Slashdot Mirror


Verizon Offers Free Tethering Because It Has To

jfruh writes "Most U.S. wireless carriers are trying to have it both ways on tethering or smartphones-as-hotspots — moving people from unlimited data plans to plans where they pay by the gigabyte, but then also charging them extra if they want to share the gigabytes they've paid for with other devices. But on Android phones on Verizon, at least, you can still tether, not because Verizon is trying to be more consumer friendly, but because, according to an FCC ruling, they agreed to allow it when they bought formerly public spectrum."

180 comments

  1. Not just Android devices by CoolToe · · Score: 3, Informative

    Tethering has worked from day one on Windows Phone devices.

    1. Re:Not just Android devices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you define day one as 'after the release of Mango'.

    2. Re:Not just Android devices by gman003 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes, and I'm sure *both* Windows Phone users are enjoying that.

    3. Re:Not just Android devices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's worked from day one on Android as well.

    4. Re:Not just Android devices by morcego · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes, and I'm sure *both* Windows Phone users are enjoying that.

      That is totally unfair and a total lie!

      The USA isn't the world, man. There are at least 10 more users in other countries.

      --
      morcego
    5. Re:Not just Android devices by Cimexus · · Score: 1

      Tethering has worked from day one on most phones? This is to do with restrictions placed on plans by a carrier, not the hardware/software capabilities of the device/operating system.

      FWIW I've tethered since the day I first got a smartphone (first on iPhone, then on an Android). But no carrier in the country I live in has ever restricted tethering AFAIK (why should they - I'm paying for the data either way, why do they care how I use it?) It's always seemed a bit mystifying to me why carriers in America seem to have a 'thing' about tethering as if something makes it different than any other form of data use.

    6. Re:Not just Android devices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Verizon bought spectrum from the FCC there too?!

    7. Re:Not just Android devices by mr1911 · · Score: 1

      The USA isn't the world, man. There are at least 10 more users in other countries.

      While that might be true Verizon, Microsoft, and Slashdot could all care less!

      No hard feelings though, since none of them care about US users either.

      --
      This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
      Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
    8. Re:Not just Android devices by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Well the difference is the type of network traffic you will do on your phone vs. traffic you will do on your PC.

      On your phone you are more or less just going to check your email, and browse a few pages. On your PC or Laptop, you will be doing hours of browsing and watching movies, and other activities.

      I would actually prefer to have G4 and a tethering as my primary internet connection. Because I can take my phone and laptop anywhere and browse. But the current restrictions are too expensive.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    9. Re:Not just Android devices by Lucky75 · · Score: 1

      It didn't work from day one on iPhones (without a tethering plan, at least).

      --
      DNA -- National Dyslexic Association
    10. Re:Not just Android devices by Quanticfx · · Score: 1

      I don't use the tethering and the guy who sits in the desk next to me, whom also has an HTC Trophy, doesn't use it either. So no, we are not currently enjoying that feature, but at least it's offered.

    11. Re:Not just Android devices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes, and I'm sure *both* Windows Phone users are enjoying that.

      That is totally unfair and a total lie!

      The USA isn't the world, man. There are at least 10 more users in other countries.

      Converting to binary doesn't actually increase the userbase.

    12. Re:Not just Android devices by SecurityTheatre · · Score: 1

      But no carrier in the country I live in has ever restricted tethering

      It didn't work from day one on iPhones (without a tethering plan, at least).

      It did in other countries....

    13. Re:Not just Android devices by Immerman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think it comes down to volume - you end to use far more bandwidth for longer periods on a PC, and since there's very little actual competition in the US market the carriers are in no hurry to build out capacity to actually provide the service they're charging for - which requires unpleasant things like investment that doesn't contribute to anybody's bonuses. Worse, once you have a network with enough capacity to handle the load non-tethering people might start asking uncomfortable questions like why they're being charged such ridiculous rates. Nothing good can come of it.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    14. Re:Not just Android devices by Hes+Nikke · · Score: 1

      On your phone you are more or less just going to check your email, and browse a few pages. On your PC or Laptop, you will be doing hours of browsing and watching movies, and other activities.

      But why does it matter if I already paid for the data i'm going to consume?

      --
      Don't call me back. Give me a call back. Bye. So yeah. But bye our, well, but alright we are on a shirt this chill.
    15. Re:Not just Android devices by gman003 · · Score: 1

      So at least you outnumber the remaining OS/2 users.

    16. Re:Not just Android devices by rullywowr · · Score: 1

      Woah... Microsoft makes a phone that runs a version of Windows? No way!

    17. Re:Not just Android devices by Defenestrar · · Score: 2

      Because then the carrier would actually have to invest some of those horrendous data rates on their infrastructure.

    18. Re:Not just Android devices by hazem · · Score: 4, Informative

      Because they've oversold their network capacity and would be in real trouble if everyone actually used as much data and bandwidth as they paid for.

    19. Re:Not just Android devices by jeffmeden · · Score: 2

      On your phone you are more or less just going to check your email, and browse a few pages. On your PC or Laptop, you will be doing hours of browsing and watching movies, and other activities.

      But why does it matter if I already paid for the data i'm going to consume?

      Because up until recently, all networks offered an unlimited plan which they hoped would see only 1-2 GB of usage, max. This makes it cost-effective for them to simply let you use as much as you want, since the power users that really cram data down onto a smartphone are few and far between. Basically, they were over-subscribed but didn't actually have bandwidth contention (on most days). You paid for the service of using as much data *on your handset* and the carriers were keen on making you keep up your end of the deal (that was spelled out in your contract).

      Now, few providers offer unlimited service so yes, users are paying per GB they use. And coincidentally, tethering is now free (without coercion) under the Verizon "share everything" plans, and according to this it's"free" to other users as well, even begrudgingly to the users still in possession of an unlimited plan.

    20. Re:Not just Android devices by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

      Well the difference is the type of network traffic you will do on your phone vs. traffic you will do on your PC.

      On your phone you are more or less just going to check your email, and browse a few pages.

      As someone who regularly downloads multi-gig Linux ISOs on my phone, I have to disagree.

      On your PC or Laptop, you will be doing hours of browsing and watching movies, and other activities.

      Well, then, maybe Verizon shouldn't have spent so many marketing bucks pimping Netflix/Pandora streaming to their customers, if they didn't want/expect customers to actually use them.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    21. Re:Not just Android devices by yotto · · Score: 1

      Woah... Microsoft makes a phone that runs a version of Windows? No way!

      You haven't heard of the Microsoft Windows Phone 7 Phone running Microsoft Windows Phone 7 from Microsoft?

    22. Re:Not just Android devices by gman003 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I had, but I thought it was a Linux distro...

    23. Re:Not just Android devices by djdanlib · · Score: 3, Funny

      Now there's a concept. Imagine: The new revolutionary OS/2 Phone from IBM.

    24. Re:Not just Android devices by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      ...Verizon, Microsoft, and Slashdot could all care less!

      Could = couldn't? :p

    25. Re:Not just Android devices by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      As someone who regularly downloads multi-gig Linux ISOs on my phone, I have to disagree.

      You must be the same guy I saw hauling six full size pieces of plywood on top of his Cooper mini. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    26. Re:Not just Android devices by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      As someone who regularly downloads multi-gig Linux ISOs on my phone, I have to disagree.

      You must be the same guy I saw hauling six full size pieces of plywood on top of his Cooper mini.

      Are you kidding?? The interiors in those things are hideous. I'd be far more likely to be seen hauling six sheets of plywood in a Miata... a V8 Miata :D

      Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

      Regarding the case of downloading ISOs on my phone over Verizon's 3G network (which I have a grandfathered 'unlimited' plan with, BTW) -

      Why shouldn't I?

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    27. Re:Not just Android devices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      excellent I can finally replace my BeOS smartphone.

    28. Re:Not just Android devices by mr1911 · · Score: 1

      Typos while being a smartass = karma.

      --
      This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
      Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
    29. Re:Not just Android devices by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      I know a grammatical error when I see one; I live in a state that's one big grammatical error (to be fair, it's other kinds of errors, too). :p

    30. Re:Not just Android devices by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 0

      Have Android Verizon, let's see if the tethering apps are back at Google Play Store.

      Uhhhh, yeah. They are. 78,000,000 of them. Just the list used up most of my 2GB limit this month. Now I have to tether. >:-(

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    31. Re:Not just Android devices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, everything else was Before Mango - B.M. for short.

