Sprint Plans Banning Tethering in 2010

[andy22]

We have a battlefront here between freedom of information and the pursuit of profiting from that information exchange. Twitter is going through this now trying to figure out to profit from all the info that is going through their system. Search companies want the real time output but twitter is holding fast most of the time. If they act solely as a go through step in the data flow then they will not have much leverage to sell advertising. Problem is their model is becoming outdated and the users are taking that data and running it through their own platforms.

The phone companies have a duty to provide bandwidth to their phone users first before anything else. The issue is they sell pure tethering devices in the form of usb modems. That data goes through the same network. The cost is extravagant for the actual speeds you can achieve most of the time. If sprint really wants to capture market share they should focus on increasing bandwidth and optimizing that capacity to serve it's users in a prioritized fashion. Or they can just be assholes and waste their time trying to limit their users. We will always find a way around their roadblocks, ALWAYS. That is part off Sprint's problem, they are always fighting the customer's wants and needs in services and especially in devices. They forget they are just a network, they do not make their own devices yet they feel they need to "mature" all devices with their stupid apps and features. If they just let us use our damn phones we could take care of most issues ourselves instead of waiting for an approved update. Who do they think they are kidding with all these controls? I have had a touch pro and before that a mogul and before that the 6700. All have run aftermarket OS' like WM6.5 for the last half a year. Works great, better then what the phone came with but Sprint knows best. Give us the phone and maintain your damn network is all we ask. Run it like this, here are all the phones that work on our network, CDMA, here is your subsidy have a good time. Google should just buy sprint.

 

[natrixgli]

it is highly unlikely that Sprint can tell that the data calls originated from your laptop tethered to your phone.

That's not true at all. In order for this to work, the phone has to provide DHCP. And I manage enough systems to know that I could easily determine if one of them had a DHCP server enabled.

Besides, since the first thing one does when they figure out how to tether is go announce it on web forums, there are other ways Sprint can find out what unauthorized activities are being carried out on their devices, and push updates that rectify these violations.

-n8

 

[Edaze55]

The real reason that Sprint is putting a stop to tethering is they want you to run out and buy an aircard. It doesnt stop at just buying an aircard though. They want to subsidize the aircard for you, locking you into yet another two year contract at $60 a month for 5g of data. Unless of course you happen to live in a 4G area. Then, you get to option to pay even more for unlimited 4G while you retain the 5gig cap over 3G. I have doubts about how long the unlimited 4G will last after WiMax is rolled out.

If Sprint were smart, rather than ban, block, or deny tethering, they would offer it up as a service. At $30-50 a month it would be, in my mind, reasonable for the same 5G caps that you would get with their aircards. I think it should be less because it wont ever be dedicated like the cards/usb dongles are.

I have no idea why this is such an issue with them. If they already have that type of traffic running over their network, then why is it such a big deal to prevent it via tethering? By not giving people the option to tether, they drive a certain group of people in the direction they are trying to stop.

And Romeo, the Comcast/P2P I mentioned wasnt about traffic shaping or net neutrality laws, but rather to show that we wouldnt allow for Comcast to remove software from our PCs, why would we allow phone cos. to do it with cell phones. Net neutrality laws are a whole nother monster that require a whole different post.

 

[andy22]

We already have unlimited/limited data as part of our plan for the phone. Charging 30-50 for that service in addition to what we already pay for the same thing is double billing. I would say adding 10 bucks to the overall bill for tethering would be in line with their other add on services. 10 for 5gb and 15 for unlimited. You are right the people who tether are not doing so non stop, they would buy an aircard most likely for that kind of use. Tethering is just too problematic to depend on for your sole source of connectivity. There should be tiers for data usage like with power bills or water bills. Then the more you use the more you pay but it is fair and not hundreds of dollars a month. I don't like it myself but maybe if they actually register the MAC address or something similar for each and every device. So no matter where you connect it would be linked back to your specific device that is registered. Then there can be a mode for wireless LAN's to share unused bandwidth without the fear of people dl'ing CP like crazy from your street without your knowledge. That would bring some real comp for mobile data carriers. Hell private citizens could join up as a co-op and sell their bandwidth to whomever passes near enough. The end user can pay to a national organization and access these routers that are near them. We could all just use google voice and pay nothing to make calls in exchange for on screen ads. It is just time that the old way of doing business gets out of the way of progress and the new revenue streams.

 

[elguapo76]

I think there are some misconceptions here. First Sprint does not currently cap data at 5gb. Yes their air cards do get throttled if you go over 5gb and I'm sure they start throttling and keeping an eye on you if you go over 5gb consistently on your phone. Eventually they will probably drop you with either. What I am talking about is a hard cap that you can't go over without paying additional. Particularly with 4g sprint is going to be offering much higher data speeds so their network better be up to the challenge to serve up more data irregardless. I don't want or need unlimited internet with my phone. What I do need is a reasonable amount that I can use whatever way I want to for a fair price. $5 per gigabyte is VERY reasonable with 4g because the pipe is bigger. Whether I use it with my phone, laptop, Ipod shouldn't matter. Now if some dope wants to pay $5 per gigabyte to download a torrent or stream a movie, that's all well and good because Sprint is getting paid and turning a profit. Those profits will hopefully equate to a more powerful and capable network. As the pipe gets bigger there will be higher caps and or cheaper prices, as well a more capabilities.

