[Samuel Adams]

Ok so at my house I have Time Warner Cable who provides internet access through a cable and a modem. I hooked up a router to that modem that emits a wifi signal with encryption. Does TWC then charge me PER DEVICE that connects to that wifi signal? If they made it their policy that it would be $30 per device "tethered" to my home cable internet, would that mean I was doing something illegal by creating a network from the internet delivered to me, that I pay for? No - so people should stop calling tethering "illegal". Another analogy - if I am your landlord in that famous craigslist ad and I say that if you are found with cigarettes it is contraband and I will terminate your lease, that does not make cigarettes illegal, that makes them against my policy as the person making the rules.

Anti-tethering policies are merely applying a double standard to the GPRS, EDGE, EVDO, 3G, 4G, or whatever mobile internet service that we are paying for, as compared with home internet service. This double standard entails charging people for each new device they may want to connect using their phone's data service.

So with AT$T we pay for a smartphone plan... but then they want $60 a month for a capped "laptop connect card" (which is nothing more than a usb modem for a second 3G SIM). You can buy a simple USB aircard on ebay and stick your SIM in it and away you go. Of freakin course they have a POLICY against that, because if you do it you're not paying them $60 per month. That is literally Billions per year in the U.S. alone (yes you can calculate that based on market figures of cell phone users and percent with smartphones and laptops). Yeah, they have a policy, but that does not make it right. There is no unflawed logical argument for why it would be right. It is the same as movie theaters saying they will kick you out if you bring in food you did not buy from them - you are not committing an illegal act (for there is no U.S. law saying that non-movie-theater-purchased food is not to be brought into a theater), you are committing an act that deprives them of potential revenue.

We are spending our potential life's savings on communication - these are irretrievable expenses and as consumers we should be more worried about it than we are. The first step is distinguishing between what is illegal by our country's laws and what is against the policy of carriers... and consider that policies may enforce, be neutral with regards to, or blatantly go against our country's laws. In this case, I posit that the consumer should have the same freedom to set up a mobile network - for a data service that he or she subscribes to - as he or she does in the home.

ETA: thread title issue resolved

[kwkid]

Your general premise has some merits. However there are several facts that currently prevent that from happening:

1.) The infrastructure is not there to support your premise. None of the carriers have enough bandwidth to support that many new users. So were they to implement this strategy, all users would suffer until enough infrastructure were purchased and deployed. This would take years for the major carriers. Fortunately they are all growing on the backend to start supporting more and more bandwidth demands. Sprints 4G MiFi allowing 5 users on at the same time is a good example.

2.) If they did implement this I can guarantee that the general usage fee would increase to offset the loss somehow. Companies could not afford the loss of revenues and would either have to cut service or cut expanding the infrastructure or R&D, or maybe all of the above. In today's market it just isn't possible to take that big a hit.

[pkcable]

I can't tell you which mod changed the titled, BUT I did check the record and found out that it was changed, because it contained a foul word. I think the changed title does convey the idea, that you disagree with carriers charging for tethering.

It's an issue well worth discussing, BUT when we title our threads we must be careful to use family friendly language.

[Samuel Adams]

I did not and would not write a foul word. I am a parent and it was nothing my kids could not have handled. I would have been happy to change it had I been asked. If we can get beyond harping and policing potty mouths or potential potty-euphemism mouths, it is ironic that it's actually quite family friendly to question why my concern for a large company keeping their revenue streams exactly as they are is more important than questioning why I am expected to to give additional money toward networking mobile data for my own devices and communication purposes, when I am already spending an arm on a leg on the mobile service. After the telecommunications costs, I need to be meeting my family's needs including increased college savings, orthodonture, my life and disability insurance (which a lot of parents don't have), family vacations, or many other things, simply because the mobile internet we pay for has different policies applied to it re: networking than the internet we pay for that is delivered into our homes.

Also, that is absolutely not true about the bandwidth. By forcing all phones that are both wifi and 3G capable to send and receive all their data through 3G instead of wifi, and use wifi only as a backup, THAT deliberately routes everything to 3G and creates glut on the 3G bandwidth. Smartphone users are surrounded by wifi hotspots at home and more often than not at work too. But better for the carriers to keep the glut, because what that action of first tunneling all cell phone data through 3g first wifi 2nd is it makes people look at their cellphone bills with all the 3g itemized and saying "WOW! Look how much data I use each month, thank goodness I am on an unlimited plan", when meanwhile they would be using less than 10% if their phones used wifi whenever it was around, and 3g whenever wifi wasn't around. Their data usage by wifi is not recorded and the wifi on the phone works without the SIM at all, and there is no cap at all either. But we see that itemized 3G bill and we say "well I am obviously one of the ones who needs unlimited data" but it is by far the biggest technology/billing scam going on in this country today - again, because the results of consumers not knowing how it works and the carriers doing whatever they want to maximize profits, it leads to the Billions of dollars of revenue each year that was just mentioned before.