    32. Re:Not just Android devices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm unfortunately one of them. The company I work for forced windows phones on all of us. (and we are primarily a linux dev shop).

    33. Re:Not just Android devices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tether your phone to another phone, you mean?

      I'm not sure you get how this works.

    34. Re:Not just Android devices by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Because. Other. People. Are. Trying. To. Make. Phone. Calls. You. Fucktard.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    35. Re:Not just Android devices by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Because. Other. People. Are. Trying. To. Make. Phone. Calls. You. Fucktard.

      Hey, I'm not the one who sold people "unlimited internet plans" and then pissed and moaned about them actually using it, nor am I the one charging outrageous rates for data access, nor have I refused to use the vast and ever-growing amount of profit from said outrageous data access fees to beef up my infrastructure to support all the devices I've sold people.

      You definitely have something to be pissed about, but your chagrin is incorrectly placed. I'm not the telco, so feel free to go fuck yourself, Chief.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    36. Re:Not just Android devices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AT&T insist on you buying the biggest data plan in order to allow tethering, at least for the Windows Phone.

      Be interested to hear other stories or experiences, by carrier or phone OS.

    37. Re:Not just Android devices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could = couldn't? :p

      Replying anonymously to preserve previous moderation.

      That's a very common Americanism; of course the correct word is couldn't but a large percentage of the population says could and I've given up on trying to correct them at least 30 years ago.

    38. Re:Not just Android devices by Cimexus · · Score: 1

      Um yes it did? As I said in GP post, restrictions on tethering are done by the CARRIER (hence, needing a 'tethering plan'), not the phone itself. And as I said, carriers have never restricted tethering where I live.

      (NB. I do know that tethering wasn't possible on the iPhone on earlier versions of iOS, at least not without jail-breaking. So I should clarify that by "from day 1", I meant, from the day I first got a smartphone, not necessarily that it was always a feature on all phones - but either way, carriers have never had anything to do with it here).

    39. Re:Not just Android devices by Cimexus · · Score: 1

      On GSM/3GSM networks, phone calls are conducted over separate channels to data. And voice always takes priority. You'll never not be able to make a phone call due purely to people using too much data.

  2. Oh no! Regulation! by Goaway · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Look how GOVERNMENT REGULATION is ruining things for the consumer again!

    1. Re:Oh no! Regulation! by CoolToe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Look how GOVERNMENT REGULATION is ruining things for the consumer again!

      That's why communism is ultimately the best way to go. Only with government regulation and government work program you can expect everything to go well for everyone.

      Sure, there are no rich people anyway, but more people (all people) get to enjoy good life.

    2. Re:Oh no! Regulation! by GoogleShill · · Score: 1

      As soon as they start complaining that they can't be competitive with that restriction in place, some lobby-paid jerk will remove it.

    3. Re:Oh no! Regulation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now that we have technology, an Communist policy of work until it is setup and let it run could be interesting. It might not work in the US or any big countries, but for smaller countries it might make more sense.

    4. Re:Oh no! Regulation! by swan5566 · · Score: 2

      Don't know if people older than 30 in Russia would agree with you.

      --
      In debates about Christianity, there are two groups: those looking for answers, and those looking to just ask questions.
    5. Re:Oh no! Regulation! by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Only with government regulation and government work program you can expect everything to go well for everyone.

      But... surely if we keep trying the Free Market over and over again it'll eventually work. History cannot repeat itself forever!

      --

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

    6. Re:Oh no! Regulation! by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, Lets go to the extremism. If some of it is good and a little bit more is better, then all of it must be best.

      The trick is to find the right balance that our culture can tolerate.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    7. Re:Oh no! Regulation! by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      Techno-socialism. The view that socialist economic structures can work when combined with modern information technology to allow more efficient management and more accountability of the government. Idealistic.

      Also the view that in the longer term it may be the only form of economic structure that can work, as traditional free-market capitalism is entirely dependant upon a labor market that may be almost entirely collapsed by the spread of very-low-cost automation of jobs.

    8. Re:Oh no! Regulation! by alexgieg · · Score: 2

      Look how GOVERNMENT REGULATION is ruining things for the consumer again!

      You've got it reversed. This is government trying to hack a fix to an earlier error: that of providing private parties monopolies over natural wireless frequencies. If that first government intervention hadn't happened, allowing instead the free market to develop technological solutions to the obvious fact that you'd have tons of people trying to use the same frequencies, then you wouldn't need such a hack. And neither the new hack down the line that will appear when this one proves problematic, and so on and so forth.

      Want an actual solution? Apply the Chodorov Principle of abolishing the actual source of the problem rather than trying to fix it over and over again.

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    9. Re:Oh no! Regulation! by darjen · · Score: 1

      Government regulation is the direct CAUSE of our telecom monopolies in the first place. That didn't work out so well, so they try to apply band-aid after band-aid. Talk about breaking your leg and giving you crutches. "See, without us you wouldn't be able to walk!"

    10. Re:Oh no! Regulation! by alexgieg · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's why communism is ultimately the best way to go. Only with government regulation and government work program you can expect everything to go well for everyone.

      So, comrade, here it says you want one of those new "computer" things. I notice, however, that you haven't filled forms 1A to 25B showing what the social benefits arising from your possession of said "computer" would be. Please follow through in filling them and return when you're ready. Afterwards, provided all forms are correctly filled, and our revision committee agree with the social benefits described in your project, we'll add your request to the queue. How long it is? Oh, we calculate a five year wait at most, provided, of course, you keep your production levels within the required parameters of social utility. Also, don't forget to regularly attend your local political meetings, as requirements might change and this way you'll get first hand notice of any new forms in need of filling, and otherwise you might miss the submission window and be in need to restart the request procedure all over again. Needless to say, that would cause you to lose your place in the queue. Ah, you're welcome, comrade! Have a nice day too! Next!

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    11. Re:Oh no! Regulation! by helix2301 · · Score: 1

      "The FCC a governing body appointed not elected answerable only to the president." George Carlin on the FCC

    12. Re:Oh no! Regulation! by icebraining · · Score: 2

      Have we ever actually tried it? Or Marxism, for that matter.

      Both free market supporters and Marx defended limited governments and distributed decision making, yet we somehow call our countries with huge, very powerful governments as if they represented implementations of those ideas. Makes no sense.

      Â

      The contradiction between the vocation and the good intentions of the administration on the one hand and the means and powers at its disposal on the other cannot be eliminated by the state, except by abolishing itself; for the state is based on this contradiction. It is based on the contradiction between public and private life, between universal and particular interests. For this reason, the state must confine itself to formal, negative activities, since the scope of its own power comes to an end at the very point where civil life and work begin. (...) The existence of the state is inseparable from the existence of slavery.

    13. Re:Oh no! Regulation! by zennyboy · · Score: 1

      Lacking mod points, but a great reply!

    14. Re:Oh no! Regulation! by gishzida · · Score: 2

      So what you are saying is that you approve of the idea that government regulation is interfering with corporate profits and you would like the wireless carriers to be able charge you multiple times for providing the same service based upon that carrier purchasing the right to use a publicly owned resource-- the wireless spectrum. Endorsing the idea that a corporation should be allowed to do whatever it wants is in effect saying you want a totalitarian corporate state...

      Then I take it that you would approve and be willing to use the electric power grid under the following rules:

      All electric power companies / utilities charging you extra for each item you connect to their power grid. One fee for your TV, another for your Refrigerator, one for your laptop, one for each wall wart and of course this would all be in addition to your monthly kilo-watt hours usage. and fuel consumption surcharges. and lets not forget about their putting a maximum cap on how many kW-H you can use [unless you pay an additional fee]. not to mention additional fees and charges if you use someone's power to charge or power your devices. Would you like to pay for your power that way?

      Communications carriers like Verizon are "public utilities" and should legally be treated as such. The only reason they are not is that they buy the appropriate legislation or legislators. American phone companies are ripping American consumers off... *legally* because we don't head their thievery off in Congress and in State Legislatures.

      In some ways it was better to have Ma Bell...

    15. Re:Oh no! Regulation! by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      You are aware that government regulation is what lets carriers "own" any part of the electromagnetic spectrum at all?

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    16. Re:Oh no! Regulation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Government regulation didn't just start up randomly for no reason. This is a fact that the noisier of the conservatives blatantly ignore when they get on their soapboxes about 'liberty'.

    17. Re:Oh no! Regulation! by Qzukk · · Score: 2

      Apply the Chodorov Principle of abolishing the actual source of the problem rather than trying to fix it over and over again.

