Apple Community Discussion/Support

[#1]

---

xPhantomx wrote:
For years? How you have it worded sounds like a long long time. The longest contract for any phone is only 2 years. That's not that long of time.

---

If you already have a smartphone with the unlimited plan as long as you upgrade to another smartphone at the end of your current contract you can choose to  retain the unlimited dataplan, you are not forced to the new plan, if you decide to downgrade your data plan you can nver go back to the unlimited one. So yes it can be a very long time given that ability.

[#2]

---

thively wrote:

---

Starfall wrote:

I'm not sure what you're getting at, but Verizon is charging for the ability to tether also - look at the way the data plans are structured.

Only difference is a 5GB bandwidth cap instead of a 2GB one. 

---

And that is exactly the problem.

A tethering charge made sense on unlimited data plans.  It used to be $30 for unlimited smart phone data and $60 for unlimited tetherig (or data card use.)  Eventually the 5GB "soft" cap was put in place to preven over-use.  For all intents and purposes the 5GB soft cap was to more data than you'd ever need ("like unlimited for most people")

And on Verizon you pay $50 for 5GB.  On AT&T we'll be paying $45 for 2GB to tether.

That's not competetive pricing at all.  Shouldn't data pricing be going down, not up?

Now we have a very structure pay as you use it data plan. OK, I'm fine with that. I don't mind paying $10/GB.  That's a reasonable cost.  But when you're charing per GB instead of a giant bucket, the $20 (for nothing) tethering fee is unreasonable.

Tethering charge because people will use more data tethering.  No kidding, but now we're actually paying for what we use.  You use 10 gallons, you pay for 10 gallons.  You don't pay more for the same 10 gallons because it's going in to a Hummer.

I'm tired of people saying that all carriers have a "tethering fee." This is comparing apples to oranges.

What *IS* reasonable is something like this:
$25 for 2GB

$20 tethering (additional 2GB.)

(or $45 for 4GB.)
You pay $10/1GB thereafter.

With such a pricing scenario you're essentially 'pre buying' your next 2GB of data whether you use it or not ('not' would be easy money for AT&T.)

The issue I have with this (BS) $20 tethering fee is that tethering went up in price.  AT&T keeps saying it cheaper but do the math:

Old plan: $60 for 5GB

New Plan: $75 for 5GB  ($25/2GB, $20/tethering, $30/3GB.)

My way (above): $25/2GB, $20/2GB, $10/1GB = $55/5GB, $65/6GB.  Much more in line with current pricing ($5 less.)

So I don't care how anyone justifies it.  The $20 tethering 'convenience' charge is unjustified.  I don't care if other carriers do and AT&T always did it.  With the new data plan strcuture which is "you pay for what you use" the $20/0GB tethering fee is just plain stupid.

My person opinion is that anyone that disagrees is either drinking the cool-aid or has a really poor sesne of economics (you like paying for nothing.)

Lastly, the new data plans are similar to Canada's and they don't have to pay for tethering.  Yeah, we actually pay more for data than Canada now (and they've been complaining for years.).  I never saw that coming.

For the record I like the new data plans.  I stand to save quite a bit of money on the 2nd/3rd iPhone lines on my family account (under 200MB use.)  And I always use less than 2GB (usually less than 1GB.)
I just absolutely disagree that we should pay for tethering without getting data for it.

Either turn on tethering for everyone and let them simply pay for every GB they use, or charge me for tethering but give me some data to go with it.  When you pay for ever GB, that's enough deterrent to keep people from over straining the network.

If they insist on a 'tethering fee' (with no data allotment) then it should be like $5, not $20.

I might add that the customer backlash on this $20 tethering fee should open up AT&T's eyes.  We're not stupid and don't like to be treated stupid.  It has 1 affect which is to alienate their loyal customers.

---

I completely agree with thively and I was thinking the same thing as well.  Why not charge $20 for the tethering but give the additional 2GB as well.  I have been looking forward to tethering but if I were to get the 2GB plan for $25 and add tethering that would be $45.  Also, from the wording of the announcement, it sounded like you need to have the Data Pro plan to get tethering, it did not say tethering would be allowed on people who currently have unlimited data.