So yeah, if the next Iphone software update told the device to use wifi as default and 3G as backup, there would be substantially reduced strain on the 3G system. Unfortunately it looks like they're going the other way - get everyone to use 3G, take wifi off smartphones, and end the arguing about people paying for smartphone data plans. Case in point: the Palm Pixi, unlike any other phone like it, does not have wifi. It is probably the beginning of the new direction that forces people to have only 3G, so they can cash in on all the data plans.

[amazinglygraceless]

Once you create a thread you do not have the ability to change the title.
Send me a PM (Private Message) with what you want it to say (no your
original title will not work) and I'll change it, problem solved. Then we can
get back to concentrating on your core issue

[Samuel Adams]

Ok I have written a PM about the title.

While you are at it I will also need the title of the forum and website changed to make it family-friendly, because pervasive joking references to using and abusing crack, an illegal addictive substance that makes people kill each other, is not what I would call family-friendly. I can see so much more from up here on this horse! Awesome!

[pkcable]

Lighten up Sam! ......

Webster dictionary declares 'Crackberry' its Word of the Year | New Orleans CityBusiness | Find Articles at BNET

[weaselnoze]

wow you are such a whiner. grow up

just because you can set up a wifi network with your home internet doesnt mean that your mobile device should fall under the same rules. its apples and oranges man.

are you going to complain about being charged for airtime with incoming phone calls? your home phone provider doesnt charge you for incoming calls, why does your cell phone provider? your home phone provider offers caller ID based on a public Directory Listing. Are you going to complain that your cell phone provider doesn't give you directory listed caller IDs?

Since you would like to use the movie theater example, i shall too. when i rent a movie from blockbuster i can invite all my friends over and it costs me 4.99 for everyone to watch. so based on your theory, if i bring all my friends to the movie theater, we should all be able to get in for the price of one person. hmmm

[syb0rg]

So with AT$T we pay for a smartphone plan... but then they want $60 a month for a capped "laptop connect card" (which is nothing more than a usb modem for a second 3G SIM). You can buy a simple USB aircard on ebay and stick your SIM in it and away you go. Of freakin course they have a POLICY against that, because if you do it you're not paying them $60 per month. That is literally Billions per year in the U.S. alone (yes you can calculate that based on market figures of cell phone users and percent with smartphones and laptops). Yeah, they have a policy, but that does not make it right. There is no unflawed logical argument for why it would be right. It is the same as movie theaters saying they will kick you out if you bring in food you did not buy from them - you are not committing an illegal act (for there is no U.S. law saying that non-movie-theater-purchased food is not to be brought into a theater), you are committing an act that deprives them of potential revenue.

In the contract YOU singed on YOUR free WILL, YOU agreed to their terms that YOU would not tether YOUR device to YOUR computer/netbook/notebook.

THEY didn't make YOU sign YOUR contract, YOU willingly agreed to it.

I have T-Mobile and not AT&T for that very reason i have unlimited EVERYTHING and I can tether MY Blackberry to MY notebook/netbook/computer. Why did I decide to go with T-Mo over ATT knowing their Data is slower and more limited..... I read the complete TOS and I wanted "free tether".


so please grow up, admit you made a simple mistake and move on
and since you signed a contract, if you do tether... it is illegal, and yes it is money motivated. EVERY COMPANY IS IN BUSINESS FOR ONE REASON : TO MAKE MONEY, AND LOTS OF IT

[RideMadone]

In the contract YOU singed on YOUR free WILL, YOU agreed to their terms that YOU would not tether YOUR device to YOUR computer/netbook/notebook.

THEY didn't make YOU sign YOUR contract, YOU willingly agreed to it.