      The problem with that post is that [nearly] every government program X was created in response to problem B. Kill X, problem A caused by X goes away, problem B comes back.

      In this case, how long will cellphones work before radio interference makes broadcast anything unusable?

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    18. Re:Oh no! Regulation! by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      Is that really the goal? As much as we can tolerate? How about as little as is needed to provide civilized society. Is that really not even a considerable option any more?

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    19. Re:Oh no! Regulation! by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      I don't get it. We try the free market for a while, then government decides to fix perceived inequalities and everything gets worse and worse. Free market FAILED again!!

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    20. Re:Oh no! Regulation! by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      When did we try the free market? I must have been out of the country that week.

    21. Re:Oh no! Regulation! by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      Would you like to pay for your power that way?

      Perhaps I would. Perhaps a lot of people would. Know why they can't?

    22. Re:Oh no! Regulation! by ArsonSmith · · Score: 2

      You're right how about: The government sets up the rules for how the free market will be, then government decides to fix the inequalities it created in the rules and everything gets worse and worse. Free market FAILED again!!

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    23. Re:Oh no! Regulation! by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      Yes government regulations are always terrible. We should relax them, like how they did with the banking industry a few years back. I mean, look how well all of that turned out...(for the banks)

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    24. Re:Oh no! Regulation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But at least the 30 people who were involved in filing the paperwork had a job, instead of the current system of offering one job for every 4 people and blaming the 3 unemployed workers for not getting jobs.

    25. Re:Oh no! Regulation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thanks for the link there

    26. Re:Oh no! Regulation! by ski9826 · · Score: 2

      Providing meaningless employment for people is NOT a solution. Where is the incentive to excel at what you do if others reap all the rewards from the fruits of your labors? There ARE jobs out there, the difference between people today and the people of let's say 50 years ago, is that the people of 50 years ago did not have the overabundance of social programs to fall back on in the event of a job loss or some other similar event. They had 2 options - 1: Go find a job (not necessarily the one you want, you may even feel you're "too good" for that job, but you take it) and provide for you and your family; or 2: Don't find a job (and starve).

    27. Re:Oh no! Regulation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You used a straw man argument to attack a straw man argument... That's just sad.

    28. Re:Oh no! Regulation! by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      Your formidophobia is showing.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    29. Re:Oh no! Regulation! by DavidTC · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No shit.

      I remember when cable companies used to charge you per TV. And people would illegally run splitters and cable and have to disconnect it before calling the cable company.

      And then, suddenly, bam, the cable company wasn't allowed to do that anymore, by law.

      The sky did not fall.

      And did the sky fall after jailbreaking was legalized?

      And remember when the phone company only allowed you to connect _their_ phones to the line?

      There is no reason that the programs or devices using a telephone's data connection should be the slightest concern of the telephone company, any more than it's their business what sort of headphones you have hooked up to it or anything.

      In fact, it's not actually their business what sort of phone you're using, or what the hell a 'phone' is. If I take my SIM out of my unlimited data phone and stick it in a cellular modem, that should be entirely fine. As long as my SIM is paid for and all the frequency and encoding stuff is correct, they should be required to provide me service. (And it's not actually their concern if the encoding is wrong...that's the FCC's problem.)

      Corporate America has demonstrated over and over that they will put infinite amounts of restrictions on the services they sell us, claiming all sorts of bullshit reasons that such things must exist...and then laws stop that, and nothing bad happens. Everyone lives happily ever after.

      We really need to that to happen with cell phones.

      In fact, an argument can be made that it should happen with data vs. voice. You should have to pay for 'tower bandwidth' usage, and then maybe some sort of microscopic 'megabyte transferred to the internet' or 'minutes of phone call onto the public phone network', but the majority of the cost for the phone company is 'talking to the tower' (Or, rather, maintaining enough tower for everyone who wants to talk to them to use.) and _that_ is what the majority of the cost should be for.

      And SMS are fucking free, you asshats. That is goddamn cellular overhead. You can't charge us for a variant of something that every single powered-on cell phone does every minute.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    30. Re:Oh no! Regulation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that the buying power of minimum wage fifty years ago was a lot more than the buying power of minimum wage today, right? Many people seem to not understand this. There's no way I could support myself (let alone with a family to care for) on a minimum wage job today. 50 years ago, it was possible. Not that it would be a comfortable existence, but you could do, all they while saving/school/making contacts/etc. Today that just doesn't cut it. If you don't believe me, try doing the math yourself. People, as a general rule, aren't as lazy as you make them out to be.

    31. Re:Oh no! Regulation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember when cable companies used to charge you per TV. And people would illegally run splitters and cable and have to disconnect it before calling the cable company.

      And then, suddenly, bam, the cable company wasn't allowed to do that anymore, by law.

      Comcast is starting to do this again. Their current move to all-digital service is actually a move to all-encrypted service that requires boxes to decrypt the signal (they call them DTAs). The first two are free. Guess what? Anything after that is NOT.

    32. Re:Oh no! Regulation! by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Yeah, cable companies have managed to basically undo that law.

      Luckily, cable companies are dying a slow painful death anyway.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    33. Re:Oh no! Regulation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh, you've never *actually* visited a communist country, have you? No, didn't think so...

    34. Re:Oh no! Regulation! by ski9826 · · Score: 1

      It's a downward spiral though - with the individual elements feeding off each other. The jobless people and illegal immigrants who are being provided for by the government (which is provided for by the people who work) with money which is therefore not available to be used for other programs. The money, if there is not enough, is then created by the federal reserve, further devaluing the American dollar, which makes it even less likely that minimum wage will be a suitable source of income. However, jobs like McDonalds for instance start employees at $10/hour, which surpasses the federal minimum wage by somewhere around 30%. I lived on minimum wage for many years, and with the help of scholarships and student loans, put myself through school and now make considerably more than what I was making before.

    35. Re:Oh no! Regulation! by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      You mean how they increased them? Requiring banks to give out loans to people that couldn't afford to pay them back? Then when that regulation failed the banks demanded that the government reimbursed them for the horrible government regulation that started it?

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    36. Re:Oh no! Regulation! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you have a firm grip on reality there. What colour is the sky in your world? Allowing banks to loan money to people that didn't qualify before is somehow increasing regulations on banking? I think you just made the OP's point for him.

    37. Re:Oh no! Regulation! by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      Yes, requiring a business to do something against there normal course by government regulation is, by definition, increasing regulations on banking. I'm guessing in your world the sky is not blue?

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
  3. It's stuff like this by rtkluttz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That prove that consumer protections in the electronics industry are badly needed. Enshrine the separation of hardware and software in all electronics, and enshrine that owners cannot be locked out of their own devices.

    Tethering is a built in function of all android devices that is artificially crippled because crap like this is allowed to go on. Yea yea yea, I know you can hack YOUR OWN DEVICE and put a different OS of your own choice on it. I already do that (cyanogenmod), but you shouldn't have to hack past security that locks you out of your own electronics.

    --
    Digital is, by definition, imperfect. Analog is the way to go.
    1. Re:It's stuff like this by englishknnigits · · Score: 1

      Or how about not have government enforced and propped up monopolies that prevent any substantive competition that would force carriers to offer these types of benefits to get an edge over their competitors? Yes, if we want to keep the monopolies/oligopolies we need more regulation but that isn't the only, or best, option.

    2. Re:It's stuff like this by ChiRaven · · Score: 1

      Enshrine the separation of hardware and software in all electronics,

      So no more Apple Macintoshes running a Mac OS? Or iPhones running the Apple iOS? That is just plain never going to happen.

    3. Re:It's stuff like this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > So no more Apple Macintoshes running a Mac OS? Or iPhones running the Apple iOS?

      Nobody said that. Basically, you'd no longer be able to assume that Apple Macintosh runs MacOS or iPhone runs Apple iOS because the owner of the hardware would be allowed to change it.

    4. Re:It's stuff like this by Solandri · · Score: 1

      Enshrine the separation of hardware and software in all electronics, and enshrine that owners cannot be locked out of their own devices.

      Actually, in this case, I think it's simpler than that. The owner of a pipe should not own what's transmitted over the pipe. This is true for electricity, gas, water, etc. It's slowly becoming true for cable TV and phone service. And it needs to become true cellular phone service. The cellular service providers should be prohibited from owning the towers. The companies which own the towers should contract out access to the service providers, and the service providers sell monthly plans to you and me. That way the tower owners compete directly based on the quality of their tower connections. And the service providers compete directly based on the cost-effectiveness of their plans. None of this stupid "I hate Verizon's plans, but they have the best coverage so I subscribe to them" BS.