If the data with tethering plan was $45 and would allow 4GB I think that would be a reasonable price.  I don't think I would use that much if I were to tether since I would probably only do it once in a while, but at least in increasing the data limit with tethering then it would relieve me from worrying about overages due to tethering.  As the plan is right now, I will not get the tethering option.  I am mostly connected to my Wifi network at home so my monthly usage has been less than 100MB so I may just get the $15 plan or probably the $25 which would give me peace of mind since it would increase the $15 data limit 10-fold.

[#3]

What's really happening is that AT&T is instituting tiered pricing for 3G data on smartphones, and getting away from unlimited data for untethered smartphones, and 5G caps for tethered smartphones, which is the way it was before.  

The tiered pricing is set up so that you save some money if you are an "average" user with less than 2GB/month (tethered or untethered), and you save even more if you are a "light" user with less than 200MB/month on your smartphone.  But if you are a "heavy" user you pay more.  

The good news for heavy tethered users is that the 5GB cap is gone and you can pay $10/GB and use all you want.  This is not a bad deal, certainly better than the overage pricing that they had before which was essentially to disincent you from going over the cap.  

It's certainly true that if you are a tethered user who uses between 3GB and 5GB/month, you pay a bit more.  

In any case, it's somewhat pointless to sit here and say "they should have had lower tethering fees and/or included more data with the tethering fee".  They didn't and maybe they will in the future but it'll be a while.  Nothing we say here will change that.  

[#4]

Sprint's New HTC Evo phone.  You pay $30 for the ability to make the phone a wifi hotspot which 8 devices can connect for unlimited data.  I wish AT&T would follow Sprint pricing on this.

[#5]

---

BIGWHITE2K9 wrote:

Sprint's New HTC Evo phone.  You pay $30 for the ability to make the phone a wifi hotspot which 8 devices can connect for unlimited data.  I wish AT&T would follow Sprint pricing on this.

---

As much as everyone wants that AT&T matches Sprint prices, they are not in direct competition with them. So, unfortunately, I doubt they will match data prices with them in a near future.

[#6]

---

archermoo wrote:

Again, you seem to be laboring under the misconception that they are charging you based on how much expected instaneous throughput you can use.  They don't.  They charge based on how much total data they expect that you will use per month.  And even with tiered plans their expectation is that the average user won't likely be using anywhere near the maximum allowed monthly bandwidth with just their device, but are much more likely to use close to that amount if they are tethering.  Probably at least in part because the people who are mostly likely to tether are also the ones who are more likely to be using more bandwidth than the average in the first place.

Is it "fair"?  I stopped expecting businesses to be "fair" decades ago.  Now I look at what they offer and decide if what they are offering is worth the money they are charging.  If it is, I pay them for it.  If it isn't, I don't.  I consider $30 for "unlimited" data on my iPhone to be something that I'm willing to pay for.  Since I have little use for tethering I don't consider paying extra for it to be worthwhile, so I haven't ever done it.  Even when I had devices and plans that I could do it with.  The first phone I got that could be used for tethering I did use occasionally to tether.  But it was only a couple of times per year, and when the carrier (don't remember if it was Cingular or one of the two different times it was AT&T) decided to start charging people for it I stopped doing it.

I expect businesses to be motivated by profits.  If I want to do something that will likely cost them more money to provide, I expect them to charge me more money to do it.  Reasonable or not (and I think it is) in general US carriers expect that allowing people to tether will use up more bandwidth per month, and so will be more expensive for them.  So they charge for that ability, and will likely continue to do so until they are somehow forced to stop.  If you want to try and get them to stop, more power to you.  But I don't think talking about how it isn't fair on their boards is a particularly useful way of going about it.  But each to their own.

