSorceress]

Grr... mod points all used up - angry at self for not seeing your post and giving you one...

Terrorist-molest your phone

LOL

Re:Damn.

[Nerdfest]

Doesn't 2.2 have a built-in WiFi hotspot capability? (or do some carriers remove that as well?)

Re:Damn.

[icebike]

On some phones. Nexus One for example needs no additional software at all. It becomes a wifi router.

Re:Damn.

[ElBeano]

In the world of Android, the term is "root", rather than "jailbreak".

Re:Damn.

[msauve]

Many do, but gosh darn it, carriers want you to actually pay more to put a greater burden on their network. What's the fun in that? Darn it, even if I agreed to a contract which doesn't allow tethering, it's not fair, and I should be able to do it anyway! It's just not right that Google would let my carrier enforce their contract terms! Besides, I only use it so friends can tether through my phone when it's connected to the Internet through my WiFi network, and I bought the phone, so I should be able to do anything I want with it.

Re:Damn.

[mspohr]

This is my favorite feature of my Nexus One. Just a few taps and it turns into a WiFi hotspot. This one feature has saved me hundreds of dollars on hotel rip-off WiFi prices. Nice also in the car to have WiFi for your passengers.

This is a feature of 2.2 (and above) unless your evil phone carrier disables it. (T-Mobile is happy with me using it.)

Re:Damn.

[MoonBuggy]

The carrier sells you 'x' GB/month of total data transfer (where x=data_rate*seconds_in_month if they sold the plan as 'unlimited'). What the hell difference does it make which device those bits happen to end up on after transiting through your phone?

Re:Damn.

[MaskedSlacker]

Many do, but gosh darn it, carriers want you to actually pay more to put a greater burden on their netwo

You must have Down's syndrome.

If I'm under the monthly limit for my plan what the fuck does it matter which device got the bits? 5GiB on my phone is indistinguishable from 5GiB on my laptop. It's the exact same network load.

Re:Damn.

[ScrewMaster]

Also, while I'm aware that this could only be considered 'on topic' by the most tenuous of standards, I'm surprised we got a term so positive as 'jailbreak' into mainstream usage. The connotation that the phone as-provided is trapped in a jail, and that the user is freeing it by hacking the OS, seems like a reasonable analogy to me, it's just that I would've expected the carriers to go for a bit of negative PR. Something along the lines of "Sure, you could install that evil communist app that hasn't been authorised by an upstanding corporation's store, but you'd need to terrorist-molest your phone to do so. You don't want to do that, do you?"

As others have pointed out, the correct term for Android devices is "root" not jailbreak ... not that "root-molest" sounds any better, now that I think about it.

Re:Damn.

[MaskedSlacker]

T-Mobile is happy with me using it.

Enjoy it while it lasts. *Cue Imperial March as AT&T logo rolls into view*

Re:Damn.

[ScrewMaster]

The carrier sells you 'x' GB/month of total data transfer (where x=data_rate*seconds_in_month if they sold the plan as 'unlimited'). What the hell difference does it make which device those bits happen to end up on after transiting through your phone?

The difference is that they'd much rather limit your consumption to as small a percentage of that promised 'x' gigabytes as they possibly can, and the presumption is that a phone will consume less capacity than, say, a laptop. And that's true: but it's still a crappy way to treat your customers. Not being boned up the ass like that is why I'm on T-Mobile, and why I'm absolutely furious with AT&T for fucking up a good thing. Bastards. Can't compete? Just destroy the competition.

Personally, I think we should simply encourage everyone we know to install Netcounter (or some similar app) to track their usage, and then run network-intensive applications like Youtube as often as needed to run up as close to the cap as possible each month. Teach the carriers that they need to stop trying to find ways to screw people over and start building out more capacity because we're going to use it.

Re:Damn.

[ScrewMaster]

This is my favorite feature of my Nexus One. Just a few taps and it turns into a WiFi hotspot. This one feature has saved me hundreds of dollars on hotel rip-off WiFi prices. Nice also in the car to have WiFi for your passengers.

This is a feature of 2.2 (and above) unless your evil phone carrier disables it. (T-Mobile is happy with me using it.)

Nothing to do with the Nexus One, per se. It's just that the Wi-Fi tether option wasn't turned off by T-Mobile (unlike most of the other providers out there ... bloodsuckers.) My G2 had that option in the stock firmware as well (I'm also a happy T-Mobile customer, and for the same reasons.) And if the AT&T buyout goes through ... well, I'm going to be thoroughly pissed. Hey, even you folks out there that aren't on T-Mobile ought to be writing your Congresscrooks about this: ongoing consolidation in the industry isn't good for anyone, no matter what provider they are being screwed by.

Re:Damn.

[msauve]

You're wrong. The carrier sells you what's in the contract. If they sell you "X" Gb per month for on-phone use, and 0 Gb per month tethering, then that's what you bought. If you don't agree with that, then don't agree and don't sign up. But, as long as the terms are "no tethering," and you agree, quit trying to claim it's somehow unfair. That's disingenuous, and not just because it's easier to suck bandwidth from a tethered PC than from a phone.

Re:Damn.

[Namarrgon]

I think you'll find there's a high correlation between "plans that have tethering blocked" and "plans with 'unlimited' data". With no clear monthly limit, carriers want to discourage you from using more than the "average" amount of data, which tethering frequently does.

For plans with limited data (i.e. you have to pay more if you want to use more) then the reverse is usually true - carriers encourage data use as it directly increases their income, and there are rarely restrictions on tethering (certainly true of pretty much all data plans here in AU, where we never had an 'unlimited' option).

Re:Damn.

[adolf]

It's possible to have a rather modified Android device without, at any time, having root available.

Just because most ROMs include root access (via a modified su binary) does not mean that all of them must. Furthermore, installing such ROMs does not require root to begin with -- it's generally a recovery mode function, wherein the concept of "root" is foreign.

So. Just because the common term with Android is to "root" it, does not mean that it is the correct term.

That said: For what it's worth, I definitely have "rooted" my Droid: It was one of the first things I did when I got the phone, and doing so (way back then) simply required using adb to replace su, with no other changes. And I'd also have root on my IOS device (a lowly first-gen iPod Touch) if the little fucker had survived battery replacement surgery. :-/

Re:Damn.

[MoonBuggy]

I made my decision, which (among other things) is why my phone's only on WiFi, but that doesn't mean I've given up all right to complain about the fact that my options have been reduced to "Sign a contract (and pay for a service) that makes absolutely no technical sense" or "Don't have mobile internet".

Yes, I have a choice. It's a crappy choice made possible by conflict of interest, lack of competition, general asshattery on the part of the businesses, and the total abandonment of logic in the contracts. Ideally, of course, I'd set up my own telco (with blackjack and hookers), but I don't have the capital for that. I've already voted with my wallet. Unless I make quite clear why I think the providers are wrong (and tethering is certainly not the entirety of the issue), and convince others of the validity of my argument, how are we supposed to convince them to change?

Re:Damn.

[mlts]

Actually, in Android there are multiple layers of rooting:

1: Getting a root prompt.
2: Keeping a root prompt and changes done, as opposed to having the phone soft-brick (until it gets reflashed), or automatically reinstall itself.
3: Being able to keep the root prompt across a reboot.
4: Being able to modify filesystems, mount them read/write and have changes persist across reboots.
5: Flash a ROM, kexec()ing around the signed kernel, because the bootloader is encrypted. Other than the Droid and the Xoom, this is the best modders can do with Motorola devices.
6: Flashing a completely customized ROM with a custom kernel.
7: Disabling anti-consumer crap completely on the device and allowing the user to do what he/she wants. This is how the Nexus and other Google items ship (fastboot oem unlock.) Complete unlock means that the device is not carrier locked, nor locked to a certain ROM. This is why I highly recommend GSM based HTC devices -- IIRC, almost all of them can have "S/OFF" flipped, so they don't care what ROM or carrier they work with.

Re:Damn.

[msauve]

I don't think we're that far apart. I, too, don't think the offered contracts are fair (which is different than agreeable), but I sign up because I get sufficient value for my money.

Fundamentally, I'm a libertarian, which implies free markets in most things. But, wireless carriers make use of airwaves, which are a naturally limited public resource (the completely illegitimate "sale" of spectrum is another discussion), and therefore a proper subject of regulation. It seems reasonable to me that wireless carriers should be forced to be agnostic to the end device, and only charge for actual service use. But, that things aren't the way they should be offers no justification for violating a contract.

Re:Damn.

[Bryan3000000]

Yeah, I always think of criminals busting out of jail in a really positive way. Because manhunts and regular citizens cowering in their homes is exciting. And the criminals generally look like Harrison Ford and are innocent medical doctors being chased by Tommy Lee Jones.

But other than that, I'd say it generally associates rooting with criminality.

Re:Damn.

[MoonBuggy]

A fair point, and much better put than either of our original posts on the subject, I think. Now to work on getting the government to give a well deserved slap to a large corporation. How hard can that be...

Re:Damn.

[sqrt(2)]

I don't have any responsibility to follow a contract I consider to be unfair to me, and I am personally justified in taking whatever measures necessary to restore the balance of power in my favor including subverting the terms of the contract.

Re:Damn.

[ScrewMaster]

That said: For what it's worth, I definitely have "rooted" my Droid: It was one of the first things I did when I got the phone, and doing so (way back then) simply required using adb to replace su, with no other changes.

The first couple of releases of Android shipped that way. It was only a desire to prevent programmers from perceiving Android apps as easily-piratable that root access was removed. That irked me at the time: I was an early-adopter G1 owner, and I was torqued when my root access disappeared ... of course that didn't last long. I currently have a G2, and I waited until a reliable root procedure was released before I bought it. I'm running Cyanogenmod 7 now and couldn't be happier.

Re:Damn.

[sqrt(2)]

What the fuck does your agreement to a contract mean?

Very little, actually. I didn't get to negotiate the contract, they simply presented it to me. I was only allowed to choose between "agreeing" or not agreeing and going without. But I chose to in effect pretend to agree, and then corrected the terms later to what I feel is fair. There's no way for them to stop me doing this, and I'm certainly not going to stop doing it myself out of a sense of justice toward the company that has mistreated me. I suppose in theory this could be solved if there was more competition between service providers, but there's not, so I'm stuck with either playing by their rules--which I don't like--or making my own. I choose the latter.

Re:Damn.

[Falconhell]

In Australia the word root means sex!

Re:Damn.

[adolf]

I'm on CM 7, too: I could be happier (the camera is still broken on Droid, even more weirdly than before), but I'm not complaining. (Not much, anyway. It's minor to me.)

2.3 (ala CM 7) offers the fastest response I've ever seen from this device, and I frankly expected the opposite. Too bad that VZW is completely unlikely to ever send out an OTA update for others to enjoy it, as that would cut into their sales of new phones...... :-/

I just wish it was called something other than "rooting," as that's a misnomer at best.

Re:Damn.

[Viceice]

How about if one day the water company comes up with a new contract that says that the water you pay for can only flow from your kitchen tap and no where else? If you want to run it into a tank in your attic, or to your toilet / bathrooms, it'll cost extra?

Is it not the point that if you are sold something by the volume you consume, that it's your business and no one elses what you do with it after you paid for it?

Re:Damn.

[msauve]

I have my own well, you ignorant slut.

Re:Damn.

[Totenglocke]

Then there's Sprint.... I have an Evo and they make it very clear multiple times that you get 100% unlimited data usage with 4G (3G they'll still apply the normal rules to). Also, Sprint doesn't monitor the 4G usage at all (I'm assuming since it goes through Clearwire), which means that you can root or use free tethering apps to your hearts content on 4G.

Re:Damn.