  4. Other carriers by Dan+East · · Score: 1

    Does Verizon lease or share these frequencies with any other carriers? I know there are quite a few CDMA based carriers, and they do share a significant amount of towers.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
  5. Actually... by TheSpoom · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They still offer the built-in tethering on 4G devices for $20 / mo. I know this because I have one of these devices. You have to install a third party app from the market to get free tethering. Verizon is relying on consumer ignorance of the FCC decision to continue to grab revenue.

    --
    It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
    - E. Debs
    1. Re:Actually... by skarphace · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And those third party apps are severely limited(HTTP only, for instance). So don't expect to have any fun or do any real work with it without jumping through some hoops.

      --
      Bullish Machine Tzar
    2. Re:Actually... by AdmiralWeirdbeard · · Score: 2

      With PDAnet at least, the http only limitation is only for the free version of the app, not anything to do with the tethering functionality itself. drop $15 on the full versio of the app and have full functionality. I'm personally just fine with paying $15 to a dev then having free service, rather than nothing to the dev and $20 a month service.

      --
      Come read my stupid blagablog. Rants and Giggles
    3. Re:Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like cablecard.

      'Oh we'll do what the goverment told us to do and what we agreed to do.. but we're going to do it in such a shit annoying hard to use mostly broken way that almost nobody will use it! ha! take that consumers and goverment!'

    4. Re:Actually... by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

      Shill FUD!

      Maybe his third party app sucks that bad but Android ones work fine.

  6. Actually it is a problem by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You might think forced free tethering is awesome.

    Here's the actual effect it has had - everyone gets to pay more for data since everyone has to be able to tether. The new mandatory shared data plans are more expensive than older piecemeal plans. WHat about people that didn't want to pay for tethering? Too bad.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Actually it is a problem by CoolToe · · Score: 1

      You might think forced free tethering is awesome.

      Here's the actual effect it has had - everyone gets to pay more for data since everyone has to be able to tether. The new mandatory shared data plans are more expensive than older piecemeal plans. WHat about people that didn't want to pay for tethering? Too bad.

      Government regulation is like violence. If little doesn't help, use more of it. In this case you regulate upper limit to the data plans. Make the limits low.

    2. Re:Actually it is a problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You might think forced free tethering is awesome.

      Here's the actual effect it has had - everyone gets to pay more for data since everyone has to be able to tether. The new mandatory shared data plans are more expensive than older piecemeal plans. WHat about people that didn't want to pay for tethering? Too bad.

      You really, seriously think that wouldn't have happened anyway? Seriously. When "charge by the megabyte" is the de facto standard for ultimately no reason other than "it's more profitable than actually improving our networks and you'll pay it anyway, so pay up, bitches!", completely without any government interference, you've got a LOOOOONG way to go to convince me that ANY fee increase on the part of any cellular service is the fault of any government regulation.

    3. Re:Actually it is a problem by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Does the cell network care if the data comes from the phone itself, or from the phone on behalf of something connected via USB or WiFi? No. Tethering makes no difference to the cost of the data plan because it is transparent to the system, except possibly for the bandwidth used (which you'd be paying for anyways). Tethering is just a piece of software on the phone. If you're paying extra for tethering, you're getting ripped off.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    4. Re:Actually it is a problem by animaal · · Score: 1

      You might think forced free tethering is awesome.

      Here's the actual effect it has had - everyone gets to pay more for data since everyone has to be able to tether. The new mandatory shared data plans are more expensive than older piecemeal plans. WHat about people that didn't want to pay for tethering? Too bad.

      Or maybe this will happen instead...

      Users will be able to use the data they're paying for, regardless of what device is consuming it. People who don't use much data will opt for cheaper capped plans that only offer as much data as they need.

      Are you suggesting is that it's more expensive for my carrier if I consume 1MB of data on a tethered laptop than if I consume the same on a phone-based browser? Or that people who don't use all the data they're paying for should be subsidising those who do?

    5. Re:Actually it is a problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually no.

      Say you have 2 groups of people, those who don't want to tether and those who do. The provider will charge as much as they can get away with to both groups, charging extra for tethering. If tethering is free they cannot raise the price for those who don't want to tether as they will already be charging them as much as possible, if they were able to raise the price to those who will not tether they would already have done so. Or do you think they were going to charge people less than they are willing to pay?

    6. Re:Actually it is a problem by GoogleShill · · Score: 2

      And the deregulation of the telecom industry caused every cell provider to roll out their own infrastructure and not share technology standards (GSM, CDMA). This caused consumers to pay for redundant towers everywhere which is one of the reasons why most of Europe has faster and cheaper cell service than the US.

    7. Re:Actually it is a problem by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Datawise, no. Phone calls, though transmitted digitally, are kept seperate from data by the network. It's a QoS thing, and also the reason you may find calls still work even if a data connection cannot be established.

      That's how it works here in Europe, anyway. The US may be different.

    8. Re:Actually it is a problem by dgatwood · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, you might argue that the existence of a regulatory body like the FCC is part of the reason there are only a handful of nationwide U.S. carriers. That would be a somewhat specious argument (because in the absence of regulation, you'd probably also have a couple of jerks broadcasting broadband noise that makes the entire radio spectrum unusable), but many people make it anyway.

      The real problem is that building out cellular infrastructure is expensive, and having multiple redundant infrastructures is expensive. This makes competition hard, and makes monopolies or oligopolies the default steady state. Without government intervention, such a market tends to be inherently anti-consumer. So you have to have either regulations that force competition or regulations that limit what the major players can do.

      I could perhaps see a regulatory approach that limits the number of towers within a 30-mile radius to something on the order of one, and requires the carriers to sell off the remaining towers or spin them off into separate companies. That would result in a bunch of competing nationwide cellular networks that are forced to make roaming deals with one another in order to even function in cities. Combine this with rules that require interoperability (choose a single national standard) and rules that require RAND-ish tower access agreements, and you might actually get some real competition. Unfortunately, they'd probably choose a broken standard where handoffs between roaming and non-roaming cells isn't possible, and then you'd just make city-dwellers as cellularly miserable as folks out in the country....

      --

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

    9. Re:Actually it is a problem by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      The problem for the carrier is that laptops tend to consume a lot more data - more background processes constantly fetching, more windows open and so on.

      I'm not saying though it SHOULD cost extra. the companies should just charge for bandwidth. What I am saying is that the practical result of Verizon being forced to give everyone tethering is that they raised data rates to fold tethering costs in for everyone. If you really didn't use tethering before it was nice to get a cheaper data plan; now no such option exists.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    10. Re:Actually it is a problem by SecurityTheatre · · Score: 1

      Except those expensive plans were introduced BEFORE the tethering ruling came down....

      They wanted to charge you more AND charge you for tethering, obviously.

      No regulations had to force their hand, since the way they corner models of phones and geographical rollouts is borderline anti-competitive itself

    11. Re:Actually it is a problem by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      You really, seriously think that wouldn't have happened anyway?

      I'm not sure, but I sure can see the effect we have now. You are now paying more than you were on Verizon for data than before they were forced to offer tethering.

      To pretend that regulation has no effect on pricing plans is equally absurd.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    12. Re:Actually it is a problem by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      Actually yes.

      They will of course charge as much as they can.

      But the effect of regulation is that there is no lower "no tethering" price.

      The end result is less choice for the user, and more expensive data plans for everyone regardless of interest in tethering.

      Any way you look at it that's not an improvement for the user. It scores an important pedantic victory in that data is just data, which is at it should be. But you cannot claim it helps real users because it did not.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    13. Re:Actually it is a problem by lorenlal · · Score: 2

      The new pricing scheme was implemented in June. It wasn't until the end of July that the FCC dropped the tethering pricing ban on Verizon.

      If anything, this will just increase the data demands for Verizon, and they'll keep charging you more... Because that's what they do.

    14. Re:Actually it is a problem by ewieling · · Score: 1

      If Verizon did not want to "allow customers to freely use the devices and applications of their choosing.", then they should not have purchased spectrum ("C Block") which requires just that.

      --
      I really shouldn't have used someone else's email address for this account.
    15. Re:Actually it is a problem by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Do you believe that Verizon's prices are determined by their costs?

    16. Re:Actually it is a problem by gwjgwj · · Score: 1

      Typically, when you buy more of something, you get a discount. Why it works the other way around in this business?

