Advocacy Group Files FCC Complaint Over Verizon Tethering Ban

Hugh Pickens writes "Cnet reports that the advocacy group Free Press has filed a complaint with the FCC that argues Verizon Wireless shouldn't be allowed to block tethering apps that let people connect their computers to the Internet through their phones' 4G wireless data network. 'This practice restricts consumer choice and hinders innovation regardless of which carrier adopts such policies, but when Verizon Wireless employs these restrictions in connection with its LTE network, it also violates the Federal Communications Commission's rules,' says the group. Those rules say Verizon 'shall not deny, limit, or restrict the ability of their customers to use the devices and applications of their choice.' Google has made tethering apps unavailable through the Android Market for some phones that use wireless services from Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile, saying in May it did so at the behest of carriers."

Comments

FCC Complaint in my pants

[slashpot]

I have an FCC Complaint in my pants.

Re:FCC Complaint in my pants

[Anonymous Coward]

Well there's plenty of room in there coz you have such a small cock.

They own the network.

[Anonymous Coward]

They can do as they please. How would you like someone telling you how to run your business? Government is out of control and runs roughshod over private enterprise more and more these days.

Re:They own the network.

[Anonymous Coward]

They own the network, but they license the spectrum. The spectrum is managed by the government for the public good, and as a result, Verizon pays for the privilege, and they have an agreement with the FCC detailing allowed use.

Re:They own the network.

[torgis]

Agreed. We can't demand that government regulate everything. If consumers don't like it, they can vote with their wallets. Unfortunately, not many people choose this option and instead keep throwing money at companies that bend their customers over a barrel and extract as much cash from them as they can. I believe they call it "servicing the account".

Re:They own the network.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to fight that battle you need to fight it at government not giving out exclusive rights to spectrum.

Re:They own the network.

[cpu6502]

>>>How would you like someone telling you how to run your business?

I'm a person with innate natural rights, not a Thing like Verizon. Being a thing, it has no more rights to privacy or self-regulation than a tree, a rock, or a building.

For that matter, It doesn't even have a right to exist, and government can revoke its corporate license at any time. (At which point verizon reverts to a private direct-owned entity, rather than a government-created entity.)

Re:They own the network.

[h4rr4r]

Which carrier allows this?
This is a market failure, no option for this exists.

T-mobile was once an option, but with the pending AT&T purchase it is not an option.

I will be leaving Verizon at the end of my contract, but it seems the best I can do is Sprint. Their coverage is not very good and what is to say they don't start to do similar things?

We need regulations forcing all carriers onto the same types of networks and that they all sell each other transport. This way competition can exist.

Re:They own the network.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't have a problem with them running things the way they like, so long as they have a valid reason for it. Any given cell carrier offering a data plan contractually states that they will let you transmit X amount of data per billing cycle, at a rate of Y, for Z price. It shouldn't matter what those 1's and 0's floating through the aether represent or what I do with them. The problem is that they offer different devices to allow your computer to connect to the same network, and want us to pay for that right, despite the fact that we can (artificial restrictions aside) easily tether that device to our phone and retain within the given bandwidth and data cap we're already paying for!

It's like Sony saying to you... "Whoah there, buddy! We see you're trying to watch cable on your TV you bought from us. We're gonna need you to pay us more for that or buy a second TV, we only intended for you to use this TV for your Playstation".

Re:They own the network.

[GreyLurk]

Sprint allows this and their coverage and plans have been getting better and better for the last four years.

Right now sprint is doing everything they can to be the "Consumer Friendly" option, with unlimited text and data forthwith same price as Verizon and AT&T's more limited options.

Not a Sprint shill or anything. Just a satisfied customer.

Re:They own the network.

[ArhcAngel]

What we need is the entire spectrum run by a single entity and the carriers just compete on service.

Re:They own the network.

[h4rr4r]

Sounds good. Unless the T-mobile deal falls through that is who I will be switching too. Even if it means I have no cell coverage when I visit my parents in bumblefuck PA.

Re:They own the network.

[jmac_the_man]

I'm a person with innate natural rights, not a Thing like Verizon. Being a thing, it has no more rights to privacy or self-regulation...

Verizon is just a group of people and the equipment that some of those people pitched in their money to own. Do people stop having rights when they peaceably assemble?

Re:They own the network.

[cpu6502]

>>>Do people stop having rights when they peaceably assemble?

Of course not. The People inside Verizon retain all of their rights to speak, think, publish, but Verizon Itself - the corporation - has no more rights than the building or parking lot in which the people sit.

Re:They own the network.

[Tsingi]

>>>How would you like someone telling you how to run your business?

I'm a person with innate natural rights, not a Thing like Verizon. Being a thing, it has no more rights to privacy or self-regulation than a tree, a rock, or a building.

For that matter, It doesn't even have a right to exist, and government can revoke its corporate license at any time. (At which point verizon reverts to a private direct-owned entity, rather than a government-created entity.)

According to the law, Corporations have all the same rights as a natural person. Of course, when they poison, maim, or kill people, they do not go to jail, every move a corporations makes is to secure more money, they have no sense of morals or qualms about hurting people, they have billions of dollars to throw about in legal cases. There is no equality, Corporations rule the world as a fascist dictatorship.

It would be nice to trim them down to size, but that isn't going to happen any time soon.

Re:They own the network.

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Russia wallet votes for YOU!!

Re:They own the network.

[h4rr4r]

Only when they limit their liability by use of a fictional person commonly referred to as a corporation. If you want full rights, you should take the full risk a natural person takes.

Re:They own the network.

[Nadaka]

I would note that technically sprint charges an extra 10 bucks for allowing tethering.

Re:They own the network.

[gstoddart]

Which carrier allows this?
This is a market failure, no option for this exists.

In an environment where the carriers tell the FCC what the rules should be, or where companies buy legislation ... the 'market' has already failed.

Why does everyone continue to believe that the 'market' is this self-regulating entity which comes up with optimal solutions and gets corrected by competition and other factors? It simply doesn't work that way, and it never has.

The 'market' isn't there to serve you or me, it's been set up so the major players hold all of the cards. It sure as hell isn't 'fair'.

We need regulations forcing all carriers onto the same types of networks and that they all sell each other transport. This way competition can exist.

*laugh* So, you think regulating the market into uniformity and proscribing what they can do will lead to competition and fairness?

Your beloved market doesn't work that way, and the carriers would balk and say they're not willing to spend the money or not be differentiated by being incompatible. Seriously, if someone on the FCC can rule there's no problem with a merger ... and then take employment with the beneficiary of that merger ... do you expect any regulation to not be stacked in favor of the big players?

It's an idealized economic model ... it doesn't operate the way people think of it, and it never has ... it doesn't have these wonderful self correcting measures, and regulation/legislation only distort things ... and, really, even if it *did* work that way, the big players would game the system to get an advantage.

Years of watching this kind of stuff have convinced me that this 'market' and 'competition' of which you speak is a myth. Start out with a fair one, and you'll get cartels and price fixing within a short period of time ... and competition won't naturally create better solutions, it will create better solutions at exploiting you.

People don't have perfect information, they don't make rational informed choices, and everybody is out to fuck everybody else over. All subsequent assumptions are distorted ... and, occasionally when we see the markets tank, we get to see how badly the underlying system has been manipulated so that someone gets rich at everyone else's expense. Selling off bad debt as if it was AAA rated investments, for instance ... one big shell game. A Ponzi scheme on a massive scale. And, yet, its proponents continue to claim that it will fix everything.

Re:They own the network.

[h4rr4r]

It seems to work in Europe where all the carriers are on GSM and switching providers is as simple as a sim card swap.

Re:They own the network.

[gstoddart]

It seems to work in Europe where all the carriers are on GSM and switching providers is as simple as a sim card swap.

*phbtbtbtb* Europe, who goes there? ;-)

But, seriously, did they all choose to use that infrastructure (ie because of Nokia or something), or were they told they had to?

Lord knows I like my GSM cell phone ... when I want a new phone, I swap my SIM card and it works great. I can see being able to change carriers that easily would be great if you needed to.

It just seems like the carriers in the US have deliberately chosen not to use the same technology as everyone else ... but, that could just be perception. They certainly have no interest in actually making things work any better for the consumer.

Europe might have more actual competition, whereas the US seems to have a bunch of regional monopolies who don't want to play well with other children.

Re:They own the network.

[Cwix]

This, a thousand times this.

Re:They own the network.

[Anonymous Coward]

on a second note, I totally foresee the FCC slapping them with the maximum fine of US$ 10 plus .1c postage costs.

Re:They own the network.

[Anonymous Coward]

They can do as they please. How would you like someone telling you how to run your business? Government is out of control and runs roughshod over private enterprise more and more these days.

I'm not sure how you arrived at the conclusion that my private local network is in any way my data carrier's business.

Re:They own the network.

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe the common wisdom is the US market went first and Europe saw the pitfalls of massively redundant separate networks and mandated that the 'monopoly' (i.e. the cell spectrum) be run as a utility and the carriers simply provide services on that network.