[lgw]

AT&T's logo has long been called the "Death Star".

Re:Damn.

[Daengbo]

I, too, consider myself to be a libertarian at heart. I think that airwaves and internet lines should be considered "infrastructure." National standards for this infrastructure should be enacted and capacity sold wholesale to whomever. I came to this decision after moving back to the U.S. after years in Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand. The system you have there is fundamentally wrong in so many ways. No carrier has to worry about you taking your phone and going to another carrier, and their contracts show that lack of concern..

Re:Damn.

[Daengbo]

Except in Taiwan, where data plans are sold separately and run under NT$800 (USD27) for unlimited "3.5G" (now that's honest, eh?) including tethering and wifi hotspots on Android devices. In fact, the tethering and wifi are advertised and promoted features. They're very clear about it being unlimited.

Back in the U.S., Virgin Mobile is quite honest and sells 300 minutes, unlimited texting, and unlimited data for USD25, prepaid with no contract. Data is throttled to 2G speeds after 5GB. They're very up front about that. They seem like the most ethical telco in the U.S., possibly because they're an import.

Things don't have to be the way they are in the U.S. There's a distinct combination of greed and power (of the telcos), business "friendliness" (by the gov't) and apathy (by the customer) which allows the mess there to happen.

Re:Damn.

[sqrt(2)]

I have principles, they just don't fit your socio-economic world view.

Re:Damn.

[shaitand]

"I just wish it was called something other than "rooting," as that's a misnomer at best."

Not sure what you mean here. Last I checked people referred to using the procedure to gain root access as "rooting" and anything else as modding or simply installing an alternate rom. I haven't really seen any sign of people using the term "root" to encompass all of the above.

Unless you mean the same technically illiterate people who refer to a pc tower as a "hard drive" but they really don't count, since they wouldn't be able to understand the concept of rooting or a rom and therefore have no chance of using the terms correctly.

Re:Damn.

[shaitand]

I'd contend it correctly indicates users freeing themselves of restrictions which exist because the carrier views all users as criminals.

Re:Damn.

[adolf]

Context, friend.

Scroll up a few comments, and you'll see what I mean here.

Re:Damn.

[mcvos]

No, Android is a marvelous wide open platform that allows the networks to do and install whatever they want. This is kinda where it went wrong.

Re:Damn.

[mlts]

True. I expect a negative option as well, but thankfully not yet:

-1: Allow for ADB access.

Re:Damn.

[shentino]

If the water company made that a condition of service then you BET they'd get away with it.

Usually though water is treated as a public utility which pretty much nips that trickery in the bud.

if only internet service could be protected the same way.

Re:Damn.

[quenda]

This one feature has saved me hundreds of dollars on hotel rip-off WiFi prices.

You never thought of using your phone as a Bluetooth or USB modem before? (or IrDA or RS232 before that.)
Wifi is nice in that you can share it more easily.

Re:Damn.

[Merk42]

Hey, even you folks out there that aren't on T-Mobile ought to be writing your Congresscrooks about this: ongoing consolidation in the industry isn't good for anyone, no matter what provider they are being screwed by.

...but it IS good for the Congresscrooks pockets, so fat chance in writing doing anything.

Re:Damn.

[mspohr]

I've tried it but pain to get working. Wifi is easy.

Re:Damn.

[DocMAME]

A rooted 'droid is better than sex!

Re:Damn.

[GameboyRMH]

Poor Android users really missed out. In Maemo there are only two levels of rooting:

1. You only get root access from the app installer (factory state)
2. You also have root access from the terminal (just a few clicks to install a sudo clone from the manufacturer-supported community repos via the app installer) - at this point it's just like any Linux PC.

I considered Android back in the day but I made the right choice and went with Maemo instead. Too bad few others did, and now software freedom on mobile devices is dead.

Re:Damn.

[GameboyRMH]

A greater burden? Are people still stuck on this antiquated idea that phones use less data than laptops? You can stream video, download torrents, make VoIP video calls, or in many cases open multiple web pages on a phone. What can a laptop, or even multiple laptops, do that uses more data? Once the connection's pegged, it's pegged, and the phone can do that all by itself.

Re:Damn.

[GameboyRMH]

If they sell you "X" Gb per month for on-phone use, and 0 Gb per month tethering, then that's what you bought.

Wow, what are you doing on Slashdot? You know that Lagabytes and Cegabytes thing was a joke right? Try seasteading forums, I think you'll fit in better there.

Re:Damn.

[Abstrackt]

Now rooting an android sounds even better!

Re:Damn.

[h4rr4r]

How is it broken on Droid?
I am running 7.0.2 and it seems fine.

Re:Damn.

[h4rr4r]

Other than the fact that you can install out of market apps, get access to source, buy a phone not crippled in that way, so yeah exactly unlike an iphone.

This is good.

[Anonymous Coward]

It puts more load on their network if you use up your five gigabytes of monthly data with your laptop instead of your cell phone, unless you pay extra for it.

Re:This is good.

[Nerdfest]

If my carrier did it (they have not) I'd be quite annoyed, as it was a supported feature when I signed my contract. Here (in Canada) recent legislation allows you to get out of a contract if they change it, or so I'm lead to believe.

Re:This is good.

[jrumney]

It needed recent legislation? Basic contract law says that they can't make changes to the contract without your agreement. If they're going to pull the "by continuing to use the service you agree to our new terms" bullshit, they at least need to allow you a way out of the contract at that point, or there is no way you can indicate your agreement.

Re:This is good.

[icebike]

Basic contract law says that they can't make changes to the contract without your agreement.

You agreed to let them make changes to the contract when you signed it.

Re:This is good.

[PopeRatzo]

You agreed to let them make changes to the contract when you signed it.

Either that, or your contract specifies that every time you use your phone you are agreeing to any goddamn agreement they want.

It's all fun and games until they abduct you and sew your lips to someone's asshole. I seen it on the teevee.

Re:This is good.

[base2_celtic]

But you can't. IANAL, but any contract that says "you agree to any changes in the future" is illegal and non-binding.

This is why WoW's Terms and Conditions are continually popping up for you to agree to -- every time they make a change, you have to reagree.

Re:This is good.

[icebike]

But you can't. IANAL, but any contract that says "you agree to any changes in the future" is illegal and non-binding.

This is a almost universal in subscription service contracts. For you, a non-lawyer, to stand up and state that it is universally non-binding flies in the face of the facts that it is used everywhere, enforced everywhere, and any time you challenge it, they simply terminate the contract and send you packing.

Re:This is good.

[cpu6502]

>>>You agreed to let them make changes to the contract when you signed it.

My Paypal contract said the same thing, until a judge threw it in the trash. He said that contracts may not supersede consumer protections provided by law, and eventually forced Paypal to issue $100 refunds to all their customers (at least the ones who made the class action claim).

When a contract changes, it becomes null-and-void until both parties agree to the changes. Most times the "agreement" is automatic within 30 days, but during that 30 days you have the option to back out.

And of course when you do that, the company will just drop you as a customer. No fine has to be paid, but you also have no service.

Aside -

I like when companies use the word "lifetime" as in "You shall pay $15/month for life!" until they decide to redefine life as ending next month, and raise your rates. Or else claim that lower-level tier has been discontinued, and the next tier is $45. Bastards.

Re:This is good.

[RoFLKOPTr]

and any time you challenge it, they simply terminate the contract and send you packing.

Because saying you automatically agree to any changes is illegal and they can't hold you to it. Anybody can put ANYTHING in a contract, but that doesn't mean they can enforce it. All they can do is terminate the contract, which is exactly what's being discussed here. Wireless companies cannot charge you an ETF when you decline a change to your contract. The contracts state "We (The Company) may terminate the Contract at any time for any reason" and any change to the contract that is met with your declination will cause the company to enact that clause and send you packing. Of course, they would have to eat the cost of the device as well, but that's what they'll do if the new contract terms are so important.

Re:This is good.

[sortius_nod]

This isn't a problem with the users, it's a problem with the network. As with almost all mobile data providers, they oversell and underprovision. It's all about squeezing users for as much as they can. If they can force people to pay a premium for the same data service they will, if they don't have to upgrade the network, even better.

Add to this that if I am on the road I use as much data on my phone/iPad as I do at home (sometimes more if I'm watching videos remotely), so there's really no excuse for not allowing people to tether their phones. It's just about not spending money on upgrading infrastructure and getting more from double billing customers.

Re:This is good.

[icebike]

and any time you challenge it, they simply terminate the contract and send you packing.

Because saying you automatically agree to any changes is illegal and they can't hold you to it. Anybody can put ANYTHING in a contract, but that doesn't mean they can enforce it. All they can do is terminate the contract, which is exactly what's being discussed here. Wireless companies cannot charge you an ETF when you decline a change to your contract.

And in the mean time you will be left with a device that won't work on anyone else's network, and they may not charge you early termination, but you will be they will charge you for any phone payments due on the device. They won't eat the device charges.

They have your credit card and a contract that says you promised to pay, and the credit card company will simply pay it and bill you. You won't have a leg to stand on when you complain.

If you are a lawyer you would know that the agreed to right to modify, signed in advance, is enforceable the vast majority of the time. Only rarely do you find a judge who with tell them they can't do it. If they were getting bitch slapped by judges as often as you seem to think, they would stop putting that in their contracts in the first place. But its still in there. Know why? Cuz it works.

Re:This is good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course they can't. But that's why they always include the "by continuing to use the service you agree to our new terms" BS as standard boilerplate when you sign on.

I suppose with smart phones they now have the ability to pop up a little window every time you connect to their phone network with a message notifying you of changes. Something brief and to the point like "The terms of your contract have been altered. Pray that we don't alter them further" would seem appropriate.

Re:This is good.

[RoFLKOPTr]

They have your credit card and a contract that says you promised to pay, and the credit card company will simply pay it and bill you. You won't have a leg to stand on when you complain.

If you are a lawyer you would know that the agreed to right to modify, signed in advance, is enforceable the vast majority of the time. Only rarely do you find a judge who with tell them they can't do it. If they were getting bitch slapped by judges as often as you seem to think, they would stop putting that in their contracts in the first place. But its still in there. Know why? Cuz it works.

I promised to pay $199.99 plus tax for my Droid X, to extend my contract for 2 years, and to be subject to an early termination fee of $350 should I cancel my service before the contract time is up. That's what I promised to pay. They didn't loan me the extra $400 of MSRP and tell me that it will be paid off over time automatically as I continue my service. I paid $199.99, and that's it.

From Customer Agreement | Verizon Wireless:

If you cancel a line of Service, or if we cancel it for good cause, during its contract term, you'll have to pay an early termination fee. If your contract term results from your purchase of an Advanced Device after November 14, 2009, your early termination fee will be $350 minus $10 for each full month of your contract term that you complete. (For a complete list of Advanced Devices, check verizonwireless.com/advanceddevices.) Otherwise, your early termination fee will be $175 minus $5 for each full month of your contract term that you complete.

Can Verizon Wireless Change This Agreement or My Service?
We may change prices or any other term of your Service or this agreement at any time,but we'll provide notice first, including written notice if you have Postpay Service. If you use your Service after the change takes effect, that means you're accepting the change. If you're a Postpay customer and a change to your Plan or this agreement has a material adverse effect on you, you can cancel the line of Service that has been affected within 60 days of receiving the notice with no early termination fee.