    17. Re:Actually it is a problem by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      And just why can the company raise rates after tethering becomes manditory again?
      They're already charging all they can, by your own claims. How do they keep customers who don't want or simply can't afford the extra feature? Will these people just come up with more money from somewhere to pay for the extra feature they don't want? Then the company could have been charging them more for the features they wanted all along, because they will pay more now to get what is, for them, for the same set of features they wanted all along, so the company wasn't doing what you claimed. Your position seems to be based on them charging all they can (but not really), and only switching to charging all they can (and this time, we mean it) when they have to keep a promise they made to be given a monopoly on a limited commodity by the government.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    18. Re:Actually it is a problem by Solandri · · Score: 5, Informative

      This caused consumers to pay for redundant towers everywhere which is one of the reasons why most of Europe has faster and cheaper cell service than the US.

      Actually Europe had slower cell service because the EU mandated GSM. GSM is a TDMA technology. In TDMA, the phones basically take turns talking with the tower. The tower divides each 1/20th of a sec into timeslices. Each phone gets one timeslice per 1/20th sec, regardless of whether or not it has anything to say. If I'm talking with my mom and there's a 10 second pause while she looks for something, my GSM phone still takes up all its timeslice of the tower's time, wasting the bandwidth. Same if I was using a data connection to browse the web and paused to read the slashdot comments I just downloaded. The phone was still connected to the tower, so it still got its timeslice, wasting the bandwidth.

      But the U.S. decided to take a hands-off approach and let the technologies compete. Half the carriers went with GSM, the other half went with CDMA. And when data services started to become important, CDMA completely wiped the floor with GSM. CDMA is based on orthogonal codes, like one person writing on a chalkboard horizontally while another writes on it rotated 90 degrees. They're overwriting each other, but because the letters have enough distinguishing marks, you can read what both have written. The key here is that CDMA doesn't waste bandwidth. As you approach capacity, the noise floor (from codes overwriting each other) increases until the error correction can't cope. But if someone has an active voice or data connection, but isn't saying or transmitting anything, then there's no noise added, and no bandwidth used.

      This is why the CDMA carriers rolled out 3G data service more than a year sooner than GSM carriers. CDMA won. There was simply no way for GSM technology to compete as a data service because it wasted so much bandwidth. GSM was forced to take an extra year to design completely new (non-TDMA) data protocols, and add a second radio to GSM phones for data (since the GSM voice radio was TDMA-only). Many if not most of the data protocols were based on CDMA or wideband CDMA, they just disguised the fact by adding it to the GSM standard. So even if you have a GSM phone, there's a good chance you used CDMA for data prior to 4G. (Incidentally, this is why you could talk and use data at the same time on GSM networks. It wasn't because GSM was better. It was because it was worse, and they were forced to add a second radio to GSM phones just for data. CDMA uses the same radio for voice and 3G data. The limitation is gone with 4G, since LTE requires a different radio than GSM voice or CDMA voice. Unless you do a stupid design like the iPhone.)

      So you can thank the U.S.' free-market approach and the CDMA carriers for the high-speed cellular data network speeds you enjoy today. If the entire world had standardized on GSM, it would've taken years longer for data speeds to reach what they are today because there would've been no competing high-speed data service to shame GSM into improving. (LTE is based on orthogonal frequencies - similar concept to CDMA except the orthogonality is in the frequencies used by each device instead of the coded signals. It requires more CPU cycles to untangle the different signals, CPU cycles which consumed too much power previously, but which is now within reach of a mobile device which has to last a day on battery.)

      As for your number of towers argument, the TDMA for GSM voice (yes, voice transmissions still use TDMA in GSM) artificially limits the range of the tower. For the phone to communicate with the tower during its timeslice, its signals traveling at the speed of light have to reach the tower before the majority of its timeslice is over. This artificially limits the range of a GSM tower to about 20 miles. If you want to cover

    19. Re:Actually it is a problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are now paying more than you were on Verizon for data than before they were forced to offer tethering.

      Sure, in the same sense that a whining brat can hold their breath when their mother tells them they ought to breathe. Everyone else can see it's a temper tantrum, doing it just to "show them". In this case, the bandwidth to run Putty from my laptop is exactly the same as the bandwidth to run ConnectBot from my cell, but Verizon will SHOW YOU ALL! and charge everyone more because LEAVE ME ALONE!!1!

    20. Re:Actually it is a problem by ArsonSmith · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's always better to have a politician decided on a technology to use rather than trying out many to see which ones work best. Government is always best and finding the best answer because of the flawless scientific evaluation of every proposed regulation.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    21. Re:Actually it is a problem by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      nope, only by what the market will bear.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    22. Re:Actually it is a problem by djdanlib · · Score: 2

      Comments like this make reading Slashdot worth while. Thanks for such a good writeup.

    23. Re:Actually it is a problem by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Well, they can limit your data access to what your plan allows.

      Yes, plans can limit your data in ways you don't really even WANT to think about.

      Unless your carrier is a Tier 1 like Sprint, your smartphone isn't getting a raw network connection. After all, they sell "unlimited data" to featurephones for people to be able to post and browse Facebook and Twitter all day, unlimited data for Blackberries to send emails, but then give you 5GB on a smartphone, or 2GB on a laptop, and the price rising higher for each plan.

      They do this by traffic segregation - featurephone traffic is proxied - you're only getting "social networks" that are pre-approved for the plan. Blackberry data is shoved to RIM's datacenter. Smartphone traffic goes through NATs and transparent proxies and firewalls (depending on the carrier, this can limit you to just port 80 and 443 traffic), where images are resized and traffic often optimized for the "mobile experience". Of course, one side effect is that a resized image that looks good on a smartphone can look like garbage on a PC screen. Depending on the carrier, they may do HTTPS shenanigans involving a special certificate pre-installed to allow proxying through HTTPS as well.

      Laptop plans give you a less firewalled experience and usually no proxies or anything, with the uber plans offering VPN and a real live IP address.

      Of course, for tethering, the carriers would prefer you pay for the more expensive laptop plans (though it's obvious most people don't care for the various shenanigans carriers do to offer smartphone data cheaply and don't mind it happening on the laptop).

      Other than that, they'd be happy to allow laptops on smartphone plans - the faster you hit your cap, the faster they can bill those expensive overage charges on you (easily $10/MB+). But they'd rather prefer you pick a more expensive plan first ...

    24. Re:Actually it is a problem by swb · · Score: 1

      I sometimes wonder if there wouldn't be any advantage to an antitrust-type ruling that split the cell phone carriers into retailers (sell phones, sell plans/minutes/services to end-users) and wholesale network providers (put up towers and implement the network side) with heavy regulation coupled with a fixed 15% margin making the business profitable; fixed pricing guarantees would ensure a 10% margin for expansion and upgrades.

      The FCC in conjunction with experts would come up with a wireless standard and require the network providers to support this standard. They could support other standards if they wanted, but the FCC standard would be mandated as a first standard. This would guarantee that cell phone makers would support the FCC standard giving you guaranteed interoperability.

      Network providers would sell minutes & data in bulk to retailers at a fixed rate, maybe allowing for bulk pricing. Retailers would be allowed to mark this up any way they saw fit, but because they would all be buying from the same providers at the same prices they would be forced to compete on value (least services and most data/minutes for the money, extra services for less data, whatever combo people wanted).

      Entry to market would be much lower for a cell phone retailer since they would already have a network they could use, meaning we might get niche retailers who specialized in certain types of connectivity -- ie, one that sold quantities of rate-limited data only very cheaply, possibly enabling markets for new types of data devices (GPS trackers, dog trackers, kid trackers, cameras, etc) that would otherwise be non-starters now.

      Either way, we would get out from under this current situation which seems extremely economically inefficient -- many areas blanketed by 4 different signals requiring a ton of spectrum. The current duopoly doesn't do much of anything for competition, with carriers locking in customers on a technology basis (with the full cooperation of handset providers). It wouldn't surprise me at all if VZW and ATT keep Sprint and T-Mobile afloat with break-even-only roaming agreements designed to keep a false sense of competition to the market.

    25. Re:Actually it is a problem by Type44Q · · Score: 2

      ...you'd probably also have a couple of jerks broadcasting broadband noise that makes the entire radio spectrum unusable...

      Now is that any way to refer to the recording industry??

    26. Re:Actually it is a problem by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      hwere you say 2 devices should pay the same as 1?

      What two devices? Either the request came from the cellphone or it came from his laptop. Either way, http://slashdot.org/ takes the same amount of bandwidth to retrieve.