---

This is so true. You guys can quit arguing about how fast or how much data is moved in a given session. There are a lot of misconceptions about this and how it taxes the network, none of which actually make a difference in regards to the topic. Both sides make valid points, but the bottom line is what is being said here. AT&T knows that a person with a smartphone will typically use more data in a given month than a person with a dumbphone. AT&T knows that a person with a smartphone that tethers will typically use more data than a person with a smartphone that doesn't tether. It is all structured on potential data used and not actual data used. If it where structured on actual data used, we would be paying so much per kb used regardless of which device it was or if it was tethered or not. The cost of moving a kb of data through a smartphone is no more than moving it through a dumbphone. Of course, it is all money driven. That is why there are no in between plans. With ability of devices to use more and more data, it will become increasingly difficult for users to stay below 200mb and AT&T knows this. I tend to agree that the restructuring of the data plans is partly to appease any future scrutiny from the FCC. While the the new plans are not totally favorable, they are more consumer friendly, with exception of the heavy data user. Recognizing that devices are becoming increasingly capable of streaming data, this is also in direct response to that. If you want to stream large amounts of data, you will have to pay.

[#7]

---

MyDogHasFleas wrote:

The tiered pricing is set up so that you save some money if you are an "average" user with less than 2GB/month (tethered or untethered), and you save even more if you are a "light" user with less than 200MB/month on your smartphone.  But if you are a "heavy" user you pay more.  

---

That is exactly the point with these new plans.  AT&T has declared that heavy users will pay.  The way they set this up to happen is debatable for sure. 

[#8]

Actually, it's set up such that if you're a heavy user, you pay more, but if you're a heavy user who wants to have the privilege of moving the data that you pay for to your laptop, you pay even more, even though if you don't use any more data than the heavy user who is not tethering.  It is OBNOXIOUS.

I have no problem with paying more for using more data.  I have a huge problem with being asked to pay $20 extra just for the privilege of moving the data I use to my laptop.

Take this hypothetical example:

Say person A doesn't tether, but they are a heavy user.  In a certain month, they use 1.99GB of data.  Person A pays $25.  Now let's say person B is a heavy user, but tethers once in while when they travel. In the same month, Person B uses 1.49GB on their phone, and 0.50GB tethering.  In other words, THEY GET NO MORE DATA from the network in that month than Person A.  Yet Person B has to pay $45.  What is the per gig rate for each person?  For Person A, it's $12.56.  For person B, it's $22.61.  That's almost twice as much for the same amount of data, and person B didn't even tether that much!  It's ridiculous.

[#9]

AT&T, like other businesses that are not regulated monopolies, is free to set its offerings and pricing as they see fit.  They don't have to tie something like a tethering fee to a specific cost of providing tethering.  Rather, they price offerings by their value to the consumer.  You are getting some value by being able to tether your smartphone to your laptop. 

[#10]

AT&T is free to set its offerings and pricings as they see fit, and AT&T's customers are free to complain very loudly about AT&T charging for something that it doesn't cost them anything to provide.

[#11]

---

mgear wrote:

     AT&T is free to set its offerings and pricings as they see fit, and AT&T's customers are free to complain very loudly about AT&T charging for something that it doesn't cost them anything to provide.

---

    It may not cost them anything extra but it does place extra strain on the network when eve ryone is doing it and that effects all the other users, so why not imply a charge to limit the people that will do this and by doing so everyone is able to use their wireless phone/device better and more consistantly.

[#12]

---

wilcre wrote:

    It may not cost them anything extra but it does place extra strain on the network when eve ryone is doing it and that effects all the other users, so why not imply a charge to limit the people that will do this and by doing so everyone is able to use their wireless phone/device better and more consistantly.

---

I find this disingenuous of you, in other words, you're lying, performing your job as an AT&T shill badly as the lie appears to be obvious.

Explain please, how 2gb tethered is any more of a "strain" than 2gb non-tethered.

Since tierd plans now automatically garuntee 'excessive' data users will be charged for their activities, it makes no sense to charge them 25/month, plus 15 per 1gb overage, PLUS, another 20gb for tethering if they need/want it, and give them absolutely ZERO for the extra 20 bucks AT&T is charging.

The extra charge doesn't do diddly in any realistic fashion to alleviate network load, expand the network capacity, or otherwise resolve AT&T's questionable (in various locations) cellular architecture.

My current understanding is that non iPhone, smart phone users or those with regular 'dumb' phones capable of tethering can actually tether right now, and not have to pay.  There's no way that I am aware of for AT&T to detect tethering, so it's only those phones where tethering needs to be "turned on" that AT&T is going to be able to collect this 20 dollar/month gouge.