What Are Verizon Wireless' Rights to Limit or End Service or End this Agreement?We can, without notice, limit, suspend or end your Service or any agreement with you for any good cause, including, but not limited to: (1) if you: (a) breach this agreement; (b) resell your Service; (c) use your Service for any illegal purpose, including use that violates trade and economic sanctions and prohibitions promulgated by any U.S. governmental agency; (d) install, deploy or use any regeneration equipment or similar mechanism (for example, a repeater) to originate, amplify, enhance, retransmit or regenerate an RF signal without our permission; (e) steal from or lie to us; or, if you're a Postpay customer, (f) pay late more than once in any 12 months; (g) incur charges larger than a required deposit or billing limit, or materially in excess of your monthly access charges (even if we haven't yet billed the charges); (h) provide credit information we can't verify; or (i) are unable to pay us or go bankrupt; or (2) if you, any user of your device or any account manager on your account: (a) threaten, harass, or use vulgar and/or inappropriate language toward our representatives; (b) interfere with our operations; (c) "spam," or engage in other abusive messaging or calling; (d) modify your device from its manufacturer's specifications; or (e) use your Service in a way that negatively affects our network or other customers. We can also temporarily limit your Service for any operational or governmental reason.

They WILL eat the device charges. They have to. Declining a change in your contract and causing Verizon to cancel it is NOT "good cause" to charge an ETF.

If YOU are a lawyer you would know that there's a reason Verizon's customer agreement goe

Re:This is good.

[Rosyna]

My Paypal contract said the same thing, until a judge threw it in the trash. He said that contracts may not supersede consumer protections provided by law, and eventually forced Paypal to issue $100 refunds to all their customers (at least the ones who made the class action claim).

Not been following the supreme court on AT&T vs Class action lawsuits?

Re:This is good.

[telekon]

ZOMG I wish I had mod points this week. +5.

Re:This is good.

[Runaway1956]

So - stop paying. Drop the freaking service.

Ohhh, I know, the brainwashed masses believe that they can't live without that stupid cell phone, texting, photos, and all the rest. Forget that I said anything.

Re:This is good.

[bjwest]

It also makes a second service plan for a tablet useless, which is more likely to be their motive.

Re:This is good.

[Runaway1956]

Annoying or not - if I can't have what I want on my own terms, I'll do without. I'm not about to pay the telcos the prices they demand for the crappy service they offer. My ultra-cheap prepaid telephone allows me to make an emergency phone call, and to get calls from work when I am on call, for $15/month. Why should I pay the telcos more? The service sucks, it's not worth the price, I'd be an idiot to hand them my hard earned dollars for such crap.

Re:This is good.

[phoomp]

Everybody knows that laptop megabytes are bigger than cell phone megabytes.

Re:This is good.

[RKBA]

They have your credit card and a contract that says you promised to pay, and the credit card company will simply pay it and bill you. You won't have a leg to stand on when you complain.

That's why I use Citi-bank disposable credit card numbers whenever possible, so that I can cancel the credit card number I used for the purchase anytime I please (I create a unique credit card number for each merchant), and also limit the amount of money that can be charged to each credit card number to whatever I specify (as well as setting its expiration date to whatever I want).

Re:This is good.

[msauve]

"They WILL eat the device charges. They have to. Declining a change in your contract and causing Verizon to cancel it is NOT "good cause" to charge an ETF."

Whether the pitcher strikes the stone, or the stone the pitcher, it is bad for the pitcher. What are you going to do with a Verizon phone and no carrier to put it on?

Re:This is good.

[kybred]

This is from the T-Mobile (US) web site:

7. Provide customers the right to terminate service for changes to contract terms.

Carriers will not modify the material terms of their subscribers’ contracts in a manner that is materially adverse to subscribers without providing a reasonable advance notice of a proposed modification and allowing subscribers a time period of not less than 14 days to cancel their contracts with no early termination fee.

Re:This is good.

[PitaBred]

Most of those contracts that say that also say that if you don't agree to the changes, you can be let out of your contract with no penalties.

Re:This is good.

[vux984]

This is a almost universal in subscription service contracts. For you, a non-lawyer, to stand up and state that it is universally non-binding flies in the face of the facts that it is used everywhere, enforced everywhere, and any time you challenge it, they simply terminate the contract and send you packing.

Precisely. Each time they change the contract, you have the option to accept the terms or decline them. Should you decline them, you can no longer use the service... but you are no longer in a binding contract with them either.

They can't force you to accept the terms or be in breach of contract. You have the option to decline and end the contract.

Re:This is good.

[RoFLKOPTr]

"They WILL eat the device charges. They have to. Declining a change in your contract and causing Verizon to cancel it is NOT "good cause" to charge an ETF." Whether the pitcher strikes the stone, or the stone the pitcher, it is bad for the pitcher. What are you going to do with a Verizon phone and no carrier to put it on?

I don't know. But given these options--Be stuck in a contract that has changed without being invalidated; Pay an ETF to get out of the contract; or Have a useless phone in your hand--which one would you choose? I'm pretty sure you're able to put Verizon phones on Sprint, by the way. It's not as easy as GSM where you can just move the SIM card over, but it's possible.

Re:This is good.

[Richard_at_work]

Usage patterns are different tho...

Re:This is good.

[drtsystems]

In the carriers defense, unlike in the wired internet world, the solution isn't just lay more fiber. The carriers will always be underprovisioning in a sense because the users a mobile. Of course verizon isn't going to make every tower on their network able to handle all 100 million customers at the same time.

Plus bandwidth is a finite resource. And many municipalities have the NIMBY attitude towards cell phone towers (I WANT MY CELL PHONE SERVICE BUT NO WAY YOUR PUTTING A CELL PHONE TOWERS WITH ALL ITS EVIL RADIATION IN MY CITY!!).

So sure, a lot of this could be solved by more investment by the carriers. But it also make sense that users should have respect for the fact that cell networks don't have the same total bandwidth available as wired connections and wait until they are on WiFi to torrent 5TB of Blueray rips. Er I mean linux ISO's.

Re:This is good.

[shaitand]

"They have your credit card and a contract that says you promised to pay, and the credit card company will simply pay it and bill you."

That isn't how that works. The credit card company will reverse any charge (within a reasonable time) on your simple say so that the charge was unauthorized or the merchandise misrepresented. If you are willing to sign a statement to that effect the credit card company isn't going to upload someone elses contract on their behalf.

Unless by "credit card" you mean a bank debit. The bank will give you more of a hassle but ultimately if you ran the charge as credit rather than debit (aka signed rather than enter your pin) the same is true in the end.

Re:This is good.

[shaitand]

Your right, except that according to the terms you listed you don't owe the ETF if Verizon terminates the agreement either "with good cause" or otherwise.

If the carrier breaks the contract, you can get out of it without an ETF. If the carrier terminates the contract, you also get out with an ETF. If they change the terms, you don't have to agree to the new terms, in which case the carrier will terminate the contract and you get out of the ETF. The only time you pay an ETF is if YOU terminate the service under the terms you've already agreed to.

Re:This is good.

[shaitand]

You do know its trivial to unlock a cell phone and bring it to another carrier right? If you have the new carrier initiate the termination of the agreement you can even take your phone number with you.

Re:This is good.

[shaitand]

Telecoms enjoy government subsidies and have benefited from numerous tax credits to build out their infrastructure (which they mostly pocketed rather than use). The minute they stop paying their fair share of taxes and took tax dollars they took on an obligation to taxpayers.

Taxpayers ARE entitled to a reasonable level of service from anyone who enjoys common carrier status. They've paid for it, not just in taxes, but also in legal protections.

Re:This is good.

[shaitand]

With a cell phone carrier I pay by usage so it doesn't really matter what my patterns look like. Especially with an unlimited data plan.

Re:This is good.

[Richard_at_work]

If you have an unlimited data plan, then you do not "pay by usage", you pay a flat rate...

Usage patterns do affect the network, so there is a tangible difference to the carrier as to whether you are using the data directly on the device, or via tethering.

Re:This is good.

[Redlazer]

It's puts 0.000000000000000000000001% more load on the network - a negligible cost by far. It is absurd to charge for the extra costs. Also, if it's really peak load rates that are the problem, using caps is the least rational way to control behaviour. But the fact remains, there literally can't tell the difference. That's why they have to ban apps and all of this other nonsense; if the hallmark of a laptop browsing the internet is higher consumption, then a data rate cap makes MUCH more sense - clearly, they are selling beyond their ability to provide if peak consumption is a problem. Source: "Free" By... the guy from Wired.com

Re:This is good.

[RoFLKOPTr]

Your right, except that according to the terms you listed you don't owe the ETF if Verizon terminates the agreement either "with good cause" or otherwise.

"If you cancel a line of Service, or if we cancel it for good cause, during its contract term, you'll have to pay an early termination fee."

Huh?

Re:This is good.

[mcvos]

It puts more load on their network if you use up your five gigabytes of monthly data with your laptop instead of your cell phone, unless you pay extra for it.

The load on their network is the same whether you use those 5 gigabytes with a laptop or a cellphone.

Re:This is good.

[jopsen]

True, but outside the wild-west such contracts aren't respected by courts... It's quite common that the judge rules that basic consumer laws cannot be overruled by a 10 pages contract because consumers can't be expected to understand the contract... And thus are innocent... and should be protected...

Re:This is good.

[Whalou]

It's all fun and games until they abduct you and sew your lips to someone's asshole.

So that's the origin of that IANAL expression.

Re:This is good.

[Haeleth]

Yes, clearly anyone who finds ubiquitous internet access extremely useful is "brainwashed".

If it was the "stupid cell phone, texting, and photos" we cared about, we wouldn't have gone for Android devices with expensive data plans in the first place.

Re:This is good.

[fritsd]

What are you going to do with a Verizon phone and no carrier to put it on?

What do you mean by "a Verizon phone", can't you buy another abo or prepaid and stick a different SIM card in? I don't know much about mobile phones but I've learned that at least.
You talk as if it's not your phone, but Verizon's.

Re:This is good.

[Laurence0]

Firstly, this wouldn't affect me personally as I'm in the UK, and therefore have a GSM phone, rather than a 3 Phone or a Vodafone Phone or whatever. Yay for sane systems.

That said, if I was a Yank, stuck with a Verizon smartphone, I would either get a new Verizon contract which didn't include a phone (if they do those?) or I'd sell it to someone else on Verizon, probably via the magic of Ebay.

You can do that, can't you? Or is the phone actually locked to your individual contract? I admit not having full knowledge of the US systems...

Re:This is good.

[Runaway1956]

Key word "expensive". If people had both self discipline and intelligence, then we would have long ago sent signals to the telcos saying, "We kind of like this stuff you're offering, but we can't justify paying the outrageous prices you ask. Give us data plans like Europe has, at prices comparable to Europe, then we'll talk."

But, we in America are accustomed to instant gratification, and we are accustomed to accepting whatever the corporations offer.

Oh, did I say "brainwashed"? Sorry, that was off-target. As I understand it, a huge percentage of our internet traffic is nothing more than porn. Perhaps "conditioned" would be more apt than "brainwashed".

Re:This is good.

[msauve]

Verizon's CDMA phones don't use SIMs. The other US CDMA carrier, Sprint, doesn't allow phones they didn't sell onto their network.

Re:This is good.

[Carewolf]

You agreed to let them make changes to the contract when you signed it.

No. You may have signed a paper that says they can change the contract as they please, but that doesn't mean you have legally agreed that this is allowed, because you can not legally agree to that, since such terms legally invalid. Illegal terms like that are just legal intimidation, they don't actually mean anything.

* If terms like that were legal, you are now the serf (white slave) of any company you have signed such a contract with.

Re:This is good.

[Cjstone]

Verizon uses CDMA which doesn't support SIM cards. There's a spec for using SIM-like cards with CDMA which has been around for a while (it started off with the R-UIM, and was superseded by the CSIM, both of which are even compatible with GSM SIMs) but I don't know of any US carriers or manufacturers that have implemented this. Which is unfortunate for the customer, but is obviously a "good thing" for the carriers: vendor lock-in and all that.