They saw our mistakes and decided to do it more efficiently. (and I might add how every other 'utility' is done here in the US, but cell stuff was new and magical back then so it got special treatment).

Re:They own the network.

[shadowfaxcrx]

That's certainly how it should be, but that's not how corporations are viewed here. They're legally considered people (even though the legal justification for that is a bullshit throwaway line written by a corrupt asshole of a judicial clerk and should have no legal standing)

Recent supreme court decisions have found that corporations enjoy human rights, such as freedom of speech and the right to donate to political campaigns. They're basically people who can't die, and who have no morality because their only function is to make as much money as possible.

It's screwed up, but that's the way it is right now.

Re:They own the network.

[cpu6502]

>>>According to the law, Corporations have all the same rights as a natural person.

Please quote which "law" you are referring.
Thank you.
(Hint: No such law exists so no point wasting your time.)

Re:They own the network.

[Lunix Nutcase]

Agreed. We can't demand that government regulate everything.

Sure, but when Verizon has explicit agreements with the FCC after licensing the spectrum from their LTE services, is it not reasonable to expect the government to hold Verizon to that agreement? Or are you ignorant of the fact that Verizon made this agreement and is flagrantly violating it?

Re:They own the network.

[Anonymous Coward]

None of that. In Europe each country used to have it's own standard for mobile phones, GSM was later created to allow interoperability and thus reducing manafacturing costs.

Re:They own the network.

[Mister Whirly]

How would you like someone telling you how to run your business?

About as much as I like a service provider selling me an "unlimited" data plan, and then limiting how and how much I can use it. Sorry, but unlimited means unlimited. Either change the plan so it isn't called "unlimited", or change your use policies so I can use the data however i want.

Re:They own the network.

[Tsingi]

>>>According to the law, Corporations have all the same rights as a natural person.

Please quote which "law" you are referring. Thank you. (Hint: No such law exists so no point wasting your time.)

A footnote in a supreme court decision about a railway tax case implied that Corporations are persons under the constitution. This is not law, however it has been treated as such for over a hundred years. Precedence dictates that it is now law, regardless of the original intent. If this were not the case, Corporations would not be allowed to buy the government. But they can. And since they have done just that, you can expect things to get much worse before they get any better.

Re:They own the network.

[nschubach]

That falls in line with the idea that municipalities should own the utilities/fiber in the ground and ISPs/companies pay for the use of them. When the city lays new road or resurfaces an old road, bury a channel of electric, water, sewer, and fiber (and maybe coax?) and charge the companies that supply those lines for the upkeep. The channels should be big enough for some expansion based on the width of the road. Houses and or complexes would just tap into those lines via access boxes to supply their portion. Part of building a home would be having the city come out and place an access box in/under your front yard and you'd be responsible for lines going from there to your home. Apartment Complexes could tap into lines on multiple sides (depending on their outlets to city roads.)

Whichever provider can provide the best service from the municipal lines gets to route your traffic outside that grid. Provide multiple points of access in each subdivision of houses/roads. If a construction crew cuts a line, you get directed to the redundant line on the other side of the division. They just have to cap the pipe for water to force it down/from the other route and electricity would be fused at junctions in case it came in contact with a ground during the cut. Worse case scenario there is you lose pressure/power for a time it takes to reset the problem.

Of course, this only really works in highly populated locations and wouldn't really be cost effective in rural situations... but there are still options there.

Re:They own the network.

[nschubach]

The market isn't there to serve anyone. I, for instance, cannot start up my own cable company and provide service to a neighborhood because local government won't let me.

Re:They own the network.

[nschubach]

Maybe, since a company can be "too big to fail", an argument can be made that people can become "too big to fail" and thus taxpayer money must be spent to keep old 1 ton tubby alive!

Re:They own the network.

[jmac_the_man]

The [p]eople inside Verizon retain all of their rights to speak, think, publish...

Do they retain the right to act in concert with each other?

Let me put it another way. The people (people!) making this decision for Verizon think that the best way to allocate their limited resource (bandwidth) is to charge extra for tethering. You're in favor of the government telling those people (people!) to allocate the limited resources of a large group of people (the people who own Verizon) in a different way, one that may make them less money.

You presumably decided on your career based on a number of factors. For most people, two of them are "How much does this pay?" and "How little does this suck?" You can't do everything that interests you, after all, time is a limited resource too. Say there was a shortage of Wal-Mart greeters. Would you be OK with the government telling you that you had to spend a certain number of hours per day working as a Wal-Mart greeter, at what is presumably a lower salary than what you make now?

Didn't think so.

Re:They own the network.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're fighting the completely wrong battle here.

They can't do whatever they want because they licensed their slice of the spectrum from the FCC, and certain limitations were part of their license agreement. That is why they can't just do whatever they want.

It has nothing at all to do with the point you're trying to argue, which is that "people" get certain rights that "corporations" don't.

Re:They own the network.

[shentino]

It's as much their business as your contract with them says it is.

Re:They own the network.

[cpu6502]

>>>Do they retain the right to act in concert with each other?

Of course.
It's called a Club, not a corporation (which is a government-created entity).

Also I find it weird you de-capitalized "people". Are you saying the People of the US are unworthy of being treated any better than a cat or dog or other lower case nouns? I capitalize it for a reason --- same reason it is capitalized in the 51 State and national Constitutions. It is from the citizens that power is derived, not from a king or nobility.

Re:They own the network.

[torgis]

Ugh. Thank you, anonymous slashdot moderator, for deciding that not agreeing with my opinion is the same as me trolling. And I didn't even get bonus points for a George Carlin reference. Disagree != troll.

Re:They own the network.

[jmac_the_man]

It's called a Club, not a corporation (which is a government-created entity).

It's not government created. It's government licensed, which is different. I'm a member of a few clubs that have a license from the government to operate the way they do. (As non-profit organizations, the clubs I'm referring to don't charge sales tax for things that they do. Without the IRS doing whatever it is they do to certify the club as a non-profit, this would be illegal.)

I'm reading a book right now by the coach of the New York Jets. They're a football team. (Gridiron football, AKA the one where the ball is 12 inches long.) Anyway, his checks are cut by a business organization called New York Jets Football Club LLC. This "club" makes a great deal of profit for its owner. This "club" sells tickets (to football games) and licenses merchandise. (They also partially own a stadium that they rent out and are part of a television licensing deal.) They "conduct football operations" (that is, they have the football team) to further the goal of making more money for the owner.

They call themselves a club, but they're a business. (Other buisnesses do this too. "Membership stores" which offer lower prices in exchange for an annual fee (like BJs in the US) refer to their customers as club members.) It's a meaningless distinction. If Verizon called itself "The Verizon Club," would you be happy?

Also I find it weird you de-capitalized "people". Are you saying the People of the US are unworthy of being treated any better than a cat or dog or other lower case nouns? I capitalize it for a reason --- same reason it is capitalized in the 51 State and national Constitutions. It is from the citizens that power is derived, not from a king or nobility.

Of course PEOPLE deserve better treatment than nouns. People are living (well, usually), breathing (usually) human beings who were endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. Nouns are just words to be used in order to further the speaker/writer's points. However, the word "people" is just a word. It doesn't deserve any special treatment.

Also, most people who capitalize the word "people" today* are using it to make the same political point that you are making. Those people (and you) are wrong.

*Yes, I know about the Constitution. The 10th Amendment says that laws pertaining to grammar (among MANY other things) are to be left to the states, or to the people at large.

Well duh.

[chemicaldave]

Of course they have to charge extra for data over tethering. The screen on a laptop is bigger, morans.

Re:Well duh.

[Anonymous Psychopath]

+1 ironic for misspelling moron.

Re:Well duh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously you've never visited fark.com

Re:Well duh.

[Jahava]

+1 ironic for misspelling moron.

It's an internet thing.

Re:Well duh.

[Anonymous Coward]

obviously people in Moran, Israel are getting kickbacks from the tethering restrictions... sheesh.

Re:Well duh.

[Anonymous Coward]

+1 retarded for not realizing it's not a mistake.

Re:Well duh.

[Weedhopper]

-1 "SWOOSH/doesn't get it"

Re:Well duh.

[fahrbot-bot]

It's an internet thing.

I actually like definitions #3 and 6:

3: The preferred method of spelling "moron" by morons, particularly that of a Missouri redneck at a rally supporting the US led war in Iraq.
6: Simply, the way a moron spells moron.

Personally, I think intentional usage of the misspelled version dumb, not ironic (as implied by other definitions).

Re:Well duh.

[Anonymous Psychopath]

Now I just feel old.

Re:Well duh.

[geminidomino]

-1, Sued by Nike for trademark infringement of "Swoosh"

Re:Well duh.

[Tetsujin]

obviously people in Moran, Israel are getting kickbacks from the tethering restrictions... sheesh.

First thing I thought of was the song "Mr. Moran" by the Mighty Mighty Bosstones...

Re:Well duh.