I have T-Mobile and not AT&T for that very reason i have unlimited EVERYTHING and I can tether MY Blackberry to MY notebook/netbook/computer. Why did I decide to go with T-Mo over ATT knowing their Data is slower and more limited..... I read the complete TOS and I wanted "free tether".


so please grow up, admit you made a simple mistake and move on
and since you signed a contract, if you do tether... it is illegal, and yes it is money motivated. EVERY COMPANY IS IN BUSINESS FOR ONE REASON : TO MAKE MONEY, AND LOTS OF IT

Amen Brother. I love it when people agree to something then gripe about it. God forbid a company should turn a profit. It is called capitalism for a reason. The only way to teach them a lesson is to switch carriers and let THEM know why you switched.

[Samuel Adams]

I am saying that carriers are making policies, not laws. When you violate their policies you are not necessarily violating your country's laws by virtue of the fact that you are not complying with carriers' policies.

If you charge other people admission to your home viewing of a rented movie, you are violating U.S. law because there is a law against that.

If you network your home internet service to devices within your home you are not violating U.S. law.

If you network your mobile internet service to devices within range of your cell phone, you are not violating U.S. law. But hey - you guys who posted on this forum should call your senators today and advocate for that to become a law, since you are so concerned about shutting up whiners and preserving the carriers' revenue streams!

Senator Kohl is leading a team investigating the policy that charges cell phone users on two ends for incoming minutes, positing that this policy IS unfair to consumers. What a whiner.

[pkcable]

The issues is worthy of debate for sure!

[syb0rg]

I am saying that carriers are making policies, not laws. When you violate their policies you are not necessarily violating your country's laws by virtue of the fact that you are not complying with carriers' policies.

If you charge other people admission to your home viewing of a rented movie, you are violating U.S. law because there is a law against that.

If you network your home internet service to devices within your home you are not violating U.S. law.

If you network your mobile internet service to devices within range of your cell phone, you are not violating U.S. law. But hey - you guys who posted on this forum should call your senators today and advocate for that to become a law, since you are so concerned about shutting up whiners and preserving the carriers' revenue streams!

Senator Kohl is leading a team investigating the policy that charges cell phone users on two ends for incoming minutes, positing that this policy IS unfair to consumers. What a whiner.

Sir i am not calling you a whiner. 9/10 time person attack do not come out of my mouth, I have no clue who you are, what you are or anything about you.

Since you want to bring up government [and i'll keep my personal view out of it]

This county's Economy was started on the idea of Open Free Enterprise. Where companies could make money and how ever much they wanted, by offering services and or goods to the public and charing a fair amount for the service and products.

AT&T is suppling you with a service, Telephone and Data Communications, they are charing you for x amount to supply you with said services. You agree to their Terms of Service for use in their contract. Which said Tethering your Device to your PC was not permitted without paying an extra charge for that service.

You cannot be mad at ATT for charing extra for a service that you agreed to.

And if that is their way for making money, and you agreed to it, which you signed paper work agreeing you.

The fact that they are charing extra for tethering, i don't personal agree with it, but guess what i did.. .. .. I went with a different company, and i know i getting my money ripped out of my pocket for the services supplied to me, but i am 100% okay with it, because i under stand how a Open Free Enterprise works.

[hootyhoo]

While I agree that we spend a lot on mobile communication, there is an easy way to avoid those costs.�dont use the service. No one is forcing you to buy a tethering plan. If its helpful, useful and makes you be more productive, great. But no one and no company owes you those services for free. Do you work for free?

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[Xpimp]

Just so you know there are ways to tether with a regular data plan, I do this and don't pay the $60. I see and understand where you're coming from, but At&t as with many different companies out there are simply trying to make as much money as possible.

[hootyhoo]

Its a little like calling a plumber to fix a leak. Once he gets there and makes the repair, you think that he should now install a new shower at no additional charge.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[CanuckBB]

You are violating the terms of your contract. And contract enforcement IS a matter of law.

Look at any contract, it will state under which jurisdiction the terms and conditions are enforceable.

[Snarfler]

I am saying that carriers are making policies, not laws. When you violate their policies you are not necessarily violating your country's laws by virtue of the fact that you are not complying with carriers' policies.

Nobody said tethering was against the law. It may, however be against the terms of the contract you have with your carrier, a binding mutual agreement. A civil case, not a criminal case. Still puts you liable for fees, penalties, and whatever else you agreed to when you signed the contract.

The issues is worthy of debate for sure!

come on pk, this is a family friendly site, you can't be mixing plurals like that in public

[danimal1968]

You are violating the terms of your contract. And contract enforcement IS a matter of law.