Re:This is good.

[heckler95]

Sell it on eBay for more than what I paid for it, use some of the proceeds to buy a discounted phone on another carrier (or Verizon even). Or you can even keep the phone and just re-activate it on Verizon as a month-to-month customer. Contract changes are essentially a get-out-of-ETF-free-card. The carriers know this and don't exercise the option very often - they'd rather have you finish out your contract on the old terms and hook you into the new terms when you re-up. If you're given the opportunity, you might as well use it, even if the changes aren't so bad that you're forced to switch carriers.

Contracts and activation fees are a relic of the early "mobile phone" days when the carriers actually had to so some significant work to get your new line provisioned across all of the towers on their network and roaming charges took months to hit the books. Today that can be accomplished by a sales person at the wireless store with a click of a mouse. The carriers haven't voluntarily given up their unnecessary anti-competitive contracts so you shouldn't feel bad about taking advantage of any opportunities those oppressive contracts may offer you as a consumer.

Re:This is good.

[heckler95]

Here in the US, Verizon operates a CDMA network (different chips, different frequencies, no SIM card). The other big carrier, AT&T, has a GSM network (similar to Europe, Asia, and most of the rest of the world) and it is often trivially easy to "unlock" a phone with a software hack that will allow you to just stick in a competitors SIM. With Verizon, your only other big national option is Sprint since they also use CDMA.

Re:This is good.

[Anonymous Coward]

They want people to pay for their tethering. Once you pay for tethering they don't care what you tether too. In one sense I can understand where they are coming from since they offer the rates they do knowing that a cellphone, even a smartphone, is limited in what you can usefully do and so they are comfortable providing extra data. When moving to something tethered however, this goes out the window. If I needed access on my laptop all the time on the go, I would have no problem paying for tethering. My issue comes from the fact I only need it very occasionally or only need it for a similar device to my handheld which doesn't change my usage pattern. I do have a problem with the idea of being charged more for the same usage pattern simply because the device I'm using isn't the same. It isn't like I'm using both devices at the same time or that I couldn't even do the same thing on both devices, just perhaps one is a little more convenient. (I'm thinking of a tablet tethered to a smartphone.)

Re:This is good.

[jonamous]

Verizon uses CDMA not GSM, so there are no SIM cards to switch; it's all done with a unique identifier on the phone. I think Sprint is the only other US network that utilizes CDMA.

Re:This is good.

[rolfwind]

You agreed to let them make changes to the contract when you signed it.

Basic contract law does not allow one-sided agreements/terms/arrangements. I.e. one party cannot get something for nothing in return.

Re:This is good.

[dbet]

Read your contract. Mine states that if they change the contract, I have 60 days to say I don't agree, and they will either keep me on the old contract (they do this sometimes) or cancel. Also, I only have to pay an early termination fee if I'm the ones who cancels. If they cancel I owe them nothing. I've seen a lot of people grandfathered in on phone contracts because they want the new policy in place for new people but don't want to lose the old people. Especially on pricing structures. This may have happened to you and you didn't even know it.

Re:This is good.

[fritsd]

Wow. That's pretty ignorant, even for slashdot. Do you not live in the US?

nope :-)
But I confess I'm *also* ignorant w.r.t. those newfangled mobile phones. I learnt today that USA phones don't use SIM cards (see my other less ignorant comment).
Learn something new every day...

Re:This is good.

[SkimTony]

eBay?

Re:This is good.

[schnell]

I learnt today that USA phones don't use SIM cards

It is of course more complicated than that. ;-) Some US mobile phones use SIM cards, and others don't.

Unlike Europe, the US has a much more mixed bag of wireless frequency usage and network technologies. As a result, some phones can be moved across carriers, but only to carriers using the same technology... and even then they may not be able to take advantage of all the features of the new network.

Two big mobile carriers in the US (Verizon and Sprint) have for years operated CDMA mobile networks. CDMA phones do not use SIM cards. Verizon has recently deployed an LTE network, which is part of the GSM technology family, so if you have a Verizon LTE phone it does have a SIM card.

The other two big mobile carriers in the US (AT&T and T-Mobile) operate GSM-based networks. All phones on these carriers have SIM cards. Most AT&T phones are quad-band 'world phones' but phones designed specifically for T-Mobile include an additional 1700 MHz band which is where T-Mobile runs its "3G" and/or "4G" HSPA network. So you can move phones between AT&T and T-Mobile as with any other GSM carriers but phones designed for AT&T (like the iPhone) cannot access T-Mobile's 3G+ networks.

If you use some other carrier, it may be either just a reseller of one of the "big four" (in which case it follows the rules of its parent network) or a network of its own which runs either CDMA or GSM technology.

Re:This is good.

[arose]

Correct, Verizon isn't a GSM provider, you can't stick in a different SIM card. Furthermore there are no reasonable prepaid plans that give you data (absurd, but...).

Re:This is good.

[icebike]

Its not a one sided contract. You get cell service in return.

You (and others on this thread) seem to hand waive this whole issue away without even attempting to explain how some very smart lawyers have this clause in ever cellphone contract out there and routinely enforce it and only RARELY lose in court.

If a contract term was routinely struck down and ruled unenforceable, don't you think that even a lawyer from some backwater college would soon realize this fact and stop putting the term in the contract?

Don't you think that some state would step up and forbid the inclusion of such a term in all contracts?

Neither of these has happened.

So your theory is wrong, its been wrong for as long as cell contracts have been issued, and it shows no signs of becoming true anytime soon.

If a theory is wrong for that long, don't you think its about time you re-evaluate your theory?

Re:This is good.

[ottothecow]

Well, I think people generally use these contract break opportunities...to get into a new contract.

I see it all the time on slickdeals...someone starts a thread whenever a big enough change is found so that people can break their contract and get a new subsidized phone. You aren't "stuck" with a phone you can't use as there is a healthy market for both locked and unlocked phones on ebay.

They change terms often enough that you can always own a subsidized version of "this year's" phone and usually "last year's" phone commands enough of a price out of contract that you get the new phone for free.

Re:This is good.

[steveg]

Sure. If you have a phone that uses a SIM card. But Verizon phones use a different technology. No SIM card.

It's your phone, but it is effectively locked to Verizon's network. It's not so much that you're not allowed to switch, but more that it won't *work* with any other network.

Unless, as someone else suggested, you can figure out how to make it work with Sprint. They use a similar technology.

Re:This is good.

[cdrguru]

Yes, but there was a minor change to credit card processing around 2006. One effect of this is that terminating a credit card does not have any affect on subscription billing.

In other words, you can cancel the card or let it expire and all subscription billing arrangements in effect will continue. You will continue to get billed for these. You can't cancel them except by getting the holder of the subscription billing arrangement to cancel it.

Why do you think there are so many things that you can just pay shipping and handling to get now? The subscribe you to a service and then make it extremely difficult to cancel. And since 2006 it is now perfectly legal. And there isn't anything you can do about it.

Re:This is good.

[cdrguru]

I suggest you try that with a phone that was purchased for Sprint (GSM) and move to Verizon (CDMA).

Re:This is good.

[cdrguru]

Verizon uses CDMA. Their frequencies are pretty much unique to Verizon, so a Verizon-branded phone isn't going to work on anything else today. Sprint and T-Mobile both use GSM but they use different frequencies. AT&T is yet a different beast and I don't know what their compatibility might be.

Anyone else out there is just reselling tower access to one of these carriers, such as Boost or Virgin Mobile.

This is only going to get worse as the frequencies change and carriers consolidate.

Re:This is good.

[nog_lorp]

You don't know what you are talking about icebike. We are all bombarded with these agreements on a regular basis because NOBODY USES AUTO-AGREE PROVISIONS. I'll bet you can guess why too.

Re:This is good.

[sabt-pestnu]

> What are you going to do with a Verizon phone and no carrier to put it on?

Since you'd already disagreed with the change in contract and it was part of having started the contract, presumably you could do whatever you wanted with it: Turn it into a tea cosy, an element of a mosaic, a kitty butt-warmer...

It's still a computer, still has a touch screen interface. Just can't connect to the cell phone network, right? So what about simply tethering it to your laptop and downloading stuff from the laptop? To paraphrase George Carlin, "an even SMALLER place for your stuff!"

Re:This is good.

[Mana Mana]

Sounds god, but if only it were that easy to obviate a $350 cancellation fee. You'll get flack, no doubt; will you persist?

Then there was the Sprint mobile guy who called CSRs constantly and was canceled, booted off contract for costing too much to service.

Re:This is good.

[RoFLKOPTr]

Simply don't pay it. If they charge your credit card, report the charge as fraudulent. If they send you to collections, tell them to stuff it and file petitions with the credit reporting agencies to keep them off your records. If they sue you for it, sue them right back.

Re:This is good.

[RoFLKOPTr]

I suggest you try that with a phone that was purchased for Sprint (GSM) and move to Verizon (CDMA).

Sprint and Verizon are both CDMA and phones from either network work on both. I see the point you're trying to make, but try being a little more informed if you're going to be snarky.

Re:This is good.

[rolfwind]

Its not a one sided contract. You get cell service in return.

I was getting cell service from them before the change in contract. Again, they are getting something for nothing.

Why the sensational title?

[bogaboga]

Google Allows Carriers To Ban Tethering Apps

I beg to differ, and here's why.

Android based smart phone users are not prevented from installing tethering apps from elsewhere. In fact, one can [still] install them if on the Sprint network.

What Google has done is to 'comply' with Verizon's request to have tethering apps removed from the Android Market if this market is accessed by Android devices *on* the Verizon network.

This falls short of a ban as implied by the diction in the title.

Re:Why the sensational title?

[Nerdfest]

Why the sensational title

The 'i' in Android is not at the beginning of the product name.

Re:Why the sensational title?

[jrumney]

My experience is that Google's market restrictions (at least the ban on purchasing paid apps that most of the world is still subject to, a situation that leads to rampant app piracy on Android) are implemented by SIM card matching, not the network you are accessing from.

Re:Why the sensational title?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a sensational title. It's a statement of fact.

Allows is the key word. They are ALLOWING not FORCING carriers to block tethering apps if they CHOOSE.

Re:Why the sensational title?

[MimeticLie]

The GP's point was that the apps aren't "banned", they just aren't available from the official store. With an iDevice, you could argue that to be the correct terminology since you can't get apps any other way short of jailbreaking. With Android however, removing the apps doesn't mean that individual users are banned from using them.

Re:Why the sensational title?

[shutdown -p now]

For that matter, so far as I know, the ability to have carrier-specific app access control is not new to Android Market, either. For example, wasn't it that Skype was for a long time only available to Verizon customers due to an exclusive deal?

Well, either way, it still sucks. Just because Apple is worse is no excuse for Google to stoop that low.

Re:Why the sensational title?

[mattack2]

But some phones can only go to some stores.. (at least according to the CNET video reviews I occasionally see.)

Re:Why the sensational title?

[ScrewMaster]

Why the sensational title

The 'i' in Android is not at the beginning of the product name.

IAndrod? Hm ... sounds funny when you put it that way.

Re:Why the sensational title?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

What Google has done is to 'comply' with Verizon's request to have tethering apps removed from the Android Market if this market is accessed by Android devices *on* the Verizon network.

This falls short of a ban as implied by the diction in the title.

Ah, damage control.

Re:Why the sensational title?

[ScrewMaster]

The GP's point was that the apps aren't "banned", they just aren't available from the official store. With an iDevice, you could argue that to be the correct terminology since you can't get apps any other way short of jailbreaking. With Android however, removing the apps doesn't mean that individual users are banned from using them.