[gl4ss]

quite iconic.

but is it possible to install .apk's on those verizons without fuss? and are the api's still there in those verizons? on the other side of the pond every 2nd(or 3rd) gen android device seems to ship with wifi-tethering enabled through firmware(on linux it must be pretty shit easy to do, so no wonder). just wondering, if you buy milk in usa is it forbidden to turn it into cheese?

Re:Well duh.

[Coren22]

APK install would require rooting the phone, wouldn't it? I haven't tried, so this is an honest question. On Verizon, the Droid tethering app is the Verizon Tethering app, and requires you to pay extra to use it, even though you already pay for data. Rooting the phone breaks your warrenty, according to the manufacturers, and it breaks your contract with Verizon. In all senses, this is wrong, I pay for data, why should it matter if I use the data on the phone, my Nook, or my laptop?

Re:Well duh.

[squiggleslash]

Shouldn't. With the exception of Android phones sold by AT&T, virtually all Android phones can install any application manually copied across (or downloaded) as a .apk file, without the need to root them. Typically you do have to enable the feature, in Settings -< Applications.

This is one major reason why Android (as delivered by Google, anyway) is considered open.

Re:Well duh.

[Anonymous Coward]

-1 for being a patent troll ; )

FCC: Corporations working for Corporations

[The O Rly Factor]

I predict a respone that is a bureaucraticly worded 'Fuck you.' The FCC is fully bought and paid for, they already just let one of its commissioners take a blatant bribe from Comcast under the condition that they give them the ok to merge with NBC Universal.

Re:FCC: Corporations working for Corporations

[KingSkippus]

...they already just let one of its commissioners take a blatant bribe from Comcast under the condition that they give them the ok to merge with NBC Universal.

Citation, please? Not just to keep you honest, but because I don't remember this and I want to know more.

Re:FCC: Corporations working for Corporations

[Bill Dimm]

FCC Commissioner Leaves To Become Lobbyist

Re:FCC: Corporations working for Corporations

[KingSkippus]

Well, there you go. Thanks!

Go Get 'Em!

[commodore6502]

Nail the Verizon Monopoly* to the wall. I'm tired of being forced to choose between Verizon and Verizon for my plain-old telephone service. Then go after Comcast, Cox, Cablevision, and time-warner while you're at it, Mr. FCC.

*
* The monopoly is not in wireless, but wired services, but
I still think the FCC should tear-apart this company like they did with ATT back in the 70s.

Community workarounds ?

[snotclot]

While we're on the Slashdot subject of the community (ie blackhats) getting back at Sony (ie corporations) screwing over their own customers for no good reason (aka Hotz), can someone tell me why the same community of OS / compiler / OSS people can't come together, fork Android, and really just say to Google "thank you but no thank you, you've done good but you can't do anymore."

Or to make it simpler, just make some nice OSS apps that destroy Google's lockdown on Android so that we who pay $70-90 a month for a 3G/4G cell plan (individual, not family plan) can rightfully use the service we pay through our teeth for ?

Not trollin', just sayin'. I got tired of being screwed over on price from Verizon, moving to Tmo, then Tmo might get acquired by AT&T, who is frankly quite undesirable to be a customer of.

Re:Community workarounds ?

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't Google, it's Verizon. Also, with root, the wireless tether app works fine. I use it every day on the train to uni with my droid2.

Re:Community workarounds ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Its called rooting your phone. Check out xda-forums.

Re:Community workarounds ?

[YodasEvilTwin]

The problem isn't Android. The wireless tether apps were removed from the Market. There are already plenty of alternative markets. If you're saying that Android should support wireless tether out of the box, and that we need a fork of it in order to do that, that's also nonsense. The carriers wouldn't allow their phones to ship with that OS, and without them you won't be able to pay the people working on the fork. You'll have a handful of people doing it in their spare time and they'll only be able to support 1 or 2 devices, not the entire spectrum. (This is like CyanogenMOD, by the way).

Re:Community workarounds ?

[h4rr4r]

There are plenty of OSS apps that do tethering. Google has no lockdown on Android, you can install out of market apps. Heck, CM7 makes all kinds of changes to android, CM7.1 adds the ability to block permissions.

http://code.google.com/p/android-wifi-tether/
It is GPLv3.

You might not be trolling, but you are quite uninformed.

Re:Community workarounds ?

[Anonymous Coward]

indeed, CyanogenMod supports tethering, both USB and wireless, right after you install it. And they support quite a few devices now; mostly the better ones.

Re:Community workarounds ?

[h4rr4r]

Only 1 or 2 devices?
CM supports 27 devices officially, there are plenty more unofficial ports of CM for other devices.

Re:Community workarounds ?

[Anonymous Coward]

No kidding. It's my data plan, I'll use that data however I want. It's B.S. charging more for the privilege of charging an extra $20 a month to use my phone how I want to. I recommend rooting your phone and installing a tethering app on your own. It's your device, use it how you want. There is legal ground to stand on, and that's clearly what this case is about. www.awkwardengineer.com

Re:Community workarounds ?

[Dynetrekk]

If you're saying that Android should support wireless tether out of the box,

I know several people who have android 2.2+ phones, and theirs had wifi tethering out of the box. 3G network in, wifi tether out. If it isn't working "out of the box", someone removed it from the box.

Re:Community workarounds ?

[_Sprocket_]

Or to make it simpler, just make some nice OSS apps that destroy Google's lockdown on Android so that we who pay $70-90 a month for a 3G/4G cell plan (individual, not family plan) can rightfully use the service we pay through our teeth for ?

The irony to this question is that Google has done a lot to subvert the normal lockdowns that had been a staple of the US wireless telcom industry.

Re:Community workarounds ?

[smbarbour]

...but with the WebOS phones from Verizon, the tethering app is included... by Verizon... for free!

Re:Community workarounds ?

[Anonymous Coward]

While we're on the Slashdot subject of the community (ie blackhats) getting back at Sony (ie corporations) screwing over their own customers for no good reason (aka Hotz), can someone tell me why the same community of OS / compiler / OSS people can't come together, fork Android, and really just say to Google "thank you but no thank you, you've done good but you can't do anymore."

Someone has to build, test, and distribute a physical phone. The costs to set up production are huge, and if you only make 100 of them they will cost tens of thousands of dollars each. If you want to build a phone for the price of a normal phone (a few hundred bucks), you need to spread the startup costs across millions of units. If you want to sell millions of phones, you need to sell them to normal people, so you better have a polished interface, a call center to handle support, and so on.

Or to make it simpler, just make some nice OSS apps that destroy Google's lockdown on Android so that we who pay $70-90 a month for a 3G/4G cell plan (individual, not family plan) can rightfully use the service we pay through our teeth for ?

You think $70-$90 $/month is "paying through the teeth"? Use your search engine of choice to estimate what running a cell phone network costs. How much more cellular hardware will you have to buy and maintain to support every user's data requirements if their cell phone data usage changes to be as large as a normal PC user's usage? What would you have to charge to break even? $90$/month is orders of magnitude below the answer...

So to answer your question: Try it. Don't worry about it being a lot of work or a large time commitment: I promise that with ten minutes of reserch you will discover that it can not be done at a cost you would pay.

Re:Community workarounds ?

[s73v3r]

can someone tell me why the same community of OS / compiler / OSS people can't come together, fork Android, and really just say to Google "thank you but no thank you, you've done good but you can't do anymore."

Already been done with the various ROMs and the AOSP. Besides, if you were to completely fork it, there'd be a lot of work maintaining compatibility with Google Android, otherwise you wouldn't really be able to load it onto most devices.

Re:Community workarounds ?

[Coren22]

Verizon removed it out of the box. There is a tether application, but it extorts you out of, I believe, $30 a month.

Re:Community workarounds ?

[KingRatMass]

xda-developers FTFY!

At one time, AT&T charged extra for modem use

[tepples]

They can do as they please.

People who tether are not harming the network that the carriers own. What is the carrier's complaint, and how does it square up with the Carterfone decision? At one time, AT&T charged extra for the "tethering" of the day, namely the privilege to use a modem on a phone line. It also limited modems to using acoustic coupler technology. Had this continued, had Carterfone not opened up the market to equipment in the customer's control, we very likely wouldn't have had home Internet access in the 1990s.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Sure that makes sense

[Anonymous Coward]

If they didn't the mifi would go byebye

https://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/mobilebroadband/?page=products_mifi

Please make this into a big fight!

[Anonymous Coward]

The telecom's in USA are raping their consumers. High cost services for lousy service. Controlled usage of our phones and limited usage out from the high costs.

Verizon does enable tethering

[brainzach]

Verizon does have plans where people can tether without restrictions on the apps and devices. It is just separate from the mobile phone only plans.

Re:Verizon does enable tethering

[h4rr4r]

Which is a ripoff.
I want 5GB of data, to use however I see fit. They are fucking transport, that is it. I want to buy a dumb pipe.

Re:Verizon does enable tethering

[Happler]

Why does it matter what types of 1's and 0's I send over the air? Is it a big difference when I send 1's and 0's from my laptop as opposed to my cell phone? After all, I am still limited to the same speed and volume....

If I have paid for data, I would like to use data, thankyou.

