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."

Comments

Not just Android devices

[CoolToe]

Tethering has worked from day one on Windows Phone devices.

Re:Not just Android devices

[gman003]

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

Re:Not just Android devices

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Not just Android devices

[morcego]

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.

Re:Not just Android devices

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Not just Android devices

[Immerman]

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.

Re:Not just Android devices

[Defenestrar]

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

Re:Not just Android devices

[hazem]

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.

Re:Not just Android devices

[jeffmeden]

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.

Re:Not just Android devices

[CanHasDIY]

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.

Re:Not just Android devices

[gman003]

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

Re:Not just Android devices

[djdanlib]

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

Oh no! Regulation!

[Goaway]

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

Re:Oh no! Regulation!

[CoolToe]

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.

Re:Oh no! Regulation!

[swan5566]

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

Re:Oh no! Regulation!

[jellomizer]

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.

Re:Oh no! Regulation!

[SuricouRaven]

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.

Re:Oh no! Regulation!

[alexgieg]

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.

Re:Oh no! Regulation!

[alexgieg]

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!

Re:Oh no! Regulation!

[icebraining]

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.

Re:Oh no! Regulation!

[gishzida]

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...

Re:Oh no! Regulation!

[MightyYar]

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

Re:Oh no! Regulation!

[Qzukk]

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?

Re:Oh no! Regulation!

[ArsonSmith]

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!!

Re:Oh no! Regulation!

[ski9826]

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).

Re:Oh no! Regulation!

[DavidTC]

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.

It's stuff like this

[rtkluttz]

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.

Actually...

[TheSpoom]

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.

Re:Actually...

[skarphace]

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.

Re:Actually...

[AdmiralWeirdbeard]

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.

Actually it is a problem

[SuperKendall]

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.

Re:Actually it is a problem

[GoogleShill]

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.

Re:Actually it is a problem

[dgatwood]

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....

Re:Actually it is a problem

[lorenlal]

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.

Re:Actually it is a problem

[Solandri]

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

Re:Actually it is a problem

[ArsonSmith]

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.

Re:Actually it is a problem

[djdanlib]

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

Re:Actually it is a problem

[Type44Q]

...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??

Definitely NOT FREE

[calzones]

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.

Re:It's not free.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

This was cool until...

[Anonymous Coward]

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,

Which is kind of funny

[Overzeetop]

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).

Re:3G and 4G?

[steveg]

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...

I think things like this....

[firesyde424]

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.

Re:I think things like this....

[macromorgan]

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).

Works perfectly well for me

[bogie]

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.

paying for tethering? right...

[l3v1]

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.