[#13]

---

DimentoGraven wrote:

---

wilcre wrote:

    It may not cost them anything extra but it does place extra strain on the network when eve ryone is doing it and that effects all the other users, so why not imply a charge to limit the people that will do this and by doing so everyone is able to use their wireless phone/device better and more consistantly.

---

    Explain please, how 2gb tethered is any more of a "strain" than 2gb non-tethered.

    Since tierd plans now automatically garuntee 'excessive' data users will be charged for their activities, it makes no sense to charge them 25/month, plus 15 per 1gb overage, PLUS, another 20gb for tethering if they need/want it, and give them absolutely ZERO for the extra $20 AT&T is charging.

    The extra charge doesn't do diddly in any realistic fashion to alleviate network load, expand the network capacity, or otherwise resolve AT&T's questionable (in various locations) cellular architecture.

    My current understanding is that non iPhone, smart phone users or those with regular 'dumb' phones capable of tethering can actually tether right now, and not have to pay.  There's no way that I am aware of for AT&T to detect tethering, so it's only those phones where tethering needs to be "turned on" that AT&T is going to be able to collect this $20/month gouge.

---

    Actually ATTM can tell when you tether and when you are not, and no a dumbphone requires the tehering package just like the samrtphone does, they do not get a free ride.

[#14]

---

wilcre wrote:

    Actually ATTM can tell when you tether and when you are not, and no a dumbphone requires the tehering package just like the samrtphone does, they do not get a free ride.

---

All right, maybe it's possible to detect when data is being pulled via a tethered device.

Explain how that data is different so that tethering can be detected.

For the life of me, I can't concieve of any change to the data, packet structure, or anything else substatial that would make it obvious that a device is tethered.

[#15]

The whole reason their is new data plans is because of tethering users. They got rid of unlimited so you are aware of how much you use. 2GB Pro data for iPhone is currently the best. If AT&T sees you are using too much data they will remove it or go to 200MB

[#16]

---

DimentoGraven wrote:

---

wilcre wrote:

    Actually ATTM can tell when you tether and when you are not, and no a dumbphone requires the tehering package just like the samrtphone does, they do not get a free ride.

---

    All right, maybe it's possible to detect when data is being pulled via a tethered device.

Explain how that data is different so that tethering can be detected.

    For the life of me, I can't concieve of any change to the data, packet structure, or anything else substatial that would make it obvious that a device is tethered.

---

    For the life of me I can not remmeber at this time, I do not have my notes all with me, but I know that if tfigurel is floating around here anywhere he can give you the specifics with no issue.

[#17]

---

wilcre wrote:

    For the life of me I can not remmeber at this time, I do not have my notes all with me, but I know that if tfigurel is floating around here anywhere he can give you the specifics with no issue.

---

Even if it's somehow possible for AT&T to detect when phone is being used for tethering, there's STILL no actual "additional" stress.

As discussed previously the architecture of the cellular network has a certain connection and bandwidth capacity.  Cellular areas are setup to handle a certain number of concurrent users at a specific bandwidth.  Proper design is to say, for example, "We will support 1000 concurrent connections each utilizing its own full bandwidth potential," and then equiping the cell area to do just that.

Since you know each connection requires X portion of spectrum, and receives Y portion signal duration per second, you know the maximum packet size the user can be sending, and you design the back end network, switches, routers, etc. to support the potential number of packets and potential bit bandwidth neccessary.

So 2gig tethered or untethered has ZERO affect on this.

The symptoms of the majority of network failures I've read about seem to indicate that where AT&T designed for 1000 concurrent connections, they actually get 2000 or more users attempting to get/maintain concurrent connections and the majority of people can't maintain a connection consistantly.

Because smart phone use typically results longer connection times (untethered or otherwise) more people experience issues because once you have a connection in a cell, and you don't move out of that cell and maintain your connection, no one else can use it and if all possible concurrent connections are in use, no one can else can get connected until someone terminates their connection.

No where in any of this does tethering add any load.

[#18]

The whole reason is to nickel and dime the user.  Anyone with a rudimentary understanding about networking and communication can see that AT&T doesn't care about its customers and is going to change the rules and terms at their own discretion.

Tethering should be free, why should I have to pay for something that has been reported to be part of the hardware since its release?  As long as I don't go over my data cap, I shouldn't be charged for tethering.  Punish the ones who go over their cap if they tether and allow the ones who don't to continue using it.