Re:Verizon does enable tethering

[poetmatt]

meanwhile, you already pay to use your data how you want,and now they want a surcharge for using that same data how you want.

Re:Verizon does enable tethering

[Anonymous Coward]

AND if there are limits, I want to be able to roll over prior months' usage which was below the limit.

Re:Verizon does enable tethering

[brainzach]

Verizon doesn't sell a big dumb pipe of data. You pay for use of the mobile Internet on your phone with a 5GB limit.

Most people don't use anywhere near 5GB of data so it allows Verizon to lower the average cost while offering the illusion of unlimited Internet.

If you really want to pay per the GB, then demand that the carriers offer that. Chances are that if you are a heavy user, it will end up costing you more. There is a reason why those types of data plans aren't popular in the US

Re:Verizon does enable tethering

[seven of five]

Charging extra for using the same bandwidth for a different application stinks.

Re:Verizon does enable tethering

[brainzach]

You did not pay for data. You paid for a service that allows you to use the Internet on your mobile device.

Re:Verizon does enable tethering

[gblackwo]

Wrong. When you get a smartphone at Verizon, the 30 dollar "unlimited" data plan is required.

Re:Verizon does enable tethering

[ShavedOrangutan]

I want 5GB of data, to use however I see fit. They are fucking transport, that is it. I want to buy a dumb pipe.

Your dumb pipe would cost a lot more than $40 a month.

Verizon has determined that $40 will make a profit based on what the average consumer will use on their smartphone. Unlimited tethering? I can't even guess how much resources that would be worth. $400/month? $4000/month? I don't want to pay that just so my wife can check Facebook on her phone.

That said, I think their tiered data pricing is too expensive. I'd like to use it on my upcoming vacation but it's not worth it. At 25% of the price I would probably pay for it and use it.

Re:Verizon does enable tethering

[brainzach]

An unlimited* data plan isn't the same as unlimited data. Read the fine print.

Re:Verizon does enable tethering

[tlhIngan]

I want 5GB of data, to use however I see fit. They are fucking transport, that is it. I want to buy a dumb pipe.

They sell "dumb pipe" plans, usually under the name of "VPN laptop" plans with real IPs.

The smart carriers already know that the plans offer different services and differentiate them. E.g., a smartphone plan will usually have you NAT'ed and maybe even firewalled so all you can access is POP/IMAP/HTTP/HTTPS (Verizon does this - try accessing IRC - in many cases it's blocked). Heck, they can even transparent proxy to reduce your consumption and make pages load faster (downscale images and videos, for example).

The laptop plans are similar, but they usually just are a simple NAT based system with little firewalling, and no proxying. The best plans are the VPN ones where they give you real IPs and real connectivity with no NAT and no firewall (because they're VPN plans and VPNs do all sorts of wierd things).

Of course, you're also paying a LOT more money for them.

And nevermind that unless you use your phone as a proxy server (e.g., the SSH tether options), it's easy to tell when you engaged the tether mode.

Hell, if I was Verizon, I'd tell people to go ahead and do it - there's a lot more valuable data to gather because of the transparent proxy. Firewall off anything not POP/IMAP/HTTP/HTTPS and let people have their cake. Those who want better data service can pay more for it. Those who want cheap ass tethering can easily pay for it by being "the product".

Re:Verizon does enable tethering

[brainzach]

you already pay to use your data how you want

Where does it say that in your contract?

Re:Verizon does enable tethering

[ShavedOrangutan]

It's a big difference on the volume. I'm addicted to my Droid and I can only burn a few gigabytes a month. A laptop would crush that daily, just surfing the web. Never mind Netflix.

Re:Verizon does enable tethering

[Anonymous Coward]

Verizon doesn't sell a big dumb pipe of data. You pay for use of the mobile Internet on your phone with a 5GB limit.

So, if I am paying for 5GB per month on my phone, why does Verizon get to dictate how I use that data? I'm not activating a separate device or trying to weasel an additional 5GB. I'm just trying to use a feature that the phone is already capable of. Remember back in the days of dial-up internet? Restricting tethering would be like your local telco saying that, while you're already paying them for your phone line, and your isp for internet, you must pay the telco an additional fee if you want to use the voice line for dial-up too, since it was only intended for voice. Telcos had similar problems with dial-up causing over-saturating of their networks.

Most people don't use anywhere near 5GB of data so it allows Verizon to lower the average cost while offering the illusion of unlimited Internet.

So Verizon is charging for 5GB per month, and does not actually expect anyone to use that, but gets upset when people do? That's a bit like an insurance company's model, where they only expect to pay out claims for a small percent of their customers, but this is a service, not insurance. I think charging customers for a service you don't expect to provide is closer to racketeering. It's also not strictly related to tethering except for the fact that you happen to be more likely to use the entire allotment if you are the type of person interested in tethering.

If you really want to pay per the GB, then demand that the carriers offer that. Chances are that if you are a heavy user, it will end up costing you more. There is a reason why those types of data plans aren't popular in the US

Personally, I'm happy to pay for a 5GB per month allotment if it's stated that way, but they should not be allowed to restrict tethering based on some arbitrary conception of what a mobile device is. It's also fraudulent to call a 5GB allotment, "unlimited."

Re:Verizon does enable tethering

[gl4ss]

why is it verizon _so_ bad at making profit then? just saying, I can buy a prepaid plan over here that will let me do 100kbyte/s as long as I care, for 40 bucks a month, in a country with bigger taxes. basically that means that anyone with 40 euros can go and buy a network connection and a (network locked)dongle and copy entire simpsons and futurama inside a months "allowance". and that my friends is the future - not these ridiculous caps, what makes the caps ridiculous is really how fast you can blow through it if you use it for anything multimedia.

his 5gb dumb pipe would cost to verizon as much if he used the data on his phone. but here is the secret to the 5gb plan, people will not use it fully! they will not even learn to listen to spotify through it, because of the limit, with luck they're only using 400mbyte or so every month because they want to leave the possibility to use it later should the occasion demand it. also, the 5gb limit puts a nice kicker on voip and videochatting.

one other reason why verizion should just try to act like a dumb pipe is that advanced analysis of the customers network use _is_ spying - if only for determining if they use netflix, porntube or youtube, that's valuable info right there and something a network user should expect to be kept a secret.

Re:Verizon does enable tethering

[Richard_at_work]

The problem is, how you "use it" differs depending on the device you do the browsing on - browsing on a smart phone or PDA actually produces a lot less traffic than browsing on a desktop or laptop, because behaviours differ between the two types of devices (not to mention all of the other crap going on on a full blown PC, such as checking for OS updates, virus protection updates, ftp uploads etc etc etc).

Now, you might say "yes, but they've charged me for 5GB, so why does that matter - let me use it until it runs out!?" - it matters because on a mobile device, your 5GB of usage is spread over a longer timespan than when you are using an actual computer, which means tethering causes a heavier demand on the network...

So the act of tethering can have a very real effect on the network - and when you buy a tethering plan, you are paying for that added effect.

Re:Verizon does enable tethering

[atriusofbricia]

I want 5GB of data, to use however I see fit. They are fucking transport, that is it. I want to buy a dumb pipe.

Your dumb pipe would cost a lot more than $40 a month. Verizon has determined that $40 will make a profit based on what the average consumer will use on their smartphone. Unlimited tethering? I can't even guess how much resources that would be worth. $400/month? $4000/month? I don't want to pay that just so my wife can check Facebook on her phone. That said, I think their tiered data pricing is too expensive. I'd like to use it on my upcoming vacation but it's not worth it. At 25% of the price I would probably pay for it and use it.

Really? Dumb pipe would cost more? Why can I buy a 'dumb pipe' SIM in other countries without a contract with 9GB of 'use it however' transfer? Yet, here the same thing seems to cost 450USD. The real answer is that we have no realistic competition between the carriers and as such they may screw us at will. I am not going to place blame for the situation, but that us what it is. After all, what are you going to do? Switch to the other carrier with the same policies?

Re:Verizon does enable tethering

[Richard_at_work]

Differing usage patterns cause differing loads on the network - internet usage on a smart phone is lighter than internet usage on a desktop, for a variety of reasons. Its not charging extra for the same bandwidth, its charging extra for the totally different usage pattern.

Re:Verizon does enable tethering

[Anonymous Coward]

You pay for use of the mobile Internet on your phone with a 5GB limit.

Then you should actually be able to download up to 5GB of data from the mobile internet on your phone, regardless of what you're downloading or which app you're using.

If you really want to pay per the GB

Sounds to me like he just really wants the provider to give him the 5GB that their data plan supposedly provides.

Re:Verizon does enable tethering

[Anonymous Coward]

I have this "dumb pipe" in Austria right now (posting this over it), on a 3G connection to a (originally) mobile phone provider. $15 per month for 15 GB transfer (no extra charges above that). Don't see how this is so unbelievable.

Re:Verizon does enable tethering

[s73v3r]

. You pay for use of the mobile Internet on your phone with a 5GB limit.

Fuck that shit. I paid for access to THE INTERNET. Not a walled off little area that Verizon/AT&T/Sprint/T-Mobile have deemed "ok".