Where it is in Sprint's advantage to allow tethering/cell Mifi is that I believe that wireless internet is the future. If Sprint can establish a sizeable costumer base before others they have a very good chance to be in a dominant position in the future. Personally I'm hoping Google buys Sprint because you can bet they will find a way to distribute cheap wireless data without too many restrictions. Not only that but we would have some pretty sick phones!!!

 

[Edaze55]

We already have unlimited/limited data as part of our plan for the phone. Charging 30-50 for that service in addition to what we already pay for the same thing is double billing. I would say adding 10 bucks to the overall bill for tethering would be in line with their other add on services. 10 for 5gb and 15 for unlimited.

You're right, we do have unlimited data on our plans... for our cell phones. The ability to tether is a feature of cell phones, and often times we pay additional fees to enable features. Call it a convience fee if you need to. Which for the record I would not have a problem with paying, if it was offered at a reasonable rate for both the carrier and the consumer. I think $5-20 would be a little on the low side for that service but I also think anything over 50 is too high. I dont, however know what is, and is not profitable for Sprint.

I think there are some misconceptions here. First Sprint does not currently cap data at 5gb. Yes their air cards do get throttled if you go over 5gb and I'm sure they start throttling and keeping an eye on you if you go over 5gb consistently on your phone. Eventually they will probably drop you with either. What I am talking about is a hard cap that you can't go over without paying additional.

But they do actually have a cap of 5g before they start charging you. I have heard/read about people being grandfathered into true unlimited data plans on their MBCs, but Im not talking about them. Im talking about if you were to add the plan today.

Sprint - Review Your Package - Mobile Broadband Card Office Package

Additional monthly usage over 5 GB costs 5

 

[shadrap]

Sprint can say what they want, but they will never be able to stop tethering. Even if they find out you are tethering they have no recourse except to charge you if you go over the 5gb. This is based on an FCC ruling, they can' t even cancel your account.

 

[romeosidvicious]

I think there are some misconceptions here. First Sprint does not currently cap data at 5gb.

Call your Sprint rep and ask. Your unlimited plan has a 5GB PAM (Phone As Modem) cap. This was a new deal right after I got my mogul and a valid reason to end your contract early with no fees. All unlimited data plans for phones have a 5GB PAM cap with Sprint. It is unlimited to your phone but when using it as a modem you have a cap. This is why tethering, like WmWiFi router did for WinMo, is an issue, once you tether in a manner that the data looks like it came from the phone then you are back to unlimited data and capped at 5GB.

That's not true at all. In order for this to work, the phone has to provide DHCP. And I manage enough systems to know that I could easily determine if one of them had a DHCP server enabled.

Besides, since the first thing one does when they figure out how to tether is go announce it on web forums, there are other ways Sprint can find out what unauthorized activities are being carried out on their devices, and push updates that rectify these violations.

-n8

If you can tell, remotely, that DHCP is being offered on a network you don't control then you are better than anyone I know. If I offer DHCP over the 802.11g connection on my phone and do not offer it over the EVDO network (which would break my ability to connect anyway) then there is no way for Sprint to know I am offering DHCP without them installing software to tell them I am doing so and should they do that it could be disabled or hacked to report I wasn't even if I were. Furthermore all Sprint could do is look for known dhcpd processes or have a process ask for a fake IP and see if the phone responded. Both of these would be defeated easily. In the first case you restrict what MAC addresses the dhcpd process responds to and in the second you change the name of the daemon to something that Sprint expects to be running on the phone to begin with.

Once the phone is rooted then there is really nothing Sprint can do about tethering except pursue DMCA violations as any phone home software could be easily disabled along with turning off any automatic updates. Since rooting your phone voids the warranty to begin with I don't think anyone that goes that route would be worried about updates. In fact if the updates were "required" by Sprint in some manner for the phone to continue to function it would be a matter of days before the new "required" update was rooted as well. XDA is almost as fast as the iPhone rooters in general. And once Sprint no longer controls the image they have no way to tell if a data call originated from the phone or from an authorized PAM function.

Oh Im well aware of what a EULA is, but thanks for trying to make it seem like I didnt.

And while you didnt say they would be removing apps or files, remote app removal has already been put into the Palm OS. So it would not be a huge stretch to try and extend that to other OSs.

webOS 1.2 Brings LED Notifications, Remote App Removal

If this sort of thing sits well with you, good for ya, but its not something that I would stand for.