It's a scam just like the restructuring of their data plans.

[#19]

Browser headers will identify that you're not using a mobile device....

---

wilcre wrote:

---

DimentoGraven wrote:

---

wilcre wrote:

    Actually ATTM can tell when you tether and when you are not, and no a dumbphone requires the tehering package just like the samrtphone does, they do not get a free ride.

---

    All right, maybe it's possible to detect when data is being pulled via a tethered device.

Explain how that data is different so that tethering can be detected.

    For the life of me, I can't concieve of any change to the data, packet structure, or anything else substatial that would make it obvious that a device is tethered.

---

    For the life of me I can not remmeber at this time, I do not have my notes all with me, but I know that if tfigurel is floating around here anywhere he can give you the specifics with no issue.

---

[#20]

---

BrianfromNO wrote:

Browser headers will identify that you're not using a mobile device....

---

 Of course, you're not attempting to make an assumption with that statement (above) that the (only) reason people would tether is so that they can get the full web browsing experience--i.e., there are other reasons folks tether--none of which have anything to do with opening up their favorite web browser on a laptop or desktop PC.

[#21]

---

BrianfromNO wrote:

Browser headers will identify that you're not using a mobile device.... 

---

If they're taking resources to extract, assemble, and interpret the packets going through their net for every active user connection to extract browser headers to detect tethering be prepared for a massive amount of network latency.

That's a LOT of equipment required to do that.

[#22]

"Lot of equipment" being a standard Squid-enabled proxy firewall, available from hundreds of vendors. We aren't talking esoteric technology here, there is a standard Squid plugin that analyzes browser headers. There are also proprietary firewalls that do much the same thing. Note that you're already doing NAT to go out on the Internet from your iPhone, so we know it's going out via a proxy firewall of some sort, so we know AT&T has the equipment to do it.

That said, I've seen no indication that AT&T is actually doing this on a regular basis for any but the most egregious "abusers" (their term for people who actually use the service they're paying for, as vs. the majority of us, who don't use the service much), and besides, it's easy enough to spoof browser headers anyhow. 

[#23]

---

Badtux wrote:

"Lot of equipment" being a standard Squid-enabled proxy firewall, available from hundreds of vendors. We aren't talking esoteric technology here, there is a standard Squid plugin that analyzes browser headers. There are also proprietary firewalls that do much the same thing. Note that you're already doing NAT to go out on the Internet from your iPhone, so we know it's going out via a proxy firewall of some sort, so we know AT&T has the equipment to do it.

That said, I've seen no indication that AT&T is actually doing this on a regular basis for any but the most egregious "abusers" (their term for people who actually use the service they're paying for, as vs. the majority of us, who don't use the service much), and besides, it's easy enough to spoof browser headers anyhow. 

---

For standard, non-mobile, networking yes, I believe that equipment should be sufficient as you say, however, we're talking about what's supposed to be a mobile network, where your packets "to-ing and fro-ing" aren't neccessarily going through the same cell locations from any given moment, how would you manage to reliably capture headers from packets that could be arriving from multiple towers at any given moment.

The only way I could think of would be to place the proxy/firewall further down the net, in which case you're having to sniff more packets and headers per device with a strong chance of creating more latency for even more of your customers.

Beyond that, and I'm asking because I'm truly curious and maybe you'd know, with a NAT'd, DHCP'd network with roaming connections that, between jumps from cell tower to cell tower, the IP address is not garunteed to stay the same how would you setup these firewalls to specifically monitor those "most egregious abusers"?

I admit here and now that my networking knowledge and skills don't cover anything like that, and I also readily admit I am by no means a cellular networking expert, nor do I have any experience at integrating cellular and internet technologies, so educate me, I'm an 'empty cup waiting to be filled'.

So if you can make a response that even sounds plausible, I'm likely to accept it.

[#24]

---

DimentoGraven wrote:

For standard, non-mobile, networking yes, I believe that equipment should be sufficient as you say, however, we're talking about what's supposed to be a mobile network, where your packets "to-ing and fro-ing" aren't neccessarily going through the same cell locations from any given moment, how would you manage to reliably capture headers from packets that could be arriving from multiple towers at any given moment.