Yes, and back in the days when tethering was not provided by Android itself, and my carrier (T-Mobile, as it happens) didn't allow tethering apps in the Market, I downloaded SlideMe and found a Bluetooth tethering app about three seconds later. All I had to do was check the box in Android's setup that allows installation of non-Market apps, and that was that. No rooting, jailbreaking or other unsupported activities required. And that's pretty much still the case.

Of course, once you root you open up lots of other possibilities, chief among them the ability to run third-party ROMs (like my personal favorite, Cyanogenmod). But basic tethering ability has been a part of Android for a long time now. It's the carrier's fault if you can't do it natively, not Android's.

Re:Why the sensational title?

[cyclomedia]

iDroid

lameness filter workaround, ignore this bit

Openness

[Anonymous Coward]

But...but Android is open!!1

Re:Openness

[Anonymous Coward]

It is. I can buy an Android device on any carrier I want from any manufacturer I want, and I can base my buying decisions entirely on whether or not a carrier has blocked tethering apps if I so choose. This isn't an Android problem, it's a Verizon problem.

Re:Openness

[AndrewNeo]

What part of sideloading isn't open? And what part of the Market is open?

Re:Openness

[Nerdfest]

The Android Market is not open. It's somewhat tightly controlled by Google. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing as long as users have alternatives to it (that don't involve voiding warranties, etc).

Re:Openness

[tepples]

What part of sideloading isn't open?

Having to register with AT&T as a developer in order to get the drivers needed to adb install an app.

Re:Openness

[Daniel Phillips]

What part of sideloading isn't open?

Having to register with AT&T as a developer in order to get the drivers needed to adb install an app.

Wow, that sucks. Good thing T-Mobile is not nearly so evil. Oh, wait

Re:Openness

[kenshin33]

can you please elaborate???

Re:Openness

[tepples]

There are two ways to load applications onto an Android-powered device without using Android Market: A. running an APK file with the "Settings > Applications > Unknown sources" checkbox turned on and B. loading applications over a USB cable with Android Debug Bridge (ADB). Option A requires that the device's firmware not be customized to hide the "Unknown sources" checkbox from the user, but AT&T has made the choice to hide it across all Android-powered phones that it offers. Option B requires a device driver that's apparently specific to each make, model, and revision of device. AT&T requires that one register with AT&T as a developer before it will offer drivers for download.

Re:Openness

[shutdown -p now]

This is only if you buy the handset itself from AT&T, though. In which case you're already screwed, since they can (and will) fully control what you can or can't do with it.

As far as Android openness goes, my conclusion so far has been that only devices running stock Google software (e.g. Nexus One/S) are worth buying. With the rest of them, you never know if you'll ever get updates, or what functionality will be removed on operator's behest.

Re:Openness

[koreanbabykilla]

I hate at&t. but this is not true. I got my adb usb drivers from motorola for my backflip. no at&t involved.

Re:Openness

[adolf]

AFAICT, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act precludes manufacturers from refusing warranty service for a hardware defect due to the nature of the software that happens to be installed, unless that software can be shown to have caused the hardware defect.

IANAL, but it's a fight I'd be willing to take up if I were unfortunate enough to have an opportunity to do so.

Re:Openness

[kenshin33]

Don;t know about all the carriers/manuf but for samsung phones (The one I have) they provide those drivers if you're on windows, if you;re not (linux/OSX) suffice to install the Android SDK and you're good to go. Of course you can't do anything you want (like playing with system applications) unless you have rooted your phone (from what I gathered the ability/dangerousness to do that is manufacturer specific, --I had no problem doing it to my phone--).

Re:Openness

[ScrewMaster]

There are two ways to load applications onto an Android-powered device without using Android Market: A. running an APK file with the "Settings > Applications > Unknown sources" checkbox turned on and B. loading applications over a USB cable with Android Debug Bridge (ADB). Option A requires that the device's firmware not be customized to hide the "Unknown sources" checkbox from the user, but AT&T has made the choice to hide it across all Android-powered phones that it offers. Option B requires a device driver that's apparently specific to each make, model, and revision of device. AT&T requires that one register with AT&T as a developer before it will offer drivers for download.

The third way (albeit the most difficult for most people) is to root the damn thing and install a good third-party ROM.

Does AT&T customize their ADB protocol, though? ADB drivers are pretty easy to come by ... I'm registered with Google as an Android developer and the SDK contains the drivers, but you can find them all over the place.

Re:Openness

[GameboyRMH]

Open in theory, not so much in practice. It's a Tivoized device. This is why I support the GPLv3, and any businesses that have a problem with it can fuck right off IMO.

I don't get it

[dnaumov]

What happens if I remove my SIM card, boot up my phone and get onto the Google Market using my WLAN?

Re:I don't get it

[Kenja]

Sim card? Not seen one of those in years.

Re:I don't get it

[dnaumov]

Sim card? Not seen one of those in years.

So what exactly does your phone used to make calls? Pixie dust?

Re:I don't get it

[element-o.p.]

CDMA phones don't use sim cards.

Re:I don't get it

[msauve]

Perhaps a UICC, or he has a CDMA phone?

Re:I don't get it

[gnapster]

Many CDMA phones, such as those on Verizon's network, do not use SIM cards. Their identification is hardwired into the handset, and cannot be swapped out.

Re:I don't get it

[nabsltd]

The new thunderbolt (?) did. My Bride updated her phone to the latest 4g android phone last weekend, and it had a sim chip. Did not expect that on a CDMA phone.

The HTC Thunderbolt has a SIM card for the LTE network...the phone and other data networks are CDMA

But, the SIM does act like a regular one, in that you can store contacts and other information on it, even if that information is going to be used on a CDMA network.

Re:I don't get it

[nabsltd]

The HTC Thunderbolt 4G from Verizon is a 4G handset and uses a sim card.

Many Verizon phones have SIM cards, but none are used for the Verizon phone, 1xRTT or 3G data networks. For those, the information is hardwired.

The Thunderbolt uses the SIM card for the LTE network, and global phones (like my wife's Blackberry Storm) use the SIM for places without CDMA, since the Verizon global phones have global GSM radios.

Re:I don't get it

[Sun]

A while back it was not possible to buy non-free (beer) applications from the Android Market from my country. Only when I put in a SIM that belongs to another country was I able to even see for-pay applications.

Market regularly uses the SIM card to identify which network you belong to and adjust the applications you can see accordingly.

For the sake of the test, though, I've tried just that. I removed the SIM card and searched for tethering in the market (with the SIM card it resulted in both free and for-pay results).

Without the SIM card the results seem to be exactly the same. Have not downloaded any of them (no need, as my carrier charges by the MB, and is happy for me to use as much traffic as I possibly can, and my phone has tethering built-in), but the results list seems to include all of them.

So, yes, at least preliminarily, it seems like you can bypass the restriction by simply removing the SIM card.

Shachar

Re:I don't get it

[quenda]

CDMA phones don't use sim cards.

That is confusing. Here we have 3G UTMS which uses CDMA technology, compared to 2G GSM which was TDMA, hence the annoying interference with radios.
Parent probably means CDMA2000, which is just one implementation.

Retarded

[atomicbutterfly]

My somewhat rubbish Nokia 5800 supports tethering via the Nokia PC suite on Windows or directly within Ubuntu. My carrier (Vodafone Australia) doesn't give a shit and has never given a shit about me tethering my phone.

WTF is happening over in the US? Will things ever get better (for users anyway) in the telecommunications area?

Re:Retarded

[lexsird]

We have epic greed here, is our major retardation. It's not enough to make money, you have to get filthy rich off of every poor slob you can. They will be down to charging us by the bit if we let them, and it looks like we will let them. They have all the guns, lawyers, judges and politicians. The USA is a new kind of political animal, it's pure corporate mercenary-ism. Freedom and liberty are a punch line in a joke here now. Only the truly naive still believe in the old nationalism fairy tales of "home of the free". Don't laugh, our brand of bullshit is coming your way soon too.

Re:Retarded

[petermgreen]

My understanding is that the issue comes with smartphone plans that are either "unlimited" or have limits sufficiantly high (multiple gigabytes per month) that those using a smartphone alone are unlikely to reach them. The carriers have priced such plans based on the assumption that users will only use them to connect a phone. Tethering users are both more likely to be using a lot of data (much easier to use a lot of data when you have a laptop to hand) and are getting more utility out of the connection so the providers unsurprisingly want them to pay more. It seems to be most pronounced in the US but i've heard of it being an issue with some providers here in old blighty too.

Out of interest what kind of plan are you on?

Re:Retarded

[gnapster]

In the US, the carriers want to charge an arm and a leg for the privilege of tethering. I think that with Verizon, you are expected to pay an amount on top (~US$30) which is roughly the same as your data plan (so, $30 for my phone line + $30 for data + $30 for tethering, or so). It mostly comes down to carriers being greedy, as far as I can tell. They want to ban tethering except for specific phone models, and charge extra for tethering with those models.

Re:Retarded

[ScrewMaster]

We have epic greed here, is our major retardation. It's not enough to make money, you have to get filthy rich off of every poor slob you can. They will be down to charging us by the bit if we let them, and it looks like we will let them. They have all the guns, lawyers, judges and politicians. The USA is a new kind of political animal, it's pure corporate mercenary-ism. Freedom and liberty are a punch line in a joke here now. Only the truly naive still believe in the old nationalism fairy tales of "home of the free". Don't laugh, our brand of bullshit is coming your way soon too.

Remember what Mussolini said about that very issue.

Re:Retarded

[atomicbutterfly]

Out of interest what kind of plan are you on?

Something fairly light - only 200MB data per month. I don't use it that much anymore to be honest, but the tethering has been very helpful last year when visiting my girlfriend during a stage of DSL installation (and hence lack of internet).

Capped.

[icebike]

With virtually all carriers capping virtually all plans these days, any rationale for preventing tethering disappeared.

Now it is simply GREED. They have special plans that add tethering. Therefore you can't tether for free any more.
They can't claim network impact. As long as you stay under your Cap what is the problem?

There is precious little data to suggest tethering users actually use more data. I know I don't. Sometimes I just want to
send an email attachment that happens to be on my laptop. Some times I need to SSH into a server and can't put up with
trying do deal with a command line task on that tiny screen.

But it seems the defenders of this clamp down all seem to be rushing to defending the carriers because the carriers
rely on the "over sell" of their bandwidth. Any user that approaches his CAP is therefore somehow stealing from
the carrier. (I kid you not, I've seen this argument posted).

But even to reach that level of gullibility you have to buy into the idea that people who tether use more data. But its just not supported by the facts.

The coming release of a flood of WIFI only tablets, with no continuing data plan for the carriers has a lot of people planning to tether these tablets for those few times a year when traveling where there is no handy WIFI. The carriers are trying to nip this in the bud, and they believe that every handheld device needs to have a carrier plan.

Re:Capped.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not just greed. I have no problem with greed, plus there is no realistic way to prevent greed on a macro scale. This smacks of collusion, which I am quite against. In a truly competitive market you would expect market forces to make things which cost virtually zero to provide to cost virtually zero. One major carrier would offer tethering for free and all the others would be forced to follow. For that matter, it is inconceivable to me that text messages are not free with any voice plan as they use so much less bandwidth. The stupid two year contract standard in the US allows all carriers to exert monopolistic policies. IMO this could be solved quickly if all carriers were forced to offer a la carte pricing and advertise how much that "free" phone costs over a 2 year contract.

Re:Capped.

[TubeSteak]

Now it is simply GREED. They have special plans that add tethering. Therefore you can't tether for free any more.
They can't claim network impact. As long as you stay under your Cap what is the problem?