Re:Verizon does enable tethering

[s73v3r]

No, I paid for data. They said I could use X GB/month. They do NOT get to dictate how I use that allotment.

Re:Verizon does enable tethering

[s73v3r]

No, you're just arguing semantics. In a sane world, they would be, because those two terms mean the same thing.

Re:Verizon does enable tethering

[s73v3r]

They sold Unlimited Data. If they are going to put restrictions on how I can use it, then it is no longer Unlimited, and at the very least they should NOT be able to sell it as such, and anyone who was mislead into signing up by their sales pitch saying so should be refunded 3x what they paid.

Re:Verizon does enable tethering

[ShavedOrangutan]

I have this "dumb pipe" in Austria right now (posting this over it), on a 3G connection to a (originally) mobile phone provider. $15 per month for 15 GB transfer (no extra charges above that). Don't see how this is so unbelievable.

So it's limited.

Verizon is not prohibiting tethering. They just don't allow it on their unlimited data phone plan. I hate Verizon as much as the next guy, but how can anybody expect an unlimited unrestricted wireless connection for cheap?

Same with these people complaining about cable modem caps. Residential cable service is for residential usage, which follows typical usage patterns. Anybody who wants to feed torrents all day long needs to find out what a full T1 costs.

Re:Verizon does enable tethering

[poetmatt]

Nobody has been willing to challenge this in court, is the issue. I imagine there is plenty of precedent though.

Re:Verizon does enable tethering

[grimJester]

Yeah, I hear the gas stations have a plan where you can use the radio in your car. It's just separate from the drive-only plan. I mean, wake the fuck up! You've bought a phone that has features a third party prevents you from using unless you pay them extra for an unrelated service!

Re:Verizon does enable tethering

[scot4875]

You did not pay for data. You paid for a service that allows you to use the Internet on your mobile device.

Fine. I would like to use that service -- the one that I'm paying for -- to provide that Internet connectivity to another device. If the only reason I can't do that is due to some legalese in a contract that I'm not allowed to negotiate, well, fuck that; I'll root the device and do it anyway and feel absolutely no remorse about it.

--Jeremy

Re:Verizon does enable tethering

[drb226]

In a sane world,

You must not be from around here...

Re:Verizon does enable tethering

[drb226]

Well, actually, they said* you could use X GB/month, with a boatload of restrictions.

*not out loud, mind you. It's in the fine print somewhere.

Re:Verizon does enable tethering

[Anonymous Coward]

unlimited tethering? ummm.... costs less than 90 bucks a month and comes with unlimited mobile to mobile (any carrier) unlimited texts AND unlimited data. Its just not on your carrier. I am on Sprint, I tether my phone and have used over 100 Gigs in one month and they don't say a word, just give me the same bill month after month... no extra charges or anything. They also have 4G and I am never without signal. And yes, that price includes all taxes and fees.... soooooo..... where is the issue again?

Re:Verizon does enable tethering

[brainzach]

The terms have different meanings in different context. If you are confused about the semantics, read the contract.

Re:Verizon does enable tethering

[nschubach]

He mean to say "insane world"

Re:Verizon does enable tethering

[Coren22]

Verizon charges $30 a month for tethering, on top of the data plan you have, and it pulls out of the same data plan, unless you are on unlimited, than it is 5GB. So my phone service is $99 for 500 minutes a month, unlimited text and data, and they want another $30 for the privilage of using data on my computer through my phone.

Re:Verizon does enable tethering

[Coren22]

How about the app that Verizon forces on their Droids, the one from Blockbuster? You don't think that will chew through the bandwidth? Netflix has an app for Android, do you think that will use significantly less bandwidth than the PC version? This isn't about bandwidth, it is about control and money. They want you to pay extra for the privilige, and screw the customer, while the agreement they signed with the FCC for the LTE spectrum said they aren't allowed to do that.

Re:Verizon does enable tethering

[gmhowell]

An unlimited* data plan isn't the same as unlimited data. Read the fine print.

I notice you ducked the 'data' vs 'internet' issue in favor of mentioning some irrelevant BS about 'unlimited'.

Re:Verizon does enable tethering

[s73v3r]

I honestly don't see why it's OK for the contract to have different meaning from the advertisement. That reeks of false advertising to me.

Re:Verizon does enable tethering

[adolf]

Verizon is not prohibiting tethering. They just don't allow it on their unlimited data phone plan. I hate Verizon as much as the next guy, but how can anybody expect an unlimited unrestricted wireless connection for cheap?

My unlimited "PDA" contract with Verizon does not specify that I cannot use that unlimited transfer for other things. I am not contractually obligated to avoid tethering my phone using third-party applications.

Meanwhile, Verizon's license for 700MHz spectrum does stipulate a number of things, including that they cannot limit the applications that people use.

Is it practical and possible for every single person to use Verizon for all of their Internet needs? No, not right now: There's not enough spectrum available, given their network's layout and abilities. But the issue isn't about physical practicality, but rather about contractual requirements.

Same with these people complaining about cable modem caps. Residential cable service is for residential usage, which follows typical usage patterns. Anybody who wants to feed torrents all day long needs to find out what a full T1 costs.

Anyone saying this needs to remember that, historically, the problem with residential service was the last mile, which is (currently and commonly) a solved problem.

Now that ISPs have plenty of bandwidth available on the last mile, they're being stingy about the infrastructure, even though (with the modern advent of good CDNs and ISP-owned backhauls) that isn't exactly dear these days either.

Meanwhile, I don't need to compare my residential circuit to a T1, because it's an invalid comparison. I'm not buying a lossless, highly-reliable pipe from A to B all for myself -- I'm buying a consumer-grade residential pipe from A to n, which later gets multiplexed (hello! packet switching !=new) with other people exchanging data with n.

And n is, on average, very reachable. But it's non-specific. If I can't get to n=b today, but I can get to n=c, my ISP doesn't care -- their circuit works fine.

With a T1 and its point-to-point nature, it's a contractually-guaranteed certainty that all of the data I send from A will arrive intact, in order, and with consistent latency, at B -- exactly as it was sent.

However, my ability to get data from A to B is a crapshoot with residential service.

You're comparing apples (T1) to road apples (residential broadband).

Download the apps another way...

[Anonymous Coward]

The only thing they are blocking is the easiest method of downloading the tethering apps. If you can somehow obtain the tethering app via a different method, it works just fine on a verizon phone (possibly needing root access). I wouldn't say they are limiting the device, just blocking an app source. If anything I think it enhances innovation because then people have to actually think of ways around these roadblocks. Of course 75% of android users think the only way of obtaining an app is through the google marketplace... (my own made-up statistic, but it's probably higher than that...)

How about...

[silky1]

Tethering using the USB cable...got an app that works fine there with Verizon DroidX. I can work very efficiently this way and make calls through Google Voice btw.

Re:How about...

[h4rr4r]

Install android-wifi-tether, turns the phone into a wifi access point. Since not every device you might want to use has a host usb port.

Damn straight!

[Anonymous Coward]

If consumers don't like it, they can vote with their wallets.

Damn straight! I don't like any of the cable TV terms of any company so I don't have Cable TV! I don't like some of the terms of getting a Slashdot account so I don't have one. I don't like any of the terms of banks and credit unions - fees, sharing of data with third parties, etc... - and I .... well have bent over and took it up the ass. Because I have no power and everyone in the industry is doing the some goddamn thing. I shop and shop and every damn financial entity is out to fuck me.

When an industry acts in "concert", the only option to protect consumers is government regulation. Otherwise, it's endless lawsuits and we all know who benefits in the end.

Re:Damn straight!

[cpu6502]

>>>Damn straight! I don't like any of the cable TV terms of any company so I don't have Cable TV!

Me neither.

I use an antenna to receive 50 stations (~42 if you eliminate duplicates) from the surrounding area. Plus syfy.com to watch my favorite fantasy/science fiction shows. I don't see any reason to throw-away $1000/year on comcast.

Weak argument

[Anonymous Psychopath]

I don't think this will make me any more popular around these parts, but this is a weak argument. Verizon isn't restricting LTE devices. They are restricting the connectivity for non-LTE devices.

I think the main problem is that so many people have been able to use it without having to pay, but now Verizon is actually enforcing the provisions of the contract. A backlash is predictable, but this FCC complaint just doesn't have legs.

The other argument I see quite a bit is that "unlimited data" means unlimited for any device you happen to own. It isn't. It's for the device you have contracted with Verizon (or AT&T, or whoever) to connect to their network. It does not extend to anything you happen to have in your pocket. I'm not trying to argue what should be or shouldn't be, just what is actually being paid for and delivered under the terms of the contract. You know, that thing that binds _both_ parties?

Re:Weak argument

[Anonymous Coward]

The device in my pocket _is_ moving the data. The data it moves over _my_ wireless network or USB cable to my laptop is none of their business.

Re:Weak argument

[SilentChasm]

How is making it so you can't use certain apps on your smartphone, which has LTE, not restricting a LTE device?