The only way I could think of would be to place the proxy/firewall further down the net, in which case you're having to sniff more packets and headers per device with a strong chance of creating more latency for even more of your customers.

Beyond that, and I'm asking because I'm truly curious and maybe you'd know, with a NAT'd, DHCP'd network with roaming connections that, between jumps from cell tower to cell tower, the IP address is not garunteed to stay the same how would you setup these firewalls to specifically monitor those "most egregious abusers"?

I admit here and now that my networking knowledge and skills don't cover anything like that, and I also readily admit I am by no means a cellular networking expert, nor do I have any experience at integrating cellular and internet technologies, so educate me, I'm an 'empty cup waiting to be filled'.

So if you can make a response that even sounds plausible, I'm likely to accept it.

---

Well, I don't know the specific method that they employ, but since they are perfectly capable of monitoring that the traffic is coming from your specific iPhone (else they wouldn't be able to tell you how much data you've been using), it isn't that much of a stretch to assume that they have a way in place to be able to tell whether the request for data originated from the phone or if it came from a tethered device.  Particularly since you can only tether (at least a non-jailbroken iPhone) using the tethering software built into the OS.

For me, tethering isn't something that I really need often, so paying anything just for the ability to tether isn't something that I would add to my account on an ongoing basis.  Using it without paying for it may or may not be something that they can trace, but whether it is or not the contract I agreed to when I signed up for service disallows it.  Which means that I agreed not to do it, so short of having such a plan set up I won't be giving it a try.

[#25]

---

archermoo wrote:

Well, I don't know the specific method that they employ, but since they are perfectly capable of monitoring that the traffic is coming from your specific iPhone (else they wouldn't be able to tell you how much data you've been using), it isn't that much of a stretch to assume that they have a way in place to be able to tell whether the request for data originated from the phone or if it came from a tethered device.  Particularly since you can only tether (at least a non-jailbroken iPhone) using the tethering software built into the OS.

For me, tethering isn't something that I really need often, so paying anything just for the ability to tether isn't something that I would add to my account on an ongoing basis.  Using it without paying for it may or may not be something that they can trace, but whether it is or not the contract I agreed to when I signed up for service disallows it.  Which means that I agreed not to do it, so short of having such a plan set up I won't be giving it a try.

---

They can track usage via IMEI number, that doesn't automatically equate to being able to sniff packets, extract html headers and judge whether or not you're tethering based on that.

I just don't think AT&T is offering fair exchange of services for their fees.  Requiring 20 extra bucks and not providing an actual additional service for something that doesn't cause any additional load on their net is just greedy.

[#26]

---

DimentoGraven wrote:

They can track usage via IMEI number, that doesn't automatically equate to being able to sniff packets, extract html headers and judge whether or not you're tethering based on that.

I just don't think AT&T is offering fair exchange of services for their fees.  Requiring 20 extra bucks and not providing an actual additional service for something that doesn't cause any additional load on their net is just greedy.

---

Why would you assume that they need to use a packet sniffer to detect whether the traffic in question originated from the device or not?  Since the phone will know whether the data is from tethering or not it seems like it would be pretty simple for it to include a flag indicating such in the same way it includes its IMEI.

As to the fairness of the exchange of fees for services, I certainly encourage you to not enter into contracts that contain such exchanges as you feel are unfair.  Entering into such a contract is a defacto admission that you find the terms, if not fair, at least acceptable.

[#27]

---

Badtux wrote:

"Lot of equipment" being a standard Squid-enabled proxy firewall, available from hundreds of vendors. We aren't talking esoteric technology here, there is a standard Squid plugin that analyzes browser headers. There are also proprietary firewalls that do much the same thing. Note that you're already doing NAT to go out on the Internet from your iPhone, so we know it's going out via a proxy firewall of some sort, so we know AT&T has the equipment to do it.

That said, I've seen no indication that AT&T is actually doing this on a regular basis for any but the most egregious "abusers" (their term for people who actually use the service they're paying for, as vs. the majority of us, who don't use the service much), and besides, it's easy enough to spoof browser headers anyhow. 