Your Android phone came with the Kill Switch already in place:

Android Market Business and Program Policies

Product Removals: From time to time, Google may discover a Product on the Market that violates the Android Market Developer Distribution Agreement or other legal agreements, laws, regulations or policies. In such an instance, Google retains the right to remotely remove those applications from your Device at its sole discretion. If that occurs Google will make reasonable efforts to recover the purchase price of the Product, if any, from the originating Developer on your behalf. If Google is unable to recover the full amount of the purchase price, it will divide any recovered amounts between the affected users on a pro rata basis.

And they will only refund your money if they can get it back from the original dev for the program.

And Romeo, the Comcast/P2P I mentioned wasnt about traffic shaping or net neutrality laws, but rather to show that we wouldnt allow for Comcast to remove software from our PCs, why would we allow phone cos. to do it with cell phones. Net neutrality laws are a whole nother monster that require a whole different post.

I wasn't referring to your mention (damn me for not using quote) but rather to this post: Android Forums - View Profile: shadrap . You are right in your post. Comcast can't do a damn thing about anything I have installed on my boxen. Hell I'd like them to try and figure out what I have installed on encrypted home directories under Linux. It would amuse me . Sorry I wasn't clear about what I was referring to. You're also right about net neutrality being a whole other monster and likely a whole other forum on here as well...

 

[Edaze55]

I was competely unaware of just such a kill switch in Android.

I like the way they make it sound like they would only remove such apps if they were downloaded from Market, but it does make you wonder just how far they would take it.

Thanks for pointing that out Romeo

 

[romeosidvicious]

I was competely unaware of just such a kill switch in Android.

I like the way they make it sound like they would only remove such apps if they were downloaded from Market, but it does make you wonder just how far they would take it.

Thanks for pointing that out Romeo

Well that is from the TOS for Android Market so it covers all devices on all carriers. They, meaning Google and/or Sprint in our case, really have no way to control what we have on our devices outside of the Market. I don't like the Kill Switch option and I even trust Google more than Apple but that doesn't lessen the bitter taste it leaves. Currently no-one has found any phone home applications that report anything to Google aside from the data you chose to sync and none that call Sprint but the CDMA Hero hasn't been rooted so we don't know for certain that none exist. Something like that would have to exist for them to kill apps that you install from one of the non-Google/non-Market sources and even then it wouldn't be hard to work around. As it stands I am fairly certain they can't kill apps you didn't get from the Market and you can believe that if it comes out that they can it will make headlines in many places outside of the Android circle very quickly.

All that said I understand the reasoning behind the kill switches. It protects the respective stores/markets from liability for bad applications and gives the carriers a way to feel safe however I think it should be an opt-out situation. I would prefer opt-in but if I am honest the average user, the kind that would sue over a bad app, wouldn't opt-in to begin with. But people who understand the risks ought to be able to turn off the kill switch. Right now there isn't a way to do that.

 

[Edaze55]

All that said I understand the reasoning behind the kill switches. It protects the respective stores/markets from liability for bad applications and gives the carriers a way to feel safe however I think it should be an opt-out situation. I would prefer opt-in but if I am honest the average user, the kind that would sue over a bad app, wouldn't opt-in to begin with. But people who understand the risks ought to be able to turn off the kill switch. Right now there isn't a way to do that.

I understand the need as well. I dont like it, but I understand it. I also agree that it would be nice to have a choice in the matter.

 

[punkzanyj]

The both of you are assuming that we signed away the right to legally allow a phone company the right to remove software from a device that they dont own or operate when we got our contract. So please, would one of you two kindly find that gem, if it exists, and present that to the rest of the class?

Did you actually read my post, either the original or when it was quoted?

I said:
"UNLESS you've already signed away that right in the user agreement. Odds are, that was in the fine print, and since you agreed to it, it's not trespassing."

Notice that first word?

here it is again:

"UNLESS"

See, it was even in all caps so it would be harder to miss.

So, no, I didn't assume anything. I presented a hypothetical, hence the word "UNLESS". It's really rather simple, you posited that it would be trespassing, I introduced the possibility that you might've signed that right away. I'm not a sprint customer, so I wouldn't know.

 

[Edaze55]

Did you actually read my post, either the original or when it was quoted?

I said:
"UNLESS you've already signed away that right in the user agreement. Odds are, that was in the fine print, and since you agreed to it, it's not trespassing."

Notice that first word?

here it is again:

"UNLESS"

See, it was even in all caps so it would be harder to miss.

So, no, I didn't assume anything. I presented a hypothetical, hence the word "UNLESS". It's really rather simple, you posited that it would be trespassing, I introduced the possibility that you might've signed that right away. I'm not a sprint customer, so I wouldn't know.

Of course I read your post. Yes, the UNLESS does seem like a disclaimer of fact, but I did say you assumed. So let me point out to where, exactly, that was derived from.

"UNLESS you've already signed away that right in the user agreement. Odds are, that was in the fine print, and since you agreed to it, it's not trespassing."

Sorry, but odd are, is the assumtion that you believe we already signed that away. NEXT!