Dude, bandwidth consumed isn't the only possible rational.
There are lots of programs whose network behavior is exceedingly shitty,
but generally doesn't cause problems because your home router &/or ISP can handle it.
When you take that same behavior, multiply it by many more users, and throw it at a cellphone tower, it causes endless problems.

Remember when iPhones were being banned from college campuses because of a bug in their DHCP handling?
Or the various times the Telcos had to work with app makers to fix bad network behavior that was stressing cell towers?

I'm not saying that banning tethering is a good idea, just that "As long as you stay under your Cap" is an exceedingly ignorant stand to take.

Re:Capped.

[shutdown -p now]

There is precious little data to suggest tethering users actually use more data. I know I don't.

For that matter, the assumption that one cannot use large amounts of data with one's phone is quite insane today. Just think about video streaming if you want a popular use case.

When it comes specifically to Android - and looking at the geeky side of it - there are BitTorrent clients for Android. The notion that using that on my phone is okay, but checking email from a tethered netbook is not, is quite insane.

Re:Capped.

[shutdown -p now]

Dude, bandwidth consumed isn't the only possible rational.
There are lots of programs whose network behavior is exceedingly shitty,
but generally doesn't cause problems because your home router &/or ISP can handle it.
When you take that same behavior, multiply it by many more users, and throw it at a cellphone tower, it causes endless problems.

Good thing, then, that Android Market does not have restrictions on other kinds of network apps that you can run on an Android phone (and API permits full spectrum of socket operations - including running a server).

To give a simple example, Android Market today has, IIRC, 3 FTP servers and 2 BitTorrent clients.

Re:Capped.

[drb226]

I believe the argument is more correctly paraphrased, "it makes no sense to distinguish between smartphone traffic and traffic from devices tethered to a smartphone". Any computing device has the same potential to behave badly with the network.

Re:Capped.

[avatar4d]

If I could, I would mod you up. I couldn't have said it any better.

Re:Capped.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have seen both sides of this firsthand...

I ran into an old friend a while ago and he has no Internet at home and has Sprint's Evo 4g, which means unlimited usage (for a mandatory $10 fee per month of course). He had Utorrent open, going full speed up and down and had apparently had running it for a long time and used tons and tons of data. In this particular case he was far exceeding even the most generous caps that Verizon/AT&T put on their phones and I had to feel bad for the people connected to the cell tower he was on.

On the other hand, there are times when just as you said, somebody wants to use their tablet to simply browse a web page or something similarly miniscule in bandwidth usage. I have a rooted Evo 4g with Cyanogenmod so I simply press 1 button to turn on the wifi, but I very rarely use it, and have yet to go over 2GB of bandwidth a month. There is no way in hell I'm going to pay an extra $30 to occasionally use the wifi access point feature.

Re:Capped.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you underestimate the number of people that use tethering for their phones as their primary internet connection. I have told my brother in law forever that he's going to get nailed for torrenting on his line. His contract is so old, and he's only purchased unlocked phones for the past several years so no new contracts, that they have not imposed caps on him. Several of his friends on the same boat.

Re:Capped.

[icebike]

My estimated maximum percentage of tethering users less than 1000th of one percent of smart phone users.

Re:Capped.

[QuantumRiff]

You should show your disgust for these tactics by switching to sprint, or another, smaller provider in your area that doesn't cap bandwith. Some also have "soft" caps that slow you down after 5GB, but don't cut you off or charge you more...

Re:Capped.

[roman_mir]

Get rid of government involvement, stop giving preferential treatment to some companies over others with special tax laws, etc., level the playing field, get rid of the income taxes, corporate taxes, payroll taxes, all taxes that are based on income and only tax vices/some imports and have government feed of that, forbid the government from ever participating in economy, from making any economic decisions, from printing fiat currency, from borrowing money (in fact make sure that government officials cannot get any salaries at all if they can't balance the budget and live within the means allocated to them by the market through certain types of sales taxes) - this way there will be no motive to even attempt and bribe the government, if the government is only there to do basic military protection and provide the justice system, stop all government regulations, repeal all laws and close down all government departments, get rid of all social agenda ideas, get rid of wars... start paying out the debt partially, pay out something like 20 cents on the dollar, but make it known that that's what it will be, the rest will be a loss to the creditors.

That's what it would take to actually restructure the economy and start real competition that would actually allow prices to come down and the economy to pick up.

Re:Capped.

[icebike]

Sprint doesn't have a data cap.

Which is why I said "virtually all".

However this new found religion at sprint is merely a marketing ploy and nothing to rely on. Remember they tried data caps in the past..

Also, roam outside their network, and things can get nasty very quickly:

Voice/Data Usage Limitation: Sprint reserves the right, without notice, to limit throughput speeds, and to deny, terminate, modify, disconnect or suspend service if off-network usage in a month exceeds: (1) voice: 800 min. or a majority of minutes; or (2) data: 300 megabytes or a majority of kilobytes. Prohibited network use rules apply. See in-store materials or sprint.com/termsandconditions for specific prohibited uses.

Also THIS Story seems to suggest that Sprint has made no long term commitment to having no data caps.

Re:Capped.

[yalla]

> There is precious little data to suggest tethering users actually use more data.

There is data, though no carrier would publish those.

You wouldn't fire up HD videos on the small screen of the handset, even if the bandwidth would be available. With a large screen and a real keyboard you have more opportunities using up the available bandwidth. Also there is little motivation downloading ISOs (legitimate or otherwise) on your handset. Even with OTA phones usually don't get 100 MB of OS-patches a week (there are even features to throttle the bandwidth to the Windows and Apple update servers during peak-hours, I kid you not).

Also "flat"-rates which are only intended to be used with handsets are made cheaper so that selling a new smartphone along with a new contract is made easier. As I once saw in a presentation from a large Performance Enhancement Proxy vendor: "Bandwidth is a gas". Give the users the possibility to use it, and they will certainly use it until all capacity is maxed out. Especially in times where carriers are investing buckets full of money to set up 4G networks they are afraid of one thing: That subscribers will use the extra capacity to go to online movie rental shops who're going to make the profit - and extra capacity doesn't necessarily lead to new subscribers... That latter will most probably happen, I saw it happen a few times after large mobile network expansions. (Adding more GGSN to the network, therefore distributing the subscriber's traffic over more internet handovers points than before)

Future tariffs will be
* different bandwidths (256k, 2M, 5M, something along those lines)
* different caps

The whole anti-tethering thing is not greed, but Angst. Sure, mobile phone carriers have a problem with their business models. But a mobile phone carrier ain't just another ISP: They have to run a mobile network only to be ALSO an ISP. And that's expensive. Really, really expensive.

Alex.

Great, then Apple never banned apps either

[SuperKendall]

Android based smart phone users are not prevented from installing tethering apps from elsewhere.

Nor were iPhone users before official tethering support was released. I had a tethering app I compiled myself, and any Jailbreak user could happily buy tethering apps as well.

Therefore Apple has never banned an app, since you can simply sideload it by jailbreaking.

Re:Great, then Apple never banned apps either

[Kenja]

There is a difference between jailbreaking your phone, and checking a check box.

Re:Great, then Apple never banned apps either

[Nerdfest]

And, as noted here, they're not even banned, just blocked for specific carriers. (Perhaps Apple did the same, I don't know)

Re:Great, then Apple never banned apps either

[mr100percent]

Yes, Apple made the tethering a carrier-specific feature, so some carriers like AT&T block it without paying extra.

Re:Great, then Apple never banned apps either

[Rich0]

Interesting, where on an AT&T supplied Android phone is this check box that you speak of?

Re:Great, then Apple never banned apps either

[ScrewMaster]

The distinction is that, on Android, you can load up a tethering app without the need to install some shady jailbreak and compromise your handset's security.

"Shady jailbreak"? It's Apple that has a problem with shady jailbreaks, not Android.

In any event, it's called "gaining root access" or rooting in the Android universe, and secondly there's nothing shady about gaining control of your own property. Let me ask you: would you tolerate HP, Dell, or for that matter Apple locking down your desktop machine in such a manner? No? Well then.

Furthermore, if you aren't on a complete dick carrier (I'm looking at you, AT&T) the standard Android Wi-Fi and USB tethering options are built-in. No need to download some shady app from the marketplace or even bother to root. Tethering is actually a part of the current Android releases, has been for some time now, and if your Android device doesn't have it it is because your cheapass, bloodsucking wireless provider thoughtfully removed it for you.

Android as an open platform is a myth

[u19925]

Android only uses Linux based kernel. How does it make it open. You can't update anything on your Android phone without the permission from carrier/manufacturer/google. Google hasn't released latest Andrioid source code, not that it would help user in any way. You can't use gps on Android phone without giving google all your location information. The truth is, apart from the fact that you can download uncertified app on google android, you can't do anything more that what you can do on competing platform. I don't think this makes it any more open than other offerings.

Re:Android as an open platform is a myth

[Nerdfest]

... and it is more than just the Linux kernel that is open (although not for 2.3 yet , and I would like to know what the hold-up is).

Re:Android as an open platform is a myth

[MacGyver2210]

If you own an Android phone, you should root it. If you don't, you're just using the crappy version of Android provided by the carrier. To fully appreciate the power of Android, one must completely control the device as it was intended in the first place.

Re:Android as an open platform is a myth

[tepples]

I can buy an Android device that isn't even tied to any particular service, and without the Google stamp of approval at all.

You appear to describe tablets running AOSP Android as opposed to phones running OHA Android. Popular AOSP tablets are made by Archos and Coby. Out of the box, they come with the anemic AppsLib instead of Android Market; anyone who doesn't want to depend on AppsLib and Amazon has to "pirate" Android Market using something like ArcTools.

Re:Android as an open platform is a myth

[treeves]

True. As for what you can do with it, that is another question.

Re:Android as an open platform is a myth

[Lehk228]

On blackberry there is no need for rooting or sideloading, if I want to install an app from an unsanctioned source I browse to the app with the blackberry browser, click on it, confirm that I want to install it and it is done. It is by far the most PC like platform.

Re:Android as an open platform is a myth

[upuv]

But it's a blackberry!

Re:Android as an open platform is a myth

[ScrewMaster]

You can't use gps on Android phone without giving google all your location information.

The truth is, apart from the fact that you can download uncertified app on google android, you can't do anything more that what you can do on competing platform.

Google hasn't released latest Andrioid source code, not that it would help user in any way.

You can't update anything on your Android phone without the permission from carrier/manufacturer/google.

This is false. I can buy an Android device that isn't even tied to any particular service, and without the Google stamp of approval at all.

Yes, and neither is it a requirement to send Google your location. It seems that the anti-Android FUD machine is in full swing tonight. Google keeps certain specific applications away from non-Google-experience devices, but the operating system itself is and will continue to be customized for just about every goddamn device out there (including the iPhone, apparently.)

Google will eventually release Honeycomb source: they want it to spread but I think they want to put some more polish on it first. The early releases of Android really were premature and they probably should have held back for a while. I think they're learning from that. And he's wrong that Android being open source doesn't help the user in any way. Hell, take Cyanogenmod, for example: that project has taken Android well beyond what Google has done, and since all of Cyanogen's improvements are readily available at Github, and because his team has done a lot of good work, some of it tends to end up back in the main source tree at Google. So yes, the end user does directly benefit from the open-source nature of Android.

The truth is, apart from the fact that you can download uncertified app on google android, you can't do anything more that what you can do on competing platform.

Um ... isn't the ability to run code not approved by the carriers or Google exactly what we are talking about here?

Re:Android as an open platform is a myth

[ScrewMaster]

I can buy an Android device that isn't even tied to any particular service, and without the Google stamp of approval at all.