Re:Weak argument

[Anonymous Coward]

Since my other devices failed to auto create their own LTE or cell data set up, they are talking to the Verizon device that I have and then THAT device is passing the data to the network.

So, in reality, there are no other devices other then an on contract Verizon device that is talking over their networks.

Next you will be trying to say that I cannot loan my phone to someone else since them talking on it would be another device using the Verizon network that I did not pay for... I can see the adverts now.. "Now you can get the new 'Load a phone' plan and be able to loan your cell phone to a friend so that they can call out on it for the low cost of an extra $50 a month!"

Re:Weak argument

[lostfayth]

Yet no one is asking for unlimited data to every device they happen to own, or carry. They are asking for the same data as always being delivered to their phone. What verizon et al are doing is limiting where that data can go once it gets to the phone.

This is probably a horrible analogy, and I am sure someone will point out why shortly but this is akin to saying that only you can make voice calls on your phone - you can't hand it to your buddy Fred because he forgot his phone and needs to call his wife. Now add to this that they are imposing technical limitations to make it difficult for someone else to make a call using your phone. It's the same voice minutes, they are still coming out of the allotment you pay for. It is the same for data.

Re:Weak argument

[Anonymous Psychopath]

They actually aren't making it so that you can't use a tethering app. What happens is that when you attempt to use a web browser on the tethered device, you are redirected to a page that tells you you're being naughty. The tethering app itself runs just fine.

Re:Weak argument

[Anonymous Psychopath]

I think I understand the analogy, but what I believe you're saying is that they _shouldn't_ charge for tethering, not that they _can't_. There's a world of difference between the two.

Re:Weak argument

[mikkelm]

While you're on the subject of weak arguments, you should probably examine your own. You're falling prey to the "device" mentality. "Device" has nothing to do with it. Throughput is what the company is selling, and throughput is what you're consuming. By the same rationale, your ISP could sell you an "unlimited data" product and argue that it only extends to your modem, not to the machines behind it.

If your network access "device" cannot support other "devices" by providing access to the data connection, then surely your network access "device" does not have unlimited access. They're ones and zeros. They go through your phone. If you have an unlimited data contract for your phone, then you should have unlimited access to the data connection.

Re:Weak argument

[eldepeche]

People's main problem is that the restriction is arbitrary and has no purpose other than squeezing money out of already-paying customers.

I pay Verizon $30 a month to get data to my phone. They want me to pay more to get data through my phone to my laptop. Data is data, so the same amount of usage costs more. Why? The restriction isn't technical in nature, it's purely a business decision.

If they wanted to make people pay in proportion to the load they put on the network, that's one thing. Data downloaded to a phone and bounced to a laptop doesn't create more congestion than just downloading it to the phone. I'm more than happy to pay more for moving more data, just not moving data in a slightly different way that doesn't affect their network.

Re:Weak argument

[lostfayth]

Yes, that they shouldn't, and shouldn't be allowed to. It's blatantly silly to anyone who sits and thinks about it for a minute or two.

It's like trying to enforce copy protection by clolsing the analog hole - sure, it can be done, but how the hell do we watch the movie now?

Re:Weak argument

[Anonymous Psychopath]

I agree with everything you wrote. It is definitely, absolutely just a way to charge customers more. But I would also argue that the only reason this is an issue at all is because tethering has value to the customer, and isn't charging customers money to deliver value exactly what service providers do for a living?

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have free tethering (and I don't work for or own stock in a service provider). But this argument that we should get it for free just because the SPs _could_ offer it for free with little or no incremental cost to themselves just smacks of Marxism to me.

From a more practical point of view I think that Verizon is concerned that they'll gut their residential and/or business Internet services. LTE is substantially faster than DSL and competitive with FiOS.

Re:Weak argument

[dotsonr]

Maybe the better analogy would be if the carriers charged you for the privilege of being able to send voice to your bluetooth headset.

Re:Weak argument

[spire3661]

The problem is this is a bit of a socialist problem because the spectrum used for them to conduct their business is licensed from THE PEOPLE with specific and clear provisions that they NOT do block stuff. SO it may smack of Marxism to you because at its core, its a socialist issue.

Re:Weak argument

[lostfayth]

That is a much better analogy and one that is essentailly the same issue.

Bluetooth support, now only $15/month!

Re:Weak argument

[nschubach]

I'm actually scared that that's the point of them limiting Fios and other services recently... The push to go full wireless LTE instead of using land lines (kind of like phone to cell phone has done) but they are trying to hold onto as much control as they can for that inevitable transition. I mean, why put in more fiber to the home if you can just sell them a wireless hotspot and charge them more for a limited connection?

Re:Weak argument

[mikkelm]

Tethering has value to the customer, and that's why they buy phones that feature tethering, or applications that enable it. Tethering is not a service provided by the carrier, so they have no business charging for it, just like they have no business charging for the installation of any other third party applications that may use the supposedly unlimited data connection. You cannot argue that the service provider offers anything on your system other than the data connection, because it does not.

There's nothing Marxist about this. It's about service providers delivering what they claim to provide, and about treating the customer with respect.

Re:Weak argument

[eldepeche]

A company providing service using the people's spectrum, especially one in a market with overwhelming barriers to entry, should have its actions held to a high level of scrutiny. They can charge people for tethering in their own app, but why should they be able to prevent you from going around that? This is exactly the kind of crap people are talking about when they discuss net neutrality: a deeply entrenched service provider who wants to restrict your access to things they don't charge for. They want to force you to use their paid service not by adding value, but by subtracting it from the competing product.

Re:Weak argument

[Anonymous Coward]

If you pay for "texting" you are already paying for "moving data in a slightly different way that doesn't affect their network." They charge 6000%-7000% markups on that stuff.

Re:Weak argument

[GooberToo]

Yet no one is asking for unlimited data to every device they happen to own, or carry. They are asking for the same data as always being delivered to their phone.

I agree with you, but Verizon's pricing model reflects the typical less data use of a user who is not tethered. Verizon is really pushing back against tethering as much as pushing back against users, en mass, who are violating their TOS which in turn is violating their pricing model. As a result, Verizon has a choice of increasing their data rates or clamping down on those who violate.

They are doing what anyone who isn't a complete moron would do. It really is that simple.

Re:Weak argument

[lostfayth]

This isn't a case of only having two possible choices, however. The case you present is charge everybody more for a few users who use too much, or remove tethering apps from everyone across the board. Would it not be simpler to charge more for going over data usage cap, and leave the tethering apps for all those people who would like to use them on occasion? To me, it seems obvious to charge more for those who consume more, not charge more because a specific class of device just happens to be connected to the phone.

As stated above by someone else, why not charge for bluetooth capability as well? As we all know, people who own bluetooth headsets make more phone calls on average, so they should be charged more in general.

Re:Weak argument

[GooberToo]

I didn't mean for it so sound so black and white. The fact is, because of tethering and especially because of abusive tethering users, all carriers are currently evaluating both higher prices across the board and additional tiers of pricing.

Re:Weak argument

[lostfayth]

I understand quite well the need for more pricing tiers - after all, I admit I am one of those horrible abusive users. What seems silly is arguing higher prices for every user due to those few - or higher pricing for a specific application. All I am saying is that how a user chooses to use their allotment is irrelevant and should not reflect in the price other than how much data they actually use.

Re:Weak argument

[GooberToo]

Its only irrelevant when you have absolutely no clue how the world works. In the real world, its not only relevant, its the entire story.

Re:Weak argument

[lostfayth]

So, it makes perfect sense that an occasional traveller with a blackberry has to pay an added fee to use a feature built into the phone (tethering is there by default), yet I can stream audio and video all day long and not pay a dime more on the same 'unlimited' plan? Yes, streaming audio and video are features built into my phone as well, but I use far more data than any of those I know that tether - common sense would say I should pay more, but I don't. Granted, this is a small sample, yet it still makes no sense.

This is the current state of 'how the world works' 'in the real world' and those who aren't complaining are deluding themselves.

Bytes are Bytes.

[Marillion]

There is no difference between a byte to my phone versus a byte to other device.

Re:Bytes are Bytes.

[camperdave]

There is no difference between a byte to my phone versus a byte to other device.

Yes there is. The bytes to your phone are a different color than the ones being sent to your other device.

Re:Bytes are Bytes.

[lostfayth]

It is still a byte to your phone, it just doesn't stay there - where it goes is Verizon's concern, where it ends up is not.

Re:Bytes are Bytes.

[X0563511]

Well slap my ass and call me a Commie Mutant Traitor: there is no color.

Sounds like an antitrust conspiracy

[Anonymous Coward]

If Verizon and Google are agreeing to restrict the market, it sounds like a antitrust conspiracy under the Sherman and Clayton Acts.

Re:Sounds like an antitrust conspiracy

[Nilatir]

Which is ironic because it's was Google who got the 'shall not deny, limit, or restrict the ability of their customers to use the devices and applications of their choice' clause in the LTE spectrum in the first place to prevent carriers from denying people's ability to use Android devices.

Re:Sounds like an antitrust conspiracy

[shutdown -p now]

If Verizon and Google are agreeing to restrict the market, it sounds like a antitrust conspiracy under the Sherman and Clayton Acts

Only if Google does it just for Verizon, no?