---

LOL I can't even make a decent call sometimes without three tries to get connected, you think I'm worried about their equipment for tethering detection?

[#28]

---

archermoo wrote:

Why would you assume that they need to use a packet sniffer to detect whether the traffic in question originated from the device or not?  Since the phone will know whether the data is from tethering or not it seems like it would be pretty simple for it to include a flag indicating such in the same way it includes its IMEI.

As to the fairness of the exchange of fees for services, I certainly encourage you to not enter into contracts that contain such exchanges as you feel are unfair.  Entering into such a contract is a defacto admission that you find the terms, if not fair, at least acceptable.

---

I would assume a down stream sniffer would be most efficient once IMEI/MAC was identified.  Then the packet source location jumping from cell to cell (and thus net to net) wouldn't affect the process as much.

Plus if browsing is not being used, how is the phone or their detection process supposed to know tethering is involved?  On an iPhone it's obvious because you have to turn the feature on, unless you JB the phone in which case you've turned it on, just outside the control of AT&T/Apple.  On other tethering capable phones where the feature is just "on", while the phone may understand the difference of tethered vs non-tethered, how does it report that to the net?  Is there a standard protocol to do that that is consistant across makes/models of phones?

As far as entering contracts goes, in this particular case AT&T is changing their contracts and forcing you to give up unlimmited data to get tethering turned on.  I'm willing to accept the stipulation that if you want to tether on an unlimmited plan, it is not unreasonable to receive an additional 'surcharge'.  However, an additional surchage AND forcing me onto a tierd plan, which I'm forced to accept to get tethering even turned on on my phone, which is ALSO locked into your cellular network smacks of the old "Ma Bell" monopolistic/trust BS of old.

This sort of practice eventually blew up in AT&T's face and got them broken up into the 'Baby Bells'...  If they continue along the lines their going now, I don't think it will be too long before the government steps in, just as the European Union has for their citizens, and forced some limits on the cellular providers.

[#29]

---

IPhone3GSOwner wrote:

LOL I can't even make a decent call sometimes without three tries to get connected, you think I'm worried about their equipment for tethering detection?

---

Considering the kind of problems I would foresee in doing that kind of monitoring, maybe they ARE doing that, and maybe THAT IS the cause of the poor reliability in various areas...

[#30]

---

DimentoGraven wrote:

I would assume a down stream sniffer would be most efficient once IMEI/MAC was identified.  Then the packet source location jumping from cell to cell (and thus net to net) wouldn't affect the process as much.

Plus if browsing is not being used, how is the phone or their detection process supposed to know tethering is involved?  On an iPhone it's obvious because you have to turn the feature on, unless you JB the phone in which case you've turned it on, just outside the control of AT&T/Apple.  On other tethering capable phones where the feature is just "on", while the phone may understand the difference of tethered vs non-tethered, how does it report that to the net?  Is there a standard protocol to do that that is consistant across makes/models of phones?

As far as entering contracts goes, in this particular case AT&T is changing their contracts and forcing you to give up unlimmited data to get tethering turned on.  I'm willing to accept the stipulation that if you want to tether on an unlimmited plan, it is not unreasonable to receive an additional 'surcharge'.  However, an additional surchage AND forcing me onto a tierd plan, which I'm forced to accept to get tethering even turned on on my phone, which is ALSO locked into your cellular network smacks of the old "Ma Bell" monopolistic/trust BS of old.

This sort of practice eventually blew up in AT&T's face and got them broken up into the 'Baby Bells'...  If they continue along the lines their going now, I don't think it will be too long before the government steps in, just as the European Union has for their citizens, and forced some limits on the cellular providers.

---

The contract hasn't changed, though the data plans being offered have.  The contract still stipulates that you are not allowed to tether your phone without a data plan that allows for tethering.  All that has changed for the iPhone on this front is that there is now a data plan that allows tethering available. whereas before it just meant that iPhone users were not allowed to tether at all.  They've also removed the unlimited data plan from all smartphones.  But even then they're allowing all smartphone users that have unlimited plans to keep them as long as they have a smartphone.

As to your monopoly claims, there is a VAST difference between having no other option to get dial tone of any kind and having no other options for getting a partiuclar model of phone.  If you don't like the options with AT&T, go to another cell provider.