You appear to describe tablets running AOSP Android as opposed to phones running OHA Android. Popular AOSP tablets are made by Archos and Coby. Out of the box, they come with the anemic AppsLib instead of Android Market; anyone who doesn't want to depend on AppsLib and Amazon has to "pirate" Android Market using something like ArcTools.

Well, there are alternative markets like SlideMe. Not much there at the moment, however it's definitely a place to get legitimate apps without going through carrier-controlled channels. And I think that as Android becomes more and more popular on tablets and other devices that don't have wireless support and aren't in any way beholden to the cellular companies (or Google, for that matter) we're going to find that more and more applications are going to be showing up outside the Google Market, both free and paid. Where there's demand, there will be a supply, and Google doesn't force you to market your work through their channels: and why should they? Chances are you're gonna take that Android-based whatever-it-is and use a bunch of Google online services through your local Wi-Fi connection, and see a bunch of ads. Google wins no matter what. Contrast that to the way Apple treats their developers, to the way Apple pretty much has to treat their developers, in order to maintain control of distribution and their rather substantial take.

This idea that a computing device is intrinsically useless without a centralized repository is ridiculous (although obviously very convenient for companies marketing cellular devices who want a cut of software sales.) Software has been made available for decades without requiring Marketplaces: those are just a convenience (an impressive one, I'll admit.) But look at what's happened with personal computing over the years: there are only so many things, by and large, that people do with their computers. The same is gong to happen to tablets and other pieces of portable gear. Sure, the Apple and Android markets have thousands upon thousands of apps, and the choice is nice. It also makes good ad copy to claim that our Market has the most apps, or the best apps. But I know dozens of people with supersmart phones who have maybe a dozen apps on them, because that's all they need. Give people who have a non-Google-experience device a halfway decent third-party marketplace with some of the top apps in it, and they'll still find their devices very, very useful. Maybe more useful: those smaller Marketplaces won't be so full of fart soundboards and other cruft.

Re:Android as an open platform is a myth

[Paco103]

You do the same thing on an Android. The only difference is that, out of the box, the Android platform will only install signed apk's from known sources. It's a crude attempt at maintaining "trusted" apps, as you can't just visit a page and get a malicious app installed. The option is available without rooting (unless the carrier has locked the device down themselves).

I'm just glad that I don't have to pay a separate monthly fee to access my e-mail through some Blackberry service in another country. That's not very PC like at all.

Re:Android as an open platform is a myth

[froggymana]

You can install android apps from their .apk file that you download from other places on the web. You just need to check a little box saying "Allow third party software"

Re:Android as an open platform is a myth

[amRadioHed]

Ice Cream is the holdup. If they release the Honeycomb source they know people will try shoehorning it onto smartphones which it is entirely unsuited for.

Re:Android as an open platform is a myth

[Lehk228]

it's not a seperate fee, it's part of the very cheap data plan, that service also compresses and pre-cooks web pages to get the most out of your data plan.

Re:Android as an open platform is a myth

[Paco103]

Is this maybe Carrier dependent, or has it changed somewhat recently? Last I knew it was an extra $10 Blackberry service charge on top of the regular data plan. If I am outdated or misinformed, I guess I will have to retract my statement.

VPN + tethering works & why we like cryptograp

[EnergyScholar]

This totally works. Yes. This makes it impossible for anyone without your VPN keys to inspect your packets. VPN is just an encrypted P2P connection. Carriers will not arbitrarily block encrypted connections. Ergo, this is technically how to overcome any attempts to block tethering by the network provider. If carriers begin to routinely block tethering, this is how the technically adept will respond.

Here is another example of why all traffic on the internet should always be encrypted. Should we fork the internet, this is how the new, forked version will have to work.

Aiding and abetting evil

[Daniel Phillips]

It's not quite "being evil" but it's getting closer.

Sure, I know it's more about carries being evil, which they are masters of, but I would be more impressed with Google if they demonstrated a little more backbone.

Re:Aiding and abetting evil

[aXis100]

I just noticed that 2.2 added WiFi hotspot to my phone, unless your carrier denies it. That is clearly Google being not evil, and carriers taking the responsability.

Last of evils being bought by greatest

[tepples]

But with the least of four evils (T-Mobile USA) soon to be bought by arguably the greatest of them (AT&T), what do you recommend that smartphone customers who value their freedom do?

Re:Last of evils being bought by greatest

[rnswebx]

In my experience, "smartphone customers" and "value their freedom" are mutually exclusive in the US.

Re:Last of evils being bought by greatest

[ScrewMaster]

But with the least of four evils (T-Mobile USA) soon to be bought by arguably the greatest of them (AT&T), what do you recommend that smartphone customers who value their freedom do?

Good question. As a T-Mobile customer who is absolutely disgusted with the buyout (ahem, "merger") I don't really know. Sprint has some good data plans, I understand, and they supposedly don't get bent about tethering, but yeah ... it's a good question. I have no interest in AT&T or Verizon.

Re:Last of evils being bought by greatest

[mcrbids]

But with the least of four evils (T-Mobile USA) soon to be bought by arguably the greatest of them (AT&T), what do you recommend that smartphone customers who value their freedom do?

What? Four evils? There are other (uhmm) evils out there!

If price is your gig, consider MetroPCS, which happily supports Android phones for just $45/month. Data network is pretty slow, so don't use it for loads of youtube, it's not going to happen. But it's great for email, messaging, iTune remote radio, and navigation.

Metro not available in your area? Well, consider Cricket Wireless. Sporting somewhat better coverage than Metro PCS and somewhat higher prices, they too happily support Android, showing a popular LG Optimus on the home page. (The same phone my wife has; she loves it!)

I switched my family, kids and all, to MetroPCS. My monthly phone costs have dropped by more than half, and I'm not inundated with "phantom charges" which were sprouting like malignant cancers on my monthly cell bills with Verizon Wireless.

Giving dollars to the smaller carriers is a vote for consumer choice, a decision I made recently and I regret it for not a minute.

Re:Last of evils being bought by greatest

[b0bby]

But with the least of four evils (T-Mobile USA) soon to be bought by arguably the greatest of them (AT&T), what do you recommend that smartphone customers who value their freedom do?

Get an Android phone from Virgin Mobile - no contract, "unlimited" data, no overage charges (speed reduced once you hit 5GB). If you're in a decent Sprint coverage area, check it out.

Subscriber identity programmed into the handset

[tepples]

Sim card? Not seen one of those in years.

So what exactly does your phone used to make calls? Pixie dust?

U.S. wireless carriers that aren't AT&T (and aren't about to be bought by AT&T) use CDMA2000 instead of GSM and UMTS, and CDMA2000 phones don't necessarily use a CSIM. Verizon Wireless and Sprint have chosen to forgo CSIM in favor of a subscriber identity programmed directly into the handset.

Re:Subscriber identity programmed into the handset

[msauve]

That's simply not true in Verizon's case. They were always happy to do an ESN change for me, they didn't care where the phone came from - and I have used Sprint and Alltel phones on their network in the past. They even had a web page where you could do it yourself. That changed when the FCC rule requiring E911 location services on all phones started, since they had no way of determining that from an ESN. They were forced to meet a legal requirement, and so it went away for a while. Now, with LTE, UICCs with CSIM and USIM are being used, so things are starting to loosen up.

Additionally, the programming codes on the phones are either 000000 or 123456, and they tell you that right up front. At least for Verizon, there's nothing to support your claim that they deliberately try to lock people in by restricting equipment movement.

Re:VPN + tethering works & why we like cryptog

[petermgreen]

MY guess is they start off with traffic analysis, looking for data patterns that look unusual for a phone. Once they have found that they have a couple of choices

1: just threaten the person immediately. Afaict most contracts have clauses that allow them to be terminated for any or no reason whatsoever.
2: dig in more detail to see if they can find hard evidence of tethering.

Re:VPN + tethering works & why we like cryptog

[t3st3r]

Except of course that it doesn't work everywhere. Two of the major carriers here in Canada (Telus and Rogers) block VPN unless you specifically pay for it as an addition to your data plan. If you don't have the option on your plan the VPN session will fail to authenticate with an error stating that the connection to the remote server cannot be established.

Re:We're paying for the data...

[Virtucon]

I think this goes to Net Neutrality. With Congress essentially killing Net Neutrality off the Carriers who also are big in the terrestrial Internet Space, can dictate what you use and how you use it. You don't have choice. These numbnuts will go to testify in congress and say how they're improving their networks and how their bringing innovation and jobs to the marketplace. Bullshit. AT&T is running ads about how they're improving their network and putting in new towers and... Bullshit.. it's all a bunch of marketing spin so that regulators will approve them buying T-Mobile. Here's what your wireless future looks like in the US.

AT&T buys T-Mobile
Verizon just gets bigger
Sprint chews up the rest of the market and eventually dies. Then there'll be two. Yes, we consumers really have a lot of choice when it comes to Wireless, don't we? No 700Mhz free spectrum, you can either choose from Menu A or Menu B and guess what they'll both charge you out the nose for Wireless Data. There won't be unlimited plans and like minutes, you can certainly buy a set amount for "less" but watch what happens when you go over.

Re:VPN + tethering works & why we like cryptog

[Aighearach]

You just have to have the vpn server on port 80 or 443 and you'll look a lot like https :)

That's what I do to get on my vpn from the library.

Re:Okay then.

[shutdown -p now]

Well, the fact that I could just hop on the market, grab a tethering app, and not have to have a nerdgasm rooting my goddamned phone has been the only reason I've been unhappily debating snagging another Android device when my contract is up this year.

You're getting the wrong device. "Android" by itself is meaningless, what with operators and manufacturers mucking around with phones they make/sell. But e.g. Nexus S (and, indeed, any phone running stock or otherwise non-emasculated Android) has tethering out of the box, with no need to install anything from the Market, root phone etc.

Let them try

[avatar4d]

It's going to be interesting to see them snoop packets encrypted through a Tor network. The Guardian Project already has a Tor app in the market and are also working on a lot of other cool tools.

Not Interested

[Intrinsic]

I already dropped my cellphone plan because the data package was too expensive, being forced to purchase a separate tethering plan that is more expensive makes me think I have made the right choice. Im not going to be paying for two data plans, my home internet and my cell internet. Ill find a way to make it work with home internet and wifi hotspots.

Sorry.

[gbutler69]

As much as I'd like for this to be true, what they sold you was, "X Gigabytes/Month @ Y Data Rate, consumed by normal usage of the device without tehering an external device." It's in your contract. I you don't like the terms, don't agree to them. Now, of course, it's not like there is actual competition, but, nobody says you have to buy the service. Just forgo it.

Not so much.

[the_bard17]

That'd be nice, if I had a reasonable choice of cell providers. VZ supplies great coverage in my area. All the other carriers? Not so much.

Can I go to the carriers and dicker for a better contract? Nope. I'm stuck with whatever they give me. Whatever they give me smells similar to what the other guys are pushing.

A bit is a bit is a bit. I understand why they don't want tethering, and I think it's dirty. If I buy a hammer, I darn well ought to be able to use it however I choose, within legal boundaries. If I buy a data plan, I darn well ought to be able to use it however I choose. They need to quit trying to control my use to boost their profits.

AT&T-Mobile

[tepples]

This is only if you buy the handset itself from AT&T, though.

AT&T, unlike a carrier that it's about to buy, offers no discount on service for customers who buy a handset separately instead of taking a subsidized handset. So I'd be paying $430 (price difference between unsubsidized Nexus S and subsidized comparable phone) for freedom.

my conclusion so far has been that only devices running stock Google software (e.g. Nexus One/S) are worth buying.

If I buy a Nexus S now, will it continue to work even after AT&T buys T-Mobile USA?