So far as I know, Android Market has customization provisions for all cell providers, not just Verizon. It may be that Verizon is the only one blocking tethering apps, but AT&T could probably do so as well if it wanted, so "competition" is not affected here.

AT&T charges just for using a "smartphone"

[ArhcAngel]

My sister and her family will not pay for wireless data services. They are with AT&T. Recently She was swapping her SIM card from her dumb phone to an OLD Blackjack they had purchased years ago. AT&T automatically started charging them NOT for wireless data but for using a "smartphone"! How can they justify any of this?

Re:AT&T charges just for using a "smartphone"

[Amouth]

I'd like to see the bill on that .. because while AT&T can see the device on the other end via the IMEI they do not bill based on that.

there is no difference in billing for voice on a normal or a smart phone.

Re:AT&T charges just for using a "smartphone"

[Anonymous Coward]

I think what happened is that certain phones "require" data plans. To my knowledge, any smart phone nowadays requires a data plan to operate, at least under Verizon. AT&T probably operates the same way and detected the phone as a smart phone and automatically enforced the data plan on them, regardless of whether they're using it or not. I could be entirely mistaken, though.

Re:AT&T charges just for using a "smartphone"

[VisceralLogic]

I bought a T-Mobile Android phone from Best Buy, which was supposed to require a 2 year renewal and data plan. I never bothered to activate the data plan, and it works fine. I suppose that feature will go away when AT&T acquires them. :/

Re:AT&T charges just for using a "smartphone"

[ArsonSmith]

"How can they justify any of this?"

Is it that difficult to understand even basic economics? They offer a service for people to buy at a market price. It's their choice to buy it or not. If nobody wants it at the price they offer then they'll either have to discontinue if there is no money to be made or lower the price to pick up buyers. You can't even try to claim it's a monopoly here as there are many choices if you are not happy with their service, go elsewhere.

It is a money grab

[Anonymous Coward]

It is certainly not a technical limitation. I use an Nokia N8 on AT&T and pay $15/mo for unlimited data for "non-smartphones". I also use Joikuspot and tether when I am away from free wifi on the road. It works wonderfully, and I've not heard anything from AT&T in almost a year of >2GB/mo of data usage.

Another example of net neutrality being attacked.

[Zoson]

All the mobile companies do it, unfortunately.
Why is voice data less expensive than any other data? Or, for that matter, why is data I view on my smartphone any different than data I pull down with my smartphone and then display on another device?

The carriers can do whatever they please

[c.r.o.c.o]

I don't understand what's the big deal. In the grand scheme of things, I know blocking tethering apps may be against FCC rules, but I'm not betting the carriers will actually follow those rules. But here's what you CAN do:

Step 1. Get an unlockable, rootable phone. ALL carrier phones are locked, but some are easily rooted and all of them can be unlocked for a small fee. So you can still get a subsidized phone, just be careful which one you pick. As a rule of thumb, never pick up a brand new model, but almost every single 3-6 month old model is rootable.

Step 2. Install a custom ROM like Cyanogenmod.

Step 3. Use the tethering capabilities built into your ROM, without the need of any extra apps.

If you can't follow these steps, then find friends who can or pay somebody to do it for you. My gf, who doesn't have a clue how to unlock and root phones, is using CM7 nightlies on her HTC just fine.

Re:The carriers can do whatever they please

[Anonymous Coward]

Then sit back and wait for the nasty gram to show up. You think they dont know what goes on with your device? They control one end of the conversation. They OWN the towers and servers you talk to...

Re:The carriers can do whatever they please

[tgd]

And its trivial for a carrier to tell that the data coming off your phone doesn't match mobile device usage heuristics, or is reporting unusual browser headers, or using ports that phones won't normally use.

And then they can whack you with huge fees for it. (Read your TOS)

Re:The carriers can do whatever they please

[Anonymous Coward]

Google has locked down tethering as of 2.3. Instead of making it an external feature, tethering is now built into the core functionality and 2.3 is able to understand when tethering is happening and alert carriers when it does.
Still using 2.2 on my Droid X...

Re:The carriers can do whatever they please

[FedeTXF]

"My gf, who doesn't have a clue how to unlock and root phones, is using CM7 nightlies on her HTC just fine."

Amazing.

I think U.S. carriers are either too pressed by competition or too greedy. In Argentina (only 3 nationwide) you can get 500 voice minutes, 250 SMS, 250 MMS plus unlimited data (2GB full speed, after that 128kbps) for about USD 50. That includes tethering if you happen to chose an Android 2.2 phone with your plan. You can also have 500 MB (plus 200 minutes and 200 SMS) for USD 30 and also do tethering if your phone supports it.

Re:The carriers can do whatever they please

[c.r.o.c.o]

Google has locked down tethering as of 2.3. Instead of making it an external feature, tethering is now built into the core functionality and 2.3 is able to understand when tethering is happening and alert carriers when it does.
Still using 2.2 on my Droid X...

Notice I did not say run stock Android, but a custom ROM. Cyanogen has tethering enabled, and the current version is based on Android 2.3.4. And as far as I know, it also does not report anything back to the carriers. Choose wisely, and you will not have any problems.

As to the comments regarding the carriers disabling tethering on their end, in Canada Fido was just forbidden by the courts to do so. They may disable tethering on their own branded phones, but if the customer unlocks it or brings his own phone, they have to allow it.

My experience

[StikyPad]

I filed an FCC complaint last month regarding AT&T charging for tethering -- basically the same complaint. As expected, the FCC didn't do anything except give my contact information to AT&T so that AT&T could contact me to tell me that my contract basically allows them to impose whatever restrictions they want.

Obviously I realize the contract sucks, which is why I filed the complaint. If I have a 2GB plan, I should be able to do whatever I damn well please with those 2GB of data.

Hopefully this group (and the voices of others) will have more success. You can file a consumer complaint online here: http://transition.fcc.gov/cgb/complaints_tcpa.html if you're so inclined, though be aware that the FCC will give out your contact information to your carrier. Also false/anonymous, complaints probably won't help.

Re:My experience

[Anonymous Coward]

And notify my carrier that I'm tethering? No way!

Re:My experience

[nschubach]

That's that whole dilemma with reporting someone any time. You may get the report in, but you're going to end up paying for it with self imposed grief. Eventually it's going to get out that you were the one that reported because the management talks. So you just suck it up at times and go with it or find a new job where it's bound to happen again.

I haven't had one of those cases in a while, but I did have one about 7 years ago involving me filing a complains against a supervisor I was not a direct report to. I went to their manager to let them know what was going on to have the supervisor I complained about confront me the next day.

Re:My experience

[ue85]

I may be an idiot with this assumption but if your provider is violating a mandate set by the FCC and they charge you saying your contract lets them impose whatever restrictions they want couldn't you simply bring them to small claims court and recoup the costs since their own contract is in violation of the FCC's regulation?

Usage Patterns

[jklovanc]

Unlimited plans are available because carriers know that all the smart phones will not be accessing the net all the time. I doubt very much that many people will be watching movies or downloading torrents for hours at a time on a smartphone. If you get enough people doing this, as would happen if tethering was allowed, you would swamp the carrier network.

Yes the bits are the same but the usage pattern is much different between tethering and smartphone use. If you insist on tethering to unlimited plans say goodbye to unlimited plans. A tethers device can consume much more bandwidth than a smartphone.

PS to those who ask why pay for higher speed? Latency; a consumer wants to get information as fast as possible after pressing send. Smartphones are not receiving all the time but when they do speed is important.

Re:Usage Patterns

[Coren22]

Verizon sold me a Droid X with Blockbuster preinstalled (and unremovable) so, I could sit and watch movies all day long using what they provided, so why does it matter if I use the phone or laptop to do it? I can also hook up to an external TV through HDMI and watch the movies on there.

Re:Usage Patterns

[jklovanc]

You are correct that you could watch movies all day long. The pertinent fact is that most people don't. You also can't watch one move while your kid watches another while your wife watches another while you upload torrents to the web.

It is the same thing as landline usage. A business pays more for a landline phone than a household due to businesses having a higher usage. The higher usage requires more infrastructure and therefore costs more to support

Re:Usage Patterns

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like a real good reason for carriers to avoid selling unlimited data plans, to me.
Not a real good reason form them to get annoyed when people try to get the most value they can out of the deal.

If you allow unlimited data for phones on the basis that phones won't be using the connection much, that's fine. But as soon as you find out the system can be trivially abused, you can't just yell "I wouldn't have sold you so much if I'd known you were going to use it!". No, instead, you note that you gave your customers too much for too little, and change the packages you sell accordingly.

I can see where the carriers are coming from, really, at least with unlimited data tethering. But I have no sympathy. As I've said, if they're mad at consumers for taking advantage of a great deal, then suck it up, and stop offering the same deal.

Final thought: I have no idea why they'd get upset about tethering when there's a limit in place.

MOD PARENT UP

[businessnerd]

Mod the parent up.