      If he requests it from both the laptop and the cellphone then he's used (and paid for) twice the bandwidth.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    27. Re:Actually it is a problem by msauve · · Score: 0

      "What two devices?"

      You're an idiot, if you can't count to two.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    28. Re:Actually it is a problem by mitcheli · · Score: 1

      You might think forced free tethering is awesome.

      Here's the actual effect it has had - everyone gets to pay more for data since everyone has to be able to tether. The new mandatory shared data plans are more expensive than older piecemeal plans. WHat about people that didn't want to pay for tethering? Too bad.

      Of course, that must be the answer, because no other media company on the planet has ever offered a data plan service that lets you download up to 250G in a month with line rates of around 30Mbps and the ability to use that at well over 10,000 different locations for a total of about $65 a month... http://www.att.com/shop/internet.html?tab=2 As the networks develop, the costs for the bandwidth and the "forced free tethering" become insignificant. And honestly, tethering doesn't cost anything. I can use Netflix on my trusty built in Android App and use FAR more bandwidth than that tethering app. Just sayin'.

      --
      Select from tblFriends where interesting >= 4;
    29. Re:Actually it is a problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Point well made.

      But GSM did have some advantages over CDMA - Native SMS - phones with better battery life due because they could use weaker transmitters, etc.

      But your right, CDMA is a superior solution for what the cell phone evolved into.

    30. Re:Actually it is a problem by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      That was a fantastic post and I wanted to thank you for taking the time to write that. I was going to mention that the U.S. actually had faster speeds now, but you really laid out exactly why...

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    31. Re:Actually it is a problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except, the data is actually free, and doesn't cost anything.

    32. Re:Actually it is a problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might think forced free tethering is awesome.

      Here's the actual effect it has had - everyone gets to pay more for data since everyone has to be able to tether. The new mandatory shared data plans are more expensive than older piecemeal plans. WHat about people that didn't want to pay for tethering? Too bad.

      Has had? Can you back that up? In my humble opinion this whole, "your just going to increase the prices the end user has to pay" argument is over used. There is a limit Verizon can charge before people move or drop the service altogether, it seems to ME that they are pushing right up against that limit, and this sort of regulation isn't going to give them any relief from those market pressures.

      If you didn't want to pay more, go somewhere else.

    33. Re:Actually it is a problem by camperdave · · Score: 1

      When tethered, both requests go through the phone to the cell network, so to the cell network there is only one device.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    34. Re:Actually it is a problem by cfulmer · · Score: 1

      That would be more convincing if the pricing hadn't been set BEFORE the FCC told them that tethering had to be free. Typically, effects happen AFTER their causes, not before.

    35. Re:Actually it is a problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On a per-cap basis, it's way more expensive for a single person who doesn't get the 2-for-1 popcorn and drink specials.

    36. Re:Actually it is a problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is "unlimited" plans. Carriers use this reasoning, "you might use more data," as an excuse to control the platform: veto apps, "approve" new OTA updates. They use the excuse even though the "unlimited" plans aren't actually unlimited.

      If you really like "the market" you will want a flat market for bytes of data, not separate markets for facetime data and tethering data, because markets work more efficiently that way, especially when there are already so few players and so much stickyness from "contracts" and from the single-carrier radios we have in the US that Europe didn't allow. OTOH, if you "believe" in markets instead of like them, you probably think they always produce the precise optimal outcome no matter how strained, and they let you have a certain opinion on every topic without thinking very hard, just generalizing from a fundamentalist mantra.

    37. Re:Actually it is a problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're telling a story that was true, for a few months, a decade ago, and ignoring the effect of spectrum auctions on deployment schedules, of device rules on market efficiency (like SIM cards and interoperable radios). Let me know when you catch up to cellular standards rolled out in the last decade.

      BTW what's your explanation for Sprint's abortive wimax rollout? How about all the trouble AT&T's had, running proprietary bogus-TDMA and GSM on the same band, then trying to acquire Cingular (all GSM), then trying to gradually switch GSM -> UMTS with so little spectrum they only had room for two UMTS channels (the data iPocalypse)? Does the Qualcomm radio patent-monopoly have a place in your story? It sure as fuck should.

      pre-4G Europe has gsm900, gsm1800, and umts2100. US has gsm850, cdma800, umts850, cdma1900, gsm1900, umts850, umts1700, umts2100, and most carriers are turning bands up and down all the time, buying them from each other, so you never know quite how much of a carrier's spectrum your device can use and can end up with "works, but shittily." How many USB pods do I need to cover those bands, even if you ignore the SPC locking and activation fuses that grew on cdma because they were not forced by regulators to use SIM cards?

    38. Re:Actually it is a problem by gcobb · · Score: 1

      Actually Europe had slower cell service because the EU mandated GSM.

      You are mixing up the air interface with the rest of the infrastructure. Yes, CDMA has won over TDMA for the radio interface. Absolutely no question about it -- mainly because of the move to data, which can really benefit from the flexibility CDMA offers.

      However, GSM has completely won for the infrastructure. The two big benefits of making the SIM card separate from the phone and standardising roaming across a large area (which ended up being the whole world) meant that GSM has completely dominated mobile infrastructure. The rest of the world even managed to have much higher mobile phone penetration and usage than the US in the 2G days, even though the US invented cellular networks (calling-party-pays helped as well, I will admit). The few remaining CDMA operators left in the world are losing subscribers and closing networks as they all move to 3GPP standards for 3G and beyond.

      The thing we should be worrying about is that LTE does not have standardisation of frequency bands -- that fragmentation will severely damage roaming, which is a massive part of the business case that pays for the investment in the mobile networks we use today. The new iPhone, for example, has had to select a set of frequencies to support which will make it very limited in which LTE networks it can run on.

    39. Re:Actually it is a problem by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      You're an idiot

      Very well, since you haven't got a clue how networks work, let's try a car analogy:

      If two people are riding in a car, why do you believe they should pay more per gallon for gas than one person driving by himself?

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    40. Re:Actually it is a problem by msauve · · Score: 1

      "you haven't got a clue how networks work"

      I'm not the one who thinks data travels in cars, or that putting more devices on a network doesn't use more bandwidth.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    41. Re:Actually it is a problem by GoogleShill · · Score: 1

      Actually Europe had slower cell service because the EU mandated GSM.

      Actually that is completely wrong, just look through the Akamai State of the Internet archives, or any other comparison online. When the fastest cellular bandwidth possible in the US was in the 256k range, many European cities had 1-2M. Things are changing now with LTE.

      I don't see you can say that CDMA "won". GSM ruled the bandwidth wars over CDMA until the advent of HSPA+ and LTE. Yes, it was faster for a few years in the US, while European GSM networks were still outpacing us. The rest of the world uses GSM, and for the most part has higher mobile data rates than the US.

      I do agree that GSM requires more towers for rural access, but that doesn't negate my argument about the consumer having to foot the bill to deploy numerous non-compatible technologies, it just means that standardizing on CDMA might have been cheaper in the long run.

    42. Re:Actually it is a problem by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      I'm not the one who thinks data travels in cars

      As opposed to tubes? It's called an analogy, something that someone whose strongest arguments are calling people idiots and declaring that things are so because they say so may want to learn about.

      The extra weight of a second person in the car causes it to burn more gas to travel the same distance. The driver currently pays more by buying more gasoline, which is analogous to wireless users buying more bandwidth. On top of buying more bandwidth to cover whatever "extra usage" you imagine, you are arguing that wireless users should pay extra for having a second device. Why should wireless users pay extra per unit bandwidth on top of buying more bandwidth and drivers not pay extra per unit gasoline on top of buying more gasoline?

      putting more devices on a network doesn't use more bandwidth.

      So you are claiming that reading slashdot from my laptop uses more bandwidth than reading slashdot on my phone? I assume this is so because you say so?

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  7. Thinking back by SuperKendall · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Sure, there are no rich people anyway, but more people (all people) get to enjoy good life.

    Yeah, I remember the bread lines in the old soviet union being the best of times. Why can't we all go back to that golden age?

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Thinking back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I remember the bread lines in the old soviet union being the best of times. Why can't we all go back to that golden age?

      From the sounds of the drivel coming out of Mitt Romney, you will.

      If there's only justice for the rich, there is no justice at all.

      And don't even get me started on "papers please" ... Amerika has become a pathetic joke.

    2. Re:Thinking back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is because the old Soviet Union was not a commnist state, they just like to think they were.

