01-07-12 01:23 AM
176 ... 45678
tools
  1. southlander's Avatar
    As much as I dislike some of ATT's practices especially with this whole bridge fiasco, I used to wonder why they would charge for something like tethering now that they have gotten away from the unlimited plans, but I realized that its because 2GB of data isnt just 2GB of data because when you tether (not including bridge thats a little different) it allows you to consume much higher bandwidth at that specific time which puts a bigger strain on the network which makes it so they have to have more towers/servers to handle the load.

    Now having said that, to me bridge is different because you arent just using your phones connection, you are actually using your phones browser its more so akin to if you have your blackberry hooked up to a touch screen monitor, so the bandwidth usage is going to be more in line with what your phone can "normally" so it isnt putting any different kind of strain on the network.
    Yep. What everyone who says it's "tethering" is missing is *it is NOT as good as tethering*. To some degree the PlayBook is hobbled by the browser resources that are on the phone.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    07-01-11 10:52 PM
  2. kevinnugent's Avatar
    It's NOT tethering. Your phone is sucking the data from the internets. The Playbook is just displaying what the phone has done. Tne link between the phone and PB is just a local bluetooth connection. AT&T *are* ripping you off to pay for this. You have already paid them for the phone data.
    07-01-11 11:01 PM
  3. southlander's Avatar
    Anyone from another carrier worried that Verizon/T-Mobile/Sprint might follow suit and start "charging" for bridge.
    Sort of. But to be honest I can live without the bridge if VZW does this. It's just not that consistently great for me. A lot better than before the last patches. I do not use it a lot though.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    07-01-11 11:15 PM
  4. blackjack93117's Avatar
    ok bridging without browsing makes this whole thing useless if I have to find a wifi to browse ... or pay up the *** * for two data plans....I am more than teed off now.

    I'm waiting to see who has the best thing going with BOLD touch then I am jumping ship.
    .
    Last edited by blackjack93117; 07-01-11 at 11:26 PM.
    07-01-11 11:24 PM
  5. cjalxndr's Avatar
    sooo let me get this right.... if i have the unlimited data for 30 bucks a month, i will be downgraded to the 2 gig 25 dollar plan? and then be charged another 20 bucks for "tethering"? :-( i dont mind paying for tethering since i had an ipad 3g before so am used to paying, but i dont want to lose my unlimited data
    07-02-11 01:24 AM
  6. mmcpher's Avatar
    I have the distinct impression that ATT has not figured this out. This initial, limited bridging seems like an interim, partial resolution of the issue. Maybe by the time they ready to release their branded cellular Playbooks, everyone will have a clearer idea of the data demands of Blackberry phone and Playbook users. If that data usage is significantly higher than before, it makes sense for a re-calculation of pricing. I tend to dismiss posts that argue that ATT is a gouging, cash-sucking vampire while the rest of the carriers forego similar revenue out of altruism. They are all watching and angling how to make this work. Big picture, they are collectively taking on data customers who previously drew data through their hard wired T1 lines, etc. If the Playbook takes off, this will take care of itself over time as ultimately ATT has to compete. Right now they don't seem to know what they are doing. They insist on tether fees for Bridge Browsing, but their belated approval of the rest of the Bridge is some progress. As it stands, even if you buy and activate a hotspot mifi and pay an additional data fee, as well as your phone fees, they still want to charge you for the tether when the mifi isn't active.
    07-02-11 01:42 AM
  7. minnick's Avatar
    go buy a car. youll pay taxes on it. every year after that you'll pay taxes on it. thats paying multiple times for the same thing

    most states include a highway tax in the yearly registration fee, yet, for some highways you have to pay a toll. thats paying for the same thing twice.

    when you get an insurance policy, youre paying the company to insure your risk you pay them so if you get in an accident, theyll pay for the damages for you. yet, when you get in an accident, not only do you pay a deductible, your rates go up. thats paying for the same thing twice at least
    I'm sorry offthahorse but this comparison is completely off. First of all urtalking about the US gvmt. They're the only ones here that can change the rules of the game after its already started and legally pull that crap off. And ur talking about taxes, completely diff.