Every time this issue comes up, I see several posters make the claim that they are using the same amount of data whether they are using just their phone or tethering to your laptop. Then I sit there dumbfounded as this crap gets modded insightful and repeated over and over again. From personal experience using a Blackberry Storm and tethering for work purposes when necessary, the argument is complete crap.

While using just my phone, most of the websites I pull up are mobile versions that are a fraction of the size of the full versions. Other apps I use that go out to the internet pull the information in a mobile friendly format as well. The only real data hog on the phone would be Google Maps. I don't know what the data size difference between the mobile app and the normal site are, so lets just call those equal.

While tethering my laptop, not only am I downloading the full websites, but I may have multiple tabs open at once. I am connected to my corporate VPN, which has it's own data overhead, my e-mail client is open (Lotus Notes -- and yes my life sucks as a result) which given the aforementioned suckiness of Notes likes to synchronize massive amounts of data just so I can read my e-mail and calendar. My e-mails are also much more data heavy. While I receive the same e-mails on my phone, the giant attachments are rarely downloaded on the phone. These of course get downloaded regularly while tethered. I am much more likely to watch YouTube videos or Netflix while tethered (as long as the signal is good). YouTube is only occasional on the phone (for when I really want to watch now) and non-existent on the phone, and not just because there is no Netflix app for BB, but because I don't have much desire to watch a full length feature film on my tiny phone, especially if I could just whip out my laptop. And then there's the other random huge data downloads I might attempt on my laptop but would never do on my phone such as large software downloads (say an operating system). And while my laptop is doing all of this, my phone is still using it's own data in background.

Furthermore, it's not just the tethering the telecoms are worried about, it's the Wi-Fi hotspot features. Can you honestly say that having up to five devices connected to your phone uses the same amount of data as just your phone?

While eventually, we may get to point where all of the laptop exclusive functions I will happily do on my phone, we just aren't there yet. Don't get me wrong though, I would love for Verizon to include tethering as part of my data plan. The only reason I use tethering is because my company pays for it. And I'm not saying this advocacy group doesn't have a sound argument. All I'm saying is that this "it's the same data" argument is complete crap, and if you want to be taken seriously in this debate, you need to find a better argument.

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

Every time this issue comes up, I see several posters make the claim that they are using the same amount of data whether they are using just their phone or tethering to your laptop. Then I sit there dumbfounded as this crap gets modded insightful and repeated over and over again.

Nobody gives a shit, because they were promised the same amount of data. And if that promise depends on using just their phone, vs. tethering to your laptop, to determine whether or not you should be allowed to use the full amount of data that you were PROMISED, then it's a lie. False advertising sucks.

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[Duradin]

/. likes to willfully not see the forest for the trees as they only see each tree individually and separate from all other trees. In other words the "this packet is the same as that packet, why should they care!" argument.

Use Sprint

[Anonymous Coward]

Talk with your money. Use Sprint 3G/4G services, even unlimited, and tether all you want.

the wrong acronym to talk to

[Gravis Zero]

the FCC doesnt have a lot of say on what happens in a company. however, the FTC will spank a corporation when it's not on the level.

Food Analogy

[slapout]

Welcome to the Verizon All-You-Can-Eat Buffet. There are only a few simple rules you have to follow:

You can make as many trips as you want to the buffet.

However, for each trip you much use the small plates that we provide for you.

When you get to your table, you may transfer the food from the small plate to a larger plate, however, there is an additional fee for doing this.

Tasting

[DickBreath]

I have an interesting situation. My water utility sells me metered water for washing dishes, watering the lawn, showering, and other limited purposes.

The utility offers a Tasting plan for an additional monthly charge. Under this plan, I am allowed to use the water also for cooking and drinking. (Even though my water use is metered, and each gallon of water for cooking and drinking is delivered by the same pipes!)

Dear customer: our records indicate that you have been using water for cooking and/or drinking. Please upgrade your water rate plan to our convenient Tasting plan that allows for this usage. If you continue to use water for cooking and drinking, you will be signed up for the Tasting plan automatically.

I think the Tasting plan is just a fee that they made up. It isn't a service they provide. They just want more money from me. I've got a workaround of using a container to obtain water from another room for the purposes of cooking and drinking.

Some people shout: Theft of service! But what service? They're already delivering water to me, and metering it, and I'm paying for it, and its delivered by the same pipes!

Some people shout: but you signed an agreement and using the water for cooking and drinking is a breach of that agreement! Ask a lawyer about the term "unconscionable contract". Nobody in their right mind would agree to this if they had any actual choice in the matter. Just because they have the power and can force you into paying this ridiculous fee or doing without doesn't make it right.

I say that this Tasting "service" is no service at all, it's just a fee for delivering nothing at all extra to me. It's a case of the utility wanting something for nothing. Yet people seem to think it is somehow wrong to use the water I'm paying for for drinking or cooking unless I sign up for the more expensive Tasting plan.

In order to add legitimacy to their Tasting plan, the water company says that the Tasting plan is actually delivering something: it includes an additional 2 Gigabytes of water per month, giving you 4 total Gigabytes of water.

But what if I only need 2 Gigabytes of water and therefore my existing monthly 2 Gigabyte plan is plenty? The water company already charges $10 per extra Gigabyte of water I use over the limit. So if I used excess water, it's not like they wouldn't get paid.

Furthermore, once I sign up for the Tasting plan, they don't make any distinction between water used for drinking/cooking and water used for other purposes. I could use 3/4 of it for tasting, and 1/4 for bathing/dishwashing. Or any other split. Or all of it purely for tasting. So then if I paid for Tasting and used only 2 Gigabytes of water, which I already had paid for, then why did I need the Tasting plan?

I seem to be very confused about stealing water for tasting. Someone please set me straight.

Quick Tethering Quiz

[DickBreath]

Which costs more and which puts more stress on their network:

1. 1. A 1 kilobyte packet transmitted between my phone and the tower.
2. 2. A 1 kilobyte packet transmitted between my phone and the tower.

(Please note in the case of (1) the packet was from my mobile browser, and in the case of (2) the packet was from my laptop browser.)

If I have a 2 GB monthly data limit, which of the following activities will use more data on the network:

1. 1. Downloading 2 GB of data to my mobile phone?
2. 2. Downloading 2 GB of data to my laptop?

Re:Quick Tethering Quiz

[Xacid]

Depends - what weighs more:
1) a pound of bullshit?
2) a pound of telecom?

Some people are sports obsessed

[tepples]

I use an antenna to receive 50 stations (~42 if you eliminate duplicates) from the surrounding area.

Not everybody gets that many channels over the air. My area gets fewer than half that, counting subchannels.

Plus syfy.com

I thought the online affiliates of the major scripted cable TV networks allowed only subscribers to watch. HBO sure does.

I don't see any reason to throw-away $1000/year on comcast.

Some people are sports obsessed. They see web surfing as a hobby in the same way that geeks see televised sports as a hobby. For example, my aunt's boyfriend would rather drop broadband Internet access, instead doing things like e-mail at work after hours, than drop ice hockey.

Re:Some people are sports obsessed

[cpu6502]

>>>Plus syfy.com

I thought the online affiliates of the major scripted cable TV networks allowed only subscribers to watch. HBO sure does.

That's because HBO costs ~$10 a month, so only subscribers may watch, whereas SyFy is ad-supported and "free" to anyone with a cable connection (or satellite dish). They and most of the cable channels have chosen to put their videos online, and are ad-supported.

>>>my aunt's boyfriend would rather drop broadband Internet access

Dialup is available free from netzero.
$7 from netscape.
:-)

Re:Some people are sports obsessed

[tepples]

I thought the online affiliates of the major scripted cable TV networks allowed only subscribers to watch. HBO sure does.

That's because HBO costs ~$10 a month, so only subscribers may watch, whereas SyFy is ad-supported and "free" to anyone with a cable connection

Cartoon Network is also ad-supported, yet Cartoon Network shows on XfinityTV (formerly Fancast) such as this one require subscription.

Re:Some people are sports obsessed

[cpu6502]

>>>Cartoon Network shows on XfinityTV (formerly Fancast) such as this one require subscription.

I said MOST cable channels put their videos on their websites, not all. Please read to the end of the paragraph. Thanks.

Channels that put their shows online:
ABC FAMILY
TNT
USA
DISCOVER
ANIMAL PLANET
SYFY
BROADCAST (abc, cbs, nbc, fox, cw, myNetTV)
and so on. I don't feel like typing a complete list.

crapping on the little guy...

[Anonymous Coward]

mmm. well big corp, screws over litle guy who pays for money.
Apple
Google
Sony
Verizon
and now the body that is ment to protect and enforce the rules they create. yay same story as always. but then people complain when ANON and such groups make them feel the pain of the errors. as we ( the end user ) have no power to make a differance.

same old same old...

Just charge for the data and be done with it...

[cowtamer]

They are in the business of selling data access. Just charge an extra $10/GB (or whatever the market will bear) and be done with it, and quit lying to customers about having sold them an "unlimited" plan in the first place.

There is something seriously innovation-chilling about the company dictating what the source of the data is...