Re:AT&T-Mobile

[shutdown -p now]

AT&T, unlike a carrier that it's about to buy, offers no discount on service for customers who buy a handset separately instead of taking a subsidized handset. So I'd be paying $430 (price difference between unsubsidized Nexus S and subsidized comparable phone) for freedom.

I'm fully aware of the fact - I am a Nexus One user on AT&T.

The $430 figure is fairly strange, though, as you can buy a Nexus S online for $480 (scroll down a bit). The equivalent Samsung Captivate is $100 with a 2-year contract. So it's $380. But, yeah, still hefty.

Either way, all the rays of love should properly go to AT&T here.

If I buy a Nexus S now, will it continue to work even after AT&T buys T-Mobile USA?

Unless AT&T would physically remove T-Mobile towers, no. And why would they do that to their own property?

Nexus One also remains an option. Personally, I think it's actually preferable to Nexus S - unlike the latter, it supports external microSD cards, and I find the hardware more solidly built. NFC is still a gimmick and will remain so for a few years to come. And software-wise it's almost the same thing, stock Android 2.3 - IIRC there was some feature in Google Maps that was only available on S but not One, but I can't recall what it is, exactly.

Re:AT&T-Mobile

[tepples]

The $430 figure is fairly strange, though

I did a Google search for Nexus S, which led me to Google's page, which led me to Best Buy, which sells it for $530.

Re:Okay then.

[ScrewMaster]

Having been continually disappointed by Android, both in terms of the platform and the phones it runs on... Well, the fact that I could just hop on the market, grab a tethering app, and not have to have a nerdgasm rooting my goddamned phone has been the only reason I've been unhappily debating snagging another Android device when my contract is up this year.

Playing games with tethering? Great. Now there's no reason I shouldn't just get an iPhone.

Keep your bazaar and its ugliness and foul odors; I'll happily go order pizza from the cathedral.

All I can say is ... you're doing something wrong.

But that's okay.

Then you argue they are the same

[SuperKendall]

For a time I could go into a browser, visit a specific site and say "Jailbreak" and it was done (I can still do that if I simply downgrade to an older iOS version).

So what is the difference between that link and your checkbox? It's one click either way.

Furthermore, as another poster noted for some Android devices there is no checkbox, you cannot root because the handset maker does not want you doing that. So there is no clear point where you can really say rooting is easier than jailbreaking or vice/versa.

Re:Then you argue they are the same

[drtsystems]

In the case of the original iOS 4 jailbreak, it actually improved system security. The jailbreak was performed using a remote code execution vulnerability in Apple's PDF viewer. Once jailbroken, a patch was available to be installed that closed this vulnerability.

Re:Then you argue they are the same

[amRadioHed]

So what is the difference between that link and your checkbox? It's one click either way.

One is a supported feature of the phone and one is a security hole which no longer exists.

Then there is no difference

[SuperKendall]

On Android, you can load up a tethering app without the need to install some shady jailbreak

There's nothing shady about jailbreaking; millions do so. The guy who runs Cydia speaks at many iPhone development conferences, and jailbreaking has been proven to be a legal activity. It's perfectly above-board since Jailbreaking was never about piracy but about extended user modification of the device.

and compromise your handset's security.

You mean like checking a box that says "load apps from untrusted sources" and going to random web-sites to download tethering apps?

Yeah, huge difference.

At least I was compiling my own tethering apps after looking over the source. Good luck with your plan.

Red on Red!

[SuperKendall]

"Shady jailbreak"? It's Apple that has a problem with shady jailbreaks, not Android.

That's what he was (wrongly) claiming. You guys are on the same page. Re-read his post.

secondly there's nothing shady about gaining control of your own property

Thank you; as I stated in my post there's nothing shady about jailbreaking (or rooting).

Well why don't they improve their network.

[elashish14]

They're making billions. I have no sympathy for them if they refuse to put it to good use.

There's an app for that

[d4fseeker]

Am I the only one thinking "MarketEnabler" by "rac" which can be found in the official Google Market and fakes a user-defined or preset Carrier-ID? This has enabled me for months to buy Apps on Android Market from a non-market country and should work to bypass such imposed limitations too...

It's simply math

[kurt555gs]

This is what happens when you add (Do No Evil) aka Google, with (Do Evil) aka Verizon, AT&T, etc.

Lets give (Do No Evil) a value of 0.

(Do Evil) would be 1.

Class? Buehler? Buehler?

Re:It's simply math

[drtsystems]

But 0 AND 1 is 0!

Re:It's simply math

[kurt555gs]

Good thing (Evil) is not Logical.

Change Slowly

[graham.ernst]

Make the changes slowly enough and no one will notice... it seems to be working.

Exposed

[shentino]

At least now we know who is really at fault for tethering being so underground.

It's the carriers that don't like it.

They probably forced google's hand:

Carrier: Block tethering or we won't let your phone run on our network
Google: How about if we let you decide for yourself?
Carrier: eh, good enough...*BLOCK*
Google: Not our fault, blame them *POINT*

Re:Exposed

[amRadioHed]

Was it really a mystery until now?

Do no evil.

[kuzb]

So much for that!

Re:make sock puppets

[alex67500]

And it's not like you're talking to an Anonymous Bast^H^H^H Coward... At least with the sock you know who you're talking to!

That's not how the market works

[brokeninside]

One does not expect prices to approach costs in a free market, but to approach the equilibrium between how much people are willing to pay and how much producers are willing to sell for. Costs usually, but not always, set a floor for one side of this equilibrium. But So long as people are willing to pay substantially above costs, sellers have no motivation to lower costs. They are in the profit maximization game after all. There is only motive to lower costs if by doing so the seller will increase sales volume by a large enough amount to make up the difference in the lower profit margin per unit.

If a service, such as SMS, is practically free to provide and yet people are willing to pay a premium for it, Telcos would be nuts to lower prices.

Now, there may also be collusion at play in the US market, but the high price of SMS services compared to the cost of providing those services won't by itself tell you anything about such collusion.

Excessive use of Partner coverage

[tepples]

If price is your gig, consider MetroPCS

From MetroPCS: "You have entered a zip code that is not within a MetroPCS service area."

Metro not available in your area? Well, consider Cricket Wireless

From Cricket's voice coverage tool and broadband coverage tool, which link my zip code in northeast Indiana to a Google map that appears completely covered by the "Partner coverage" color: "Excessive use of Partner coverage may subject your service to early termination, in accordance with your service terms."

It's a feature, dummy!

[jseale]

If I'm not mistaken, Android versions 2.1 and up are supposed to have tethering functions built in, and what's to keep you from using those? The carriers can't simply 'break' Android just for the sake of keeping customers from making use of the tethering functions, that would be illegal.

Re:It's a feature, dummy!

[amRadioHed]

What would be illegal? The carriers remove functionality from Android all the time.

My bank's app appears to be Market-exclusive

[tepples]

So if I learn of an Android application that I want to use, but it isn't on Amazon, AppsLib, SlideME, or direct APK download, how exactly should I word a request to the developer to make it available other than on Android Market? For example, my bank offers quick deposit of checks through a device's camera and makes an application to do this available through Android Market. But it appears to be exclusive to Android Market; searching for chase on Amazon, AppsLib, and SlideME doesn't list Chase's official application among any of the three sets of results. Nor does Chase.com provide a direct APK download; users are expected to scan a QR barcode that expands to a URL beginning with market://, which works only on devices with Android Market.

+1

[Kamiza Ikioi]

Mod up Parent

SIM card hypothesis

[fritsd]

I was confused by this discussion (easily done), and I've just read the Wikipedia page about the SIM card, so now I can offer the following hypothesis:

• US mobile phone users don't have a SIM card, therefore they are tied hands and feet to their mobile carrier unless they buy a new phone, and they think this is normal (monopolized market).
• Mobile phone users in the rest of the world have a SIM card, therefore they can (with a bit of bother and sharp nails) switch carriers if the carrier does something obnoxious. They don't know why US mobile phone users complain so much, because with a free market (most of the world) it's just not such an issue.
• Additionally, in Europe:

  Portability Since 2000, all subscribers to fixed telephony services have the possibility to keep their telephone number if they change from one operator to another, while remaining at the same location. Portability of so-called non-geographic numbers is also possible both in case of a change of operator and a change of address. Since 2003 the same Directive has required that similar number portability should also be available for all mobile service subscribers. Number portability has helped to stimulate competition and innovative pricing in the mobile sector.

So the only thing needed for the Americans is switch to "SIM-carded" phones (and get a law through that they can for a small fee get to keep their phone number when switching carriers).
Correct me if I'm misunderstanding it.

Willingness to Pay

[gcobb]

Prices in this sort of market (which includes all technology markets) aren't set by costs: they are set by willingness to pay. Like any business, the operators want to have different products at different price points in order to have both a low price entry-level service and a higher priced service which offers more. It is just like the airlines: you can get a cheap ticket which just gets you there or you can buy a lounge access as an add-on (even though your lounge usage costs them virtually nothing).

This sort of thing is going to happen more and more and is a good thing because it is the only way the basic service is going to be affordable to the lowest economic tiers. Without this sort of segmented offer, operators will not walk away from the high prices the high end users are willing to pay -- so you either pay a high price or you don't get the service at all!

However, personally, I don't think that tethering is likely to remain as an add-on for long -- it just isn't valuable enough to people. New network features will allow operators to use things which are much more valuable to differentiate their plans in the future (like higher definition video).

legal uses?

[crashumbc]

I use PDAnet almost everyday to connect a desktop PC to a wireless network, because I'm lazy and don't feel like buying a usb dongle...

So now I can't get updates?

What about proxy apps?

[AC-x]

Thanks to the usb debugging it's quite easy to use a proxy server on the phone instead of full tethering. I prefer this as it lets me specify which programs use the internet on the phone so, for example, windows update doesn't try to update over 3G.

I'd think that carriers can't tell the difference between proxy traffic and regular traffic as it would just appear as an http get request from the phone.

Re:We're paying for the data...

[SemperUbi]

What I'd like to know is why wireless services are so much more affordable in Europe than in the U.S. What are they doing that we aren't? And can we start doing it over here?

This is why I don't have a smartphone.

[JustAnotherIdiot]

Sure, my brick has very few uses, but no one can tell me I can/can't use them.

Re:so?

[GameboyRMH]

A bad deal isn't evil, no matter how much you can't resist taking it anyway.

If only people like you had to live with minimal resources, they wouldn't make such ignorant statements...

Both the same

[SuperKendall]

One is a supported feature of the phone and one is a security hole which no longer exists.

That's an implementation detail, because the fact is it's still almost as easy to jailbreak. But at the time, to the user, there was no difference - and that is what you cannot admit, because you MUST have Android exhibit some superiority over Apple regardless of the facts.

Re:Both the same

[amRadioHed]

Arguably there was no difference to the user before, but that's in the past. There's a difference now since the security hole has been fixed. That's the benefit of using a feature versus an exploit.

Still no difference

[SuperKendall]

Arguably there was no difference to the user before, but that's in the past

Not for people who have not updated, and for people who have kept up to date jailbreaking is as simple as running a program - which takes one click to run.

There's a difference now since the security hole has been fixed.

Why?

That's the benefit of using a feature versus an exploit.

There's not really any difference to the user since primarily they just jailbreak by running an app. That app is maintained just like the ability to root an Android phone.

There is no difference to the user.

It is designed for root

[SuperKendall]

As opposed to shoe-horning root access into a system that isn't designed for the end-user to have root access.

Neither is Android. Yet there is rooting. Bot iOS and Android support root users to the same degree, with tools and OS help that supports a root user doing what they need to do.