    Also, they don't tax u twice for the same purpose (plz noone be stupid and try and mention corporate double taxation) explicitly. That would be like paying income taxes twice on the same income. NO u don't do that, I know someones gonna try n say they do in a "sneaky" way through different taxes. Again, different story.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    07-02-11 04:32 AM
  8. ugahairydawgs's Avatar
    It's NOT tethering. Your phone is sucking the data from the internets. The Playbook is just displaying what the phone has done. Tne link between the phone and PB is just a local bluetooth connection. AT&T *are* ripping you off to pay for this. You have already paid them for the phone data.
    Isn't that pretty much the textbook definition of tethering?
    07-02-11 07:34 AM
  9. kb5zht's Avatar
    go buy a car. youll pay taxes on it. every year after that you'll pay taxes on it. thats paying multiple times for the same thing

    most states include a highway tax in the yearly registration fee, yet, for some highways you have to pay a toll. thats paying for the same thing twice.

    when you get an insurance policy, youre paying the company to insure your risk you pay them so if you get in an accident, theyll pay for the damages for you. yet, when you get in an accident, not only do you pay a deductible, your rates go up. thats paying for the same thing twice at least
    yea and thats taxes, not paying for a product.

    apples and oranges but good try.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    07-02-11 07:42 AM
  10. dfaris's Avatar
    Isn't that pretty much the textbook definition of tethering?

    No that is not tethering
    07-02-11 08:36 AM
  11. lnichols's Avatar
    Hate to break it to ya, but sprint is CDMA. Also, having both att and verizon, I can honestly say without LTE, in a populated area, you will get about the same service. That and cdma chipsets not being able to play two tones at once is annoying.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    I know that Sprint is CDMA, which is why I'm going to leave, they've been running the same network for over 10 years and Wimax is a joke. I need a world phone. They are nickle and diming me and if I upgrade the four phones on my family plan they'll charge me $40 more dollars per month. I'm praying AT&T doesn't get there hands on T-Mobile because they just plain suck and making people pay for Bridge browser which is just reading data from phone is crap.
    07-02-11 08:39 AM
  12. TBone4eva's Avatar
    It's NOT tethering. Your phone is sucking the data from the internets. The Playbook is just displaying what the phone has done. Tne link between the phone and PB is just a local bluetooth connection. AT&T *are* ripping you off to pay for this. You have already paid them for the phone data.
    If what the bridge browser displayed was an exact mirror of what you would see with the phone's browser then you would be right, but that is not the case. What you have is a version of the PB's native browser pulling data from the phone. The phone is acting like a modem, the only difference is that with the Bridge Browser, it is using the BIS/BES connection instead of the DUN. It is tethering in every sense of the way it has been described by carriers. Every other part of bridge, what you do on the PB is mirriored on the BB. However, with the bridge browser, I can surf on my PB and independently surf on my BB, even at the same time, if I was ok with the performance hit. The only way for RIM to resolve it with AT&T would be to make it trully mirror your phone such that if I opened the browser on my phone, the same page I have open on the Bridge Browser would appear.
    07-02-11 08:54 AM
  13. jthep's Avatar
    When you Bridge browse on the Playbook, the browser is far better than any BB since it can display the real websites and not the mobile ones. It also plays flash sites. So its not as simply as its just ''mirroring'' whats going on on your BB.

    I have noticed Youtube is buggy on the Bridge Browser, never really understood why? Initially I thought it was bc there was an app too that could not be accessed over bridge, but Facebook works without a hitch running the real site and that has a separate app?

    I will use the great workaround from this site and stick it to ATT for now. When my contract is up, I want to leave ATT for these shady business practices. I wonder though if there will be workarounds for future BB phones on ATT to bridge browser for free?
    07-02-11 09:02 AM
  14. kbz1960's Avatar
    Why do Canadian carriers offer free tethering with data plans over 1gb I think? They aren't as greedy perhaps?

    I still think everyone that like to defend the carriers are afraid if it's not an extra charge that they won't profit as much from their stock.

    Do you also defend gas prices and think they are fine and oil companies are in if for a profit or don't you own any oil stock?
    Last edited by kbz1960; 07-02-11 at 09:09 AM. Reason: stock
    07-02-11 09:05 AM
  15. SlcCorrado's Avatar
    I know that Sprint is CDMA, which is why I'm going to leave, they've been running the same network for over 10 years and Wimax is a joke. I need a world phone. They are nickle and diming me and if I upgrade the four phones on my family plan they'll charge me $40 more dollars per month. I'm praying AT&T doesn't get there hands on T-Mobile because they just plain suck and making people pay for Bridge browser which is just reading data from phone is crap.
    Sorry, I must have misread I agree about wimax. I hear bad things. However, isn't att in the process of buying out tmo?

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    07-02-11 09:13 AM
  16. offthahorseceo's Avatar
    I'm sorry offthahorse but this comparison is completely off. First of all urtalking about the US gvmt. They're the only ones here that can change the rules of the game after its already started and legally pull that crap off. And ur talking about taxes, completely diff.

    Also, they don't tax u twice for the same purpose (plz noone be stupid and try and mention corporate double taxation) explicitly. That would be like paying income taxes twice on the same income. NO u don't do that, I know someones gonna try n say they do in a "sneaky" way through different taxes. Again, different story.

    Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
    Its not completely off. "the government" is basically a big corporation. we are the stock holders. if enough of us demand change it can happen. they cant change the rules of the game legally without the proper procedure. The government is not exempt from the law.

    It doesnt matter if its a tax or not, theyre charging you for the same thing multiple times.

    Great idea though, at&t should call it a bridge tax, would it be ok then?


    I still dont understand how this thread has gotten so long. Im still not paying for thethering and my bridge browser works just fine. Same with my gf. How many of you are paying for tethering right now?
    07-02-11 10:04 AM
  17. offthahorseceo's Avatar
    Why do Canadian carriers offer free tethering with data plans over 1gb I think? They aren't as greedy perhaps?

    I still think everyone that like to defend the carriers are afraid if it's not an extra charge that they won't profit as much from their stock.

    Do you also defend gas prices and think they are fine and oil companies are in if for a profit or don't you own any oil stock?
    i dont defend gas prices, but i dont complain about them either. i KNOW the gas giants are in it for the profit. I CHOOSE to drive the car i drive which gets the mileage it gets. I could just not drive, not go to work, not make any money and not worry about any of it.
    07-02-11 10:08 AM
  18. kbz1960's Avatar
    i dont defend gas prices, but i dont complain about them either. i KNOW the gas giants are in it for the profit. I CHOOSE to drive the car i drive which gets the mileage it gets. I could just not drive, not go to work, not make any money and not worry about any of it.
    Never said you have to, it's just an example. I haven't bothered to read your post but are you defending AT&T? If you are enjoy your stock profits.
    07-02-11 10:11 AM
  19. offthahorseceo's Avatar
    not defending anything. im saying everyone is making a big deal of nothing. AT&T is a for profit company and as such they are going to do things to maximize profit. For every one person complaining on here there are 10 who will just pay it and use it instead of wasting time complaining. AT&T will be ok.

    On top of that, the OTA links have been and still are available. I am using the bridge software from the OTA link, so is my gf. we both have at&t. It works just fine even after the announcement of the "official" bridge app. Everyone asserts that browsing from bridge is no different than browsing from your torch bold etc. If thats the case, there will be no way for at&t to tell that youre using a playbook over bridge. We will continue to be able to "stick it to them" just the way we have been. Once again, its only a big deal if you choose to make it a big deal.

    Also, I dont own any AT&T stock, but, I do sell at&t products. If at&t isnt turning a profit, i'll eventually be out of a job. Unless your life is based on charity thats gotta be something you can understand
    Last edited by offthahorseceo; 07-02-11 at 11:49 AM.
    07-02-11 11:46 AM
  20. TBone4eva's Avatar
    Why do Canadian carriers offer free tethering with data plans over 1gb I think? They aren't as greedy perhaps?

    I still think everyone that like to defend the carriers are afraid if it's not an extra charge that they won't profit as much from their stock.

    Do you also defend gas prices and think they are fine and oil companies are in if for a profit or don't you own any oil stock?
    Because they are small time players, that's why. Point. Blank. Period. AT&T has almost THREE times the number of subscribers (and if they pick up T-Mobile FOUR times) than Canada's ENTIRE POPULATION! That's a lot of people on a network and AT&T is constantly having to buildout and upgrade their network to keep up with demand to support way more people over a wider area. Not only that, but they have to fight with and bid with other companies for rights to the limited radio spectrum through government auctions. People also fight them in terms of where they can build cell towers, not to mention maintenance. Having a large network is costly. So, yeah, if AT&T is going to invest a lot of money in their network, they are going to be a lot more restictive in how they choose to offer access to their network. If a smaller provider with a smaller footprint and way less customers to support, wants to allow free tethering than that is their business.
    CBplayer likes this.
    07-02-11 11:54 AM
  21. OniBerry's Avatar
    Because they are small time players, that's why. Point. Blank. Period. AT&T has almost THREE times the number of subscribers (and if they pick up T-Mobile FOUR times) than Canada's ENTIRE POPULATION! That's a lot of people on a network and AT&T is constantly having to buildout and upgrade their network to keep up with demand to support way more people over a wider area. Not only that, but they have to fight with and bid with other companies for rights to the limited radio spectrum through government auctions. People also fight them in terms of where they can build cell towers, not to mention maintenance. Having a large network is costly. So, yeah, if AT&T is going to invest a lot of money in their network, they are going to be a lot more restictive in how they choose to offer access to their network. If a smaller provider with a smaller footprint and way less customers to support, wants to allow free tethering than that is their business.
    That is a little backwards. I pay a company for a service. If they do not know what their infrastructure needs are (going to be) and they can no longer provide my service, then I will go elsewhere. It is that simple. I don't care how many customers are using what and for how long, my contract (if there was one) does not have a clause that says I will have to pay more because their network can't handle the load. It does say my connection speeds may be lower to due demand, and that if I go over my limit, they can charge me extra. I can accept that. As close as Canada and the Unites States are geographically, our respective internet, data, online services are drastically different, as is Europe's. Again, NIMBY syndrome doesn't concern me. I don't care that x amount of people are fighting them tooth and nail about towers, bidding for spectrum, etc.