Look at any contract, it will state under which jurisdiction the terms and conditions are enforceable.

That doesn't mean that breaking the terms of a contract is anywhere near the same thing as breaking the law.

Breaking the law = the government can impose sanctions on you, restrict your freedom and the like.

Breaking a contract = at most, the other party to the contract can sue you and try to make you pay damages for it.

Very different things.

[syb0rg]

That doesn't mean that breaking the terms of a contract is anywhere near the same thing as breaking the law.

Breaking the law = the government can impose sanctions on you, restrict your freedom and the like.

Breaking a contract = at most, the other party to the contract can sue you and try to make you pay damages for it.

Very different things.

Not really.

Try to make you pay for them? if AT&T decides to take you to court, which i know is a far fetch, they can garnish your wages for the infraction to the contract, court cost, lawyer fees, time and wages for any external personnel sent to the court house and some other little goodies...

Taking your money from your pay check with a court ordered approval is "the government imposing sanctions on you, that will restrict your freedom and the like."

anytime you can be taken to court a law has been broken or is in question.

a law of the land doesn't always mean the law that you are thinking of...

my wife works in real estate law day in and day out and they go through this type of stuff several times though the day, and i hear ALOT of the ins and outs, and even help her study some time. Granted i have no degree in it but i am well versed on this type of maters.

[CanuckBB]

That doesn't mean that breaking the terms of a contract is anywhere near the same thing as breaking the law.

Breaking the law = the government can impose sanctions on you, restrict your freedom and the like.

Breaking a contract = at most, the other party to the contract can sue you and try to make you pay damages for it.

Very different things.

Not really. If it goes to court, it is effectively the government, through the justice system, that will impose and enforce the penalties. While the results of a contract dispute is usually monetary, failure to pay could result in jail time.

Bottom line is, while there is no law to say you can't tether, there is a law that saus you must respect the terms of a binding contract.

[amazinglygraceless]

Bottom line is, while there is no law to say you can't tether, there is a law that saus you must respect the terms of a binding contract.

Actually there are laws. They are known commonly as "Contract Law"
and "Laws of Obligations." These have been a part of American jurisprudence
(refined over time) since the founding of this nation.

What this comes down to as far as I am concerned is people who enter into
agreements and contracts without reading them or fully understanding them.

Show of hands, how many people ACTUALLY read the cellphone contract
before signing it and plunking down their cash.

I always ask for the contract prior to entering into it. I take the time to
read it and fully understand it or ask someone qualified to explain what I
don't understand. If anything in it is unacceptable to me I simply do not
enter the contract.

Failure to do this simple due diligence is the reason we have people
complaining about fees, ETFs, pushed icons, etc... Do your homework people.

[syb0rg]

Actually there are laws. They are known commonly as "Contract Law"
and "Laws of Obligations." These have been a part of American jurisprudence
(refined over time) since the founding of this nation.

What this comes down to as far as I am concerned is people who enter into
agreements and contracts without reading them or fully understanding them.

Show of hands, how many people ACTUALLY read the cellphone contract
before signing it and plunking down their cash.

I always ask for the contract prior to entering into it. I take the time to
read it and fully understand it or ask someone qualified to explain what I
don't understand. If anything in it is unacceptable to me I simply do not
enter the contract.

Failure to do this simple due diligence is the reason we have people
complaining about fees, ETFs, pushed icons, etc... Do your homework people.

and this post is teh winnar

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[beamolite]

Why does T-Mobile allow tethering with no extra charges and always have?

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[Samuel Adams]

You guys need to chill, seriously. I don't tether and I follow all the provisions of the contract that I did sign. My main point (beyond the difference between a law and a policy) is really that once you have paid for the service of mobile internet, you should be able to put a router on it and connect more devices to it for your own use just like you do at home, and that per-device monthly subscriptions for any devices other than your phone is like double-charging for incoming minutes - it is a policy that is designed to create a revenue stream, but it does not have any basis in what is right or wrong as far as how we as consumers use what we have paid for. If hooking a router to your mobile phone and sharing its data connection is wrong on some moral level, then hooking up a router to your home internet connection and sharing its data with other devices would also be wrong on that level, and it isn't. You are not charging people admission to share your data, you are using your own devices to access the 3G internet connection that you have paid for. Mobile telecommunications should be held to the same standard as other telecommunications with regard to consumer protections for lawful use of the service, but currently they are not being held to the same standard.