  8. It's not free. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since the court, in their infinite and activist wisdom, decided it's included merely because it used to be part of a public spectrum that Verizon is obligated to allow tethering. This is just another thinly veiled move to redistribute wealth. In the end all Verizon user will have to make up the difference; end users ALWAYS do. That's precisely why whining over details is an effort in futility.

    1. Re:It's not free. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's not just because it used to be part of public spectrum. It's because when Verizon bought it, they bought it under the terms that they would not restrict the type of data being sent/received on that spectrum in any way, regardless of the previous status of that spectrum being public or not. So, Verizon bought the spectrum knowing damn well that they were not allowed to restrict tethering on that spectrum according to the contract of that sale. If they didn't want to follow that, then they should have bought different spectrum that didn't have those terms.

    2. Re:It's not free. by rullywowr · · Score: 1

      It's not just because it used to be part of public spectrum. It's because when Verizon bought it, they bought it under the terms that they would not restrict the type of data being sent/received on that spectrum in any way, regardless of the previous status of that spectrum being public or not. So, Verizon bought the spectrum knowing damn well that they were not allowed to restrict tethering on that spectrum according to the contract of that sale. If they didn't want to follow that, then they should have bought different spectrum that didn't have those terms.

      Well they would have bought different spectrum if it was available however there is no better spectrum than the "Digital Dividend" of 698-806 MHz (even if other choices were available). This frequency range is akin to "beachfront property" because of its awesome wave propagation characteristics. You can send a (RF) signal the farthest distance with the least amount of output power (mW) in the 700 MHz. Since mobile telephones are restricted on how much output power they can emit, this frequency range is the sweet spot and hence wireless companies were eager to snap it up.

      Think about it, there had to be a GOOD reason the FCC decided to make all other wireless devices in that spectrum range illegal to operate and instantly obsolete (Wireless Microphones etc.) AND force all the terrestrial TV stations below 698 MHz...The reason was actually billions of reasons. Billions of pieces of paper with images of dead presidents on it paid to the FCC (who knows where it actually went to).

    3. Re:It's not free. by danlip · · Score: 1

      The wireless mics that operate in that range were not made illegal - the rule was discussed but never implemented. They do risk becoming useless because of interference, and no one sells mics in the US that use those frequencies anymore, but if you own them you can still use them.

    4. Re:It's not free. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      problem is, every constrained natural resource (spectrum, land space, air space, water) and by consequence built infrastructure (road, railways, phone cables, etc) should be rent and regulated by the government.

      then let the corporation figure out services and prices they want to provide, on a level playing ground.

    5. Re:It's not free. by rullywowr · · Score: 1

      The wireless mics that operate in that range were not made illegal - the rule was discussed but never implemented. They do risk becoming useless because of interference, and no one sells mics in the US that use those frequencies anymore, but if you own them you can still use them.

      You sir, are incorrect and spreading false information.

      Source: http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/wireless-microphones

      I work in the industry and it is indeed illegal to operate any microphones in the 700 MHz spectrum (698-806 MHz). Not only is the FCC (and Verizon etc) are concerned you are encroaching on their newly owned spectrum, there are public safety bands which could be disrupted by RF microphone use.

  9. 3G and 4G? by schwit1 · · Score: 1

    Or just the one spectrum.

    1. Re:3G and 4G? by steveg · · Score: 2

      Verizon does not charge separately for 3G and 4G. They don't really have a mechanism for treating them separately.

      If you use the tethering capaibility that comes with the OS, it will pop up a dialog that will sign you up for their tethering plan at $20 a month. It won't work if you don't sign up.

      However, there are free apps in the Market (excuse me, Google Play) that will allow free tethering. The one I installed just checks to make sure it has internet connectivity before firing up its hotspot. No evidence that it cares whether it's 3G or 4G.

      Previously those apps had been withdrawn from the Market at Verizon's request. Of course that was just a mistake, and the Verizon employee that made that request has been reprimanded, since of course Verizon would never have considered restricting them...

      --
      Ignorance killed the cat. Curiosity was framed.
  10. Definitely NOT FREE by calzones · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They don't offer free tethering because you have to pay for what you consume.

    That other companies have the temerity to charge you extra just for the privilege of tethering is a whole other problem. That would be like the water company charging you extra for the privilege of using water to wash with instead of just drinking it.

    The fact is, we pay for data plans, unlimited or metered. Either way, it should be ours to do as we wish with! The telcos should not be allowed (should not have any right) to impose on us any kinds of fees or limitations on what we have purchased from them. End of story.

    --
    Asking people to think is like asking them to buy you a new car
    1. Re:Definitely NOT FREE by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      This is one of those things that used to make sense from the carrier's POV.

      It used to be that browsers and software on mobile devices sucked(Sometimes they sucked because of hardware limitations), and often was easier on usage than tethered computers(Plus speeds just weren't that great to begin with). It's the difference between using the water from your tap to drink and using it to fill Olympic sized swimming pools.

      Now the simple reality is, smart phones can do what a computer can and way more. Carriers need to get with the times. Give us tethering for free.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    2. Re:Definitely NOT FREE by Gingernads · · Score: 1

      They don't offer free tethering because you have to pay for what you consume.

      That other companies have the temerity to charge you extra just for the privilege of tethering is a whole other problem. That would be like the water company charging you extra for the privilege of using water to wash with instead of just drinking it.

      The fact is, we pay for data plans, unlimited or metered. Either way, it should be ours to do as we wish with! The telcos should not be allowed (should not have any right) to impose on us any kinds of fees or limitations on what we have purchased from them. End of story.

      Tethering charges on mobile phones are equivalent to the water company charging you more for attaching a hose to your tap so you can water your garden. Gouging, pure and simple. To those who say "but people watch videos and stuff on their laptops but just check email on their phones", plenty of people watch video on their phones and many only use their laptops for email. Don't make sweeping assumptions about everyone. The logical outcome to this scenario is charging for data usage by app type. Tethering obscures that, so precludes any move to that sort of business model. I paid for a set amount of data, not any consumption velocity or data type restrictions. If I wanted to use my month's allowance in less than an hour by streaming some HD video, then that's my choice. The way it works right now, lots of mobile networks are under-provisioned, meaning that even if I want to spend more money on heavy data usage, they aren't in any position to sell it to me. Don't even get me started on their "unlimited*" (*limited) marketing bullshit. How long can these phone companies and ISPs keep going without providing what their customers actually want?

      --
      Your optimism strikes me like junkmail addressed to the dead.
    3. Re:Definitely NOT FREE by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      The water company does put these restrictions at times. Sometimes you can't water your lawn or wash your car with that same water that you pay for.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    4. Re:Definitely NOT FREE by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Uh, no. Water companies do not do restrictions like that.

      Governments do restrictions like that.

      How the hell would a water company even punish you for breaking the rules? They can't give you a fine, and they're required by law to provide service to everyone who pays their bills.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    5. Re:Definitely NOT FREE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The water company doesn't really care how you use water. The government of your municipality regulates your consumption of water. Just like as far as I can use as much electricity as I want, whether it is to grow pot, (a heavy electrical demand operation), or cool my house to 50F in August, (also a high demand load). As long as I pay the bill, and don't engage in theft of utilities, the utilities don't care how I use their service.

  11. This was cool until... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57485518-94/what-verizons-fcc-tethering-settlement-means-to-you-faq/

    Yes I know its Cnet, but it gives a good explanation of what is going on.

      What if I have an old Verizon unlimited data plan? Can I download an app and avoid the $20 tethering fee too?

    Unfortunately, the answer to this question is no. Verizon says that customers under the unlimited plan are required by the company's terms of service to pay an additional fee to tether their device.

    So you either keep the unlimited data plan and pay the fee or you switch the new plan and lose my unlimited data.

      Does this mean that Verizon will no longer charge for tethering?

    On June 28, Verizon introduced new wireless service plans that include tethering in the base price of the plan. So for new customers, they will not be charged extra to use their phone as a Wi-Fi hotspot.

    So again I am still being screwed,

    1. Re:This was cool until... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure what to make of this. I searched to see if I was free to tether, but got the same info as above.

      I don't have a unlimited plan, so I'm good there. However, I don't have the new plans that came out on June 28th, we got our phones around March.....

      So great slashdotters, am I screwed? Am I hanging in limbo?

    2. Re:This was cool until... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Should have bought a Palm Pre Plus when it was available. I have unlimited data plan for my phone, and a 5 GB cap for my tethering and no tethering fee as long as *knocks on wood* my phone works.

    3. Re:This was cool until... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Verizon is trying hard to make their old unlimited data plans go away. If you still have one, you will be forced to get rid of it the next time you upgrade your phone.

    4. Re:This was cool until... by nurbles · · Score: 1

      I, too, have a grandfathered unlimited plan and Verizon told me just a couple weeks ago that I still needed to pay to use tethering. I looked at some of the apps available, but they all seemed to require a rooted phone and I'm not comfortable with that yet.

      BUT then I discovered that my phone (Droid X) and tablet (Xoom) can share the internet using their bluetooth capabilities and Verizon doesn't seem to know or care. I know nothing about the speed/performance of bluetooth for network sharing, by the phone's 3G really isn't very fast anyway, so the tablet seems to work as well as the phone, to me.

    5. Re:This was cool until... by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      undoing moderation. You're definitely not offtopic :)

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
  12. Google Wallet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now everyone file FCC complaints that they are restricting google wallet from being installed.

  13. iOS? by patmandu · · Score: 1

    Not that they need to improve their standing, but Apple could score a LOT of points here by allowing a tethering app into the App Store so iOS users could use this feature also...

    1. Re:iOS? by SecurityTheatre · · Score: 1

      Tethering is built into iOS. Verizon pushes out a special configuration command to disable it.

      I'm certainly glad I don't live in the US anymore... This being just a small one of many reasons. :-)

    2. Re:iOS? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Score points with users, but seriously lose them with carriers. Apple needs to maintain a good relationship with both.

    3. Re:iOS? by Jesse_vd · · Score: 1

      Device-native tethering isn't good enough for you?

  14. no, they don't. by X0563511 · · Score: 1

    Whenever I try to activate tethering on my Verizon Droid X2, they want me to call corporate and buy it for some $20/month.

    --
    For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    1. Re:no, they don't. by yotto · · Score: 1

      Whenever I try to activate tethering on my Verizon Droid X2, they want me to call corporate and buy it for some $20/month.

      That's why you get a program like EasyTether or AZILink.

  15. Which is kind of funny by Overzeetop · · Score: 2

    Because the iPad has tethering built in and enabled by default, for no additional fee, on the Verizon network. It's the biggest reason I selected the VZ version over the ATT version (well, that at the VZ version can still use ATT 3G network, but not visa versa).

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:Which is kind of funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, every iPad is hotspotting by default? Did you see this on Faux News or something?

  16. I think things like this.... by firesyde424 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Are why prepaid carriers seem to be doing better. A few months ago when I went in for an upgrade, I found out that my old plan was no longer allowed on smart phones and we were going to need to add $30 a month per line to get our upgrade with a new contract. We decided to shop around and found Straight Talk. We did some math and discovered that we would come out ahead almost $700 over the course of two years, even with buying our own phones at retail.

    So we said bye bye Verizon and have been enjoying that extra $80 a month in our budget ever since.

    1. Re:I think things like this.... by macromorgan · · Score: 2

      Of course Straight Talk still is beholden to AT&T's limitations (you can't tether without an extra fee on AT&T = you can't tether on Straight Talk, you can't use FaceTime over 3G on AT&T without an extra fee = you can't use FaceTime over 3G on Straight Talk).

    2. Re:I think things like this.... by organgtool · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that the instant Straight Talk starts taking significant market share from AT&T, AT&T will raise the price of Straight Talk's contract significantly and Straight Talk will promptly pass that price hike on to their customers.

  17. Tethering is free in Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you have a data plan with at least 1GB/mo bandwidth, tethering is free with most carriers in Canada.

  18. We have half a user in Canada by kawabago · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    probably the bottom half since only an ass would use Windows.

  19. Nothing is free, Pal. by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    They're not offering free tethering. They're just charging EVERYONE for it, and every other carrier is perfectly happy to go along and match their price.

    There is no such thing as a free lunch.

  20. Works perfectly well for me by bogie · · Score: 2

    I use Foxfi and it couldn't be easier. Name the SSD you want to use, put in a password and Go. http, https, ftp, skype all work fine. I can do everything I would do when I am normally working. It's the same as being on any other WAP.

    --
    If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
    1. Re:Works perfectly well for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agree. FoxFi is very simple. I use it create a hotspot and now my Nexus 7 tablet and iPad have internet where ever I go. Drove from CO to IA and my wife was browsing the web, checking email, etc. on my iPad (which only has wifi). Used to use PDANet, but with FoxFi I don't have to tether with a USB cable.

  21. paying for tethering? right... by l3v1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I mean come on, it has to be the U.S where people actually acept that tethering is some extra special "service" and it's justifiable to ask extra money for "providing" it. If my carrier would ask money for that, I'd leave them on the spot. I changed carriers for less than that, and the world didn't collapse. For a long time I thought the U.S. was the paradise of Internet and mobile phones and unlimited data plans. But then I actually started to go there a lot and it was farly quick to realize most cell companies just take people for fools, take subscribers as granted, rip them off with a lot of stupid stuff, and just see them and an endless money source. And the most weird thing, lots of people are so used so used to this, that they don't even think about it much anymore.

    --
    I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
    1. Re:paying for tethering? right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's entirely stupid.

      But. It works. And it keeps working.

      There seems to be a sustainable critical mass of people with more money than sense now. You can keep any stupid greedy thing going these days.

      Instead of crap products and ideas dying off and vanishing.. They get to live forever in the usa.

  22. Works fine on my 4S by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tethering is not disabled on "Share Everything" plans.

  23. MWHAHAH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Finally the FCC slapping Verizon down like a little kid. Hopefully all other carriers also using part of the spectrum have similiar agreements? I don't know if they all had to sign the same type of contract agreement when they purchased their parts of the spectrum or if it was only part of Verizons deal? though verizon did get by far the largest part of that spectrum so....yeah. It's good to see them not backing down to huge carriers.

      They (The large carriers/telcoms) always seem to manage to convince our upstanding members of our gov....HAHAH, *snort* OUCH pop through the nose hurts. I'm sorry I can't manage to say it with a straight face, rolfma

    So yeah, they either bribe someone in a position of government able to get help them get what they want or they make a generous "donation" to another company or person that has someone in government by the short and curlies.. haha. Then magically whatever government agency or group that was watching them or complaining about some breach of their contract or regulations or whatever, all of a sudden back down, drop whatever issues they have and are like it was some mistake on their part and are no longer persuing ... y ada yada .... you get the picture.

    I'm frankly very suprised that the FCC actually stood up and did what it was supposed to, especially on how important something like this is. With what they were charging for tethering (ridiculous amounts really) , to all of a sudden be free.... verizon and any other carrier that has this type of clause to allow tethering is about to lose TONS of money (and even more potential money), especially with so many people with hotspot/tether capable phones and tablets.

        Perhaps they already foresaw this and is the reason they, all of a sudden, started trying to cut all users with unlimited data plans and putting them onto capped / tiered data plans that are worse than we had even with 3g in some cases.(maybe not that bad... but it's def not good). It certainly makes sense though, especially since it should be cheaper to send data over their 4g network than the same data over 3g.

    ahh well, I'm grandfathered into a unlimited data plan with the rest of my family and I know their little sneaky stunts they try and pull... like changing your plan against your consent if you change/upgrade phones. Now all of us know we have to pay the retail cost of the device which is soooo worth it for unlimited 4g and tethering your wifi only nexus 7 tablets and stuff to the phone =) MWHHAHAHAHAHA : perhaps it's not so valuable for users that only check their email and send a few texts but for us power users it's so awesome. I mean after you unlock and root you will never go back and downloading new rom builds and kernels can really adds up on the data counter, which I have no idea what it says since I don't care =p

  24. That is where markets come in by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

    Here's the actual effect it has had - everyone gets to pay more for data since everyone has to be able to tether. The new mandatory shared data plans are more expensive than older piecemeal plans. WHat about people that didn't want to pay for tethering? Too bad.

    This is where markets come in to play. Rather than increase regulation, I propose simplification: make free tethering mandatory for all carriers. Then the carriers can actually compete on price.

    Of course, a healthy, competitive market would require another demonic government intervention: breaking up the cell monopolies. Heaven forbid...

    --
    Palm trees and 8
  25. What we all seem to forget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Neither AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon nor any other cellular service company is really in existence to provide service. They're there to make money. So of course they charge more for each gigabyte plus an extra surcharge for tethering. You can't make more money unless you charge more money.