    That is what is getting people angry. Who cares about all the troubles the carrier is going through? In the end, I care about them as much as they do about me.

    Them: We have provided him a service, where is our money?
    Me: They have provided me with a service, here is your cash.
    07-02-11 12:19 PM
  22. OverShadow417's Avatar
    I haven't bothered to read your post but are you defending AT&T? If you are enjoy your stock profits.
    Somehow your primary argument is that anyone who can support AT&T's decision is making money on the side as AT&T's decisions continue to increase their earnings.

    This also somehow insinuates that this means everyone's opposing arguments are nullified because of a rather long, and dumb, leap in logic.

    What a cop-out; if you can't argue the point, dismiss the poster? GTFO.


    On Topic: I was initially mad about this too - so much so I left a rather strongly worded comment on their blog, which'll probably never be posted due to their moderation (Probably a good call on their part.)

    But ya know, having looked and thought about everything, I'm not sure what I was mad about - what is the difference between tethering from your BB to a Playbook, and tethering to another device, a laptop perhaps?

    Nothing.

    Some argue that its because the devices (BB and PB) "share" the same internet - this is true. If your phone is allowed 4GB then that will be shared between your phone and the Playbook. But this applies to ALL tethering programs - even the iPhone's tethering programs for computers. As has been said, it's not just seeing what is on your phones browser transferred to you PB, but its a straight modem access to the web for your PB(But restricted to Web only with the Bridge).

    So WHY was I angry? No other laptop, desktop, or tablet gets to utilize free tethering from their phone, no matter how restrictive it was, so how is it understood and expected that the PB will? Cause that is what we were promised by RIM.

    So, am I MAD at AT&T for making the same tethering programs it requires for it's other phones apply when my Playbook tethers to my Blackberry? Yeah, a little - mostly cause other carriers aren't(currently) choosing to be that nitpicky of a SPECIFIC pairing of two same-brand devices.

    But I certainly feel mad at RIM, for saying one thing, but only applying it to "certain carriers." Could they make it so that, as long as you use the Bridge to a BB device, THEN it's ok to allow free bridging, while tethering to OTHER devices will then require a fee - probably, and I would be fine with that, and it might even help drive some phone sells.

    I currently don't own a Playbook, but was looking to buy one in the next couple of weeks - unfortunately this has caused me to double check how useful an un-bridged Playbook would be, and if it is still worth the cost.

    Out of all this though, I think everyone here will definitely be able to walk away with the conclusion that charging for the same internet, spread over 2 devices, is DUMB - someone should do something about this tethering bullsh!t. I mean, if I were to pay Charter Cable for some excellent internet, but I can't use a router to deliver it to multiple computers, let alone the other half dozen different devices I connect to it, without facing some kind of "tethering/routing" charge - I would be PISSED? That is the same BS they be trying to pull here.

    Fight the power!
    kevinnugent likes this.
    07-02-11 01:34 PM
  23. rcab's Avatar
    Every one is talking about how ATT needs to make a profit which is true if they wish to stay in business. But they have an obligation to their customers to provide good efficient service. But at the same time they are super slow at providing 3G service to most of their customers while bragging that they are becoming a 4G network. Where I live the signal often goes from 3G to EDGE and back daily. The signal is not super strong. I think if they want to keep nickel and dime the consumer then they need to start spending those nickels and dimes to provide better service. Why didn't ATT announce when they said they had to study the bridge that once they approve it they will also be including a charge. Give their customers advance word that they will be seeing a charge once the bridge is approved. I think that is what is upsetting to everyone.
    jthep likes this.
    07-02-11 02:09 PM
  24. jthep's Avatar
    Att lied to everyone about testing the app to ensure it delivers a good experience. Also this play on words between "tethering", "bridging", "hotspot" features really doesn't matter, its about corporate greed and stock prices for shareholders while the consumer continues to get squeezed for shoddy service and getting nickeled and dimed.

    I am holding Att accountable when my contract expires. Shame on you Att!!!
    07-02-11 03:15 PM
  25. offthahorseceo's Avatar
    put your money where your mouth is. hold them accountable now. if you really have a leg to stand on you can get out of the contract with no fee. the reality is you dont.

    If you read the delay announcement, and thought "oh cool theyre making sure its going to work for us" then you are very naive.
    07-02-11 03:21 PM
176 ... 45678
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD