Yet AT&T can legally bill you and require you to pay for ever bit of data you download while teathering. I believe the cost works out to be 10 bucks per meg. Tell me how would those people like being slammed at that cost.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
AT&T Cracking Down on Unauthorized Tethering
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't know if you should be insulting people around here, you're the guy who typed "man on man" and then blamed your phone for autocorrecting my sn. I mean... MY phone doesn't do that... but I guess I haven't been searching around the Internet for anything that would cause my phone to think "man on man" was an appropriate suggestion
I actually paid my way through school doing affiliate marketing for adult websites and also running their social media such as Twitter, Facebook and editing videos to make them just acceptable enough for YouTube and other sites as promos.
It makes me on average $4,500 a month for 6-7 hours of work a week. But it's not consistent. Some weeks I only make $200 and others I make $2,000
At a 50% commission on each sign-up and re-bill you'd be surprised how lucrative it can be. The main company I work for the guy started it in 2002 with $25,000 and he is now worth $30 Million.
You don't have to believe me because I don't really care but if you do want proof I can change one of the websites landing pages to say "Hi RKahl" or something.
What's amazing to me is that some of the people acting like condescending preachers don't even comprehend the definition of the word "stealing".
If they did, they would realize it's AT&T that are the thieves. These people are paying for a certain amount of data per month and that's what they should get. It should not be of the slightest concern to AT&T how these people use their data. If I buy a gallon of distilled water from the grocery store and it costs 99 cents, should the grocery store be able to tell me that I have to pay a surcharge of $10 per month if I want to use that water in an electrolysis machine to generate hydrogen fuel (as opposed to say using it in an espresso machine) ??? I bought the water either way. How I use it is none of their business. Them charging more money because they think I'm getting better or more use out of the water I bought is nothing but unethical greed. It would be the grocery store that is doing wrong, not the person buying the water. I'm amazed so many greedy Republican types on here can't see basic math of 1+1 <> 10. For those that claim to be "religious" you should trying reading the parts of the Bible or Torah that talk about weights and measures and cheating the customer by charging more for what they bought than what they get.
Now I personally don't even an own an iPhone and I wouldn't want to even deal with scammers like AT&T again who do nothing but try to bleed you dry with BS "fees". I used to have them for phone service and my bill just kept going up up up every month with added "fees" for things like "maintaining long distance carrier" (even if I never used a single minute of long distance each month). It came out to like $46 a month on average with one or two long distance calls amounting to a couple of minutes (and many months with no long distance usage). Now I get unlimited long distance for $29 a month and they don't try to charge me more for using my fax machine on the line (which is what AT&T is trying to do to iPhone users).
Actually they can't. All they can do is terminate your service end your contract early.
Has anyone here actually read the T&C or do they just blab stuff out randomly? It's like people that live in Louisiana giving legal advice to people in California. State laws vary greatly and most people that love giving legal advice haven't even taken a basic Business Law course much less are full on attorneys.
I'm a total Republican and I agree with being able to use the data how ever you want.
The difference between me and most "Republicans" in this country is that I think for myself and don't let Glenn Beck tell me what to do and when.
I've been checking blogs, news sources, forums, etc... since the supposed deadline to see if ANYONE has been had their contract terminated or been upgraded to the DataPro plan and I can't find one single example so I've convinced that AT&T either has no way to prove MyWi users are tethering or their lawyers/business department decided that they would lose more money by changing customers contracst who could in return keep the AT&T iPhone, sell it and then go to Verizon with no ETF.
If anyone can link to a reputable source where they report a person being forced to upgrade, etc... then I'd love to read it.
If anyone can link to a reputable source where they report a person being forced to upgrade, etc... then I'd love to read it.
considering AT&T just started doing this only a few weeks ago the lack of a force change means nothing.
I am willing to bet the force chances are going to start coming in a few months. Give the ones tethering a little time to choose to either A) Stop tethering or B) switch.
Also detecting the teathering is a cake walk to do. Mutliple ones of us who have a better understanding of how networking works have already pointed out how easy it is for AT&T to pick that up. All they count are hopes in the data path to a given point. If it is greater than the number than it should be then you are tethering that simple.
Also every report I have heard about that message going out has been on people who OMG have been tethering. That tells me that they can do it.
Also chances are the people they will force switch are the ones who tethering more than the every now but the ones who are repeated offenders month after month.
One friend of mine got a message and she uses her phone a lot for Netflix and Pandora, etc... because she travels but her phone is not jailbroken and she does not tether.
Another friend told me his mother got a message and she barely knows how to use her iPhone much less jailbreak it and tether. But she does use a lot of data because she downloads all her podcast directly to the phone.
Do you also believe that people who are smart enough to simply clear their cache and therefore circumvent the 'paywall' at NYTimes.com are also super criminals that are causing undue harm to all the other people that view that website?
and I will just say I do not believe you as both those are quetionable at best. All the reports here from people who gotten them have been from people who teather and on top of that as multiple ones of us have pointed out it is very easy to prove and detect.
Go learn a little how TCIP data packs work and how all that is transmited and you will understand how easy it is to see that there is an extra hop.
AT&T knows exactly how many hopes is should be from your phone to a check point. If there is 1 more hope on top of that then you are tethering as that means there is a hop from a device to the phone.
It should go Phone to Tower to check point..... If there is one more on there that is a tethering.
But the 3G network gives out a theoritical maximum of 3.6Mbps or 7.2Mbps, so the iPhone can only take what the mast is giving it.
Tethering an extra device to an iPhone won't increase the bandwidth that the mast is giving out.
The extra device can only ever share what the iPhone is give from the mast, put it this way-if you had 10Mb cable BB, that's what you get to your house-10Mb.
So your one PC can download at 10Mbps, yes?
Good, now if you add extra PCs/laptops/whatever and start downloading, your 1st PC can't download at 10 Mbps because the others are sharing it.
That's the point I'm making, in that example having 4 PCs sharing the connection won't make the cable co supply any extra bandwidth, there's still a 10Mbps connection going to the house.
You could QoS the machines and give them 2.5 Mbps each, but the fact remains that adding PCs to a home network via a switch or router doesn't take more bandwidth and nor does tethering an iPad to an iPhone's 3G connection.
Last edited:
Aaaaand, hence the reason he is able to state that "all" the reports he's heard are going to people that actually tether. Lol, it's easy to make claims like that when you just throw out all data that doesn't fit your statement
Yes, everyone is impressed that you understand TCP and networking...it's not a hard thing to learn, you're not unique. What has ALSO been pointed out multiple times is that there is a difference between CAN and DO. What you need to "go learn" is that businesses base decisions on things like cost/benefit, and not just "hey, is it technically possible to do?!". There's no telling whether or not they used a simple, less costly/more error prone method of detecting these people, or whether they are going full stop and implementing a more robust, less error prone method of catching people. Then there's the separate decision of what action they decide to take on it... how many/how hard they will go after people. That again won't just be what they are legally or technically capable of doing... they will consider a lot more than that, like cost (both what they need to spend and potential losses from blowback and other risks) etc.
It will all depend on how much they REALLY believe unauthorized tethering is costing them, and what they stand to gain based on what methods they use. It may just be that it's costing them enough to need to address it- but they calculated that blasting out a message that catches a lot of people tethering and some people who aren't would scare enough people out of tethering to offset it, and that doing more wouldn't be worth it. I'm not saying that IS the case, I'm just saying that unless you work for AT&T and are IN some of these meetings- nobody knows until more data comes out.
And, you know...you have to actually TAKE that data into consideration when it does...you can't just decide not to believe it because it doesn't fit with your opinion
it makes perfect sense. You bought the right to a data connection to your phone, but not to the rights to re-broadcast that data connection to other devices. Devices that could be simultaneously used by other members of your family.
Add something to my drive in movie example. The charge is $10 for a single person, and a single charge of $10 that allows up to 5 other people in your car. You go, pay the $10, and sneak in 3 other people in your trunk. You claim the same movie image is coming to your car either way and you are taking up the same amount of parking space. How is that any different at all than buying data access to a single device knowing full well there is an extra charge to share that access with additional devices.
Your DVD analogy is the one that's wrong. DVD's do come with licenses that restrict what you can do. You can't legally upload the video to the internet, you can't legally broadcast it on TV, you can't legally make copies and sell or rent them. You simply can't claim you bought the DVD so you can do whatever you want with it.
Get it through your head!!!
AT&T did have tethering on the unlimited data plan. It was offered when iOS 3.0 was released for an extra $20 a month.
Am I typing in a foreign language that you are not understanding?
This defeats your whole argument.
Thats the problem, many didn't.
AT&T did not have tethering plans before.
Also for the unlimited people they do not have the ability to add tethering.
How will they handle the Tmobile unlimited at $10 a month and all the people who tether for free on TMobile?
Unbelievable how people defend AT&T
Most Carriers offer unlimited and many free tethering.
Its hard to believe that they can offer it like this and AT&T can't.
AT&T did have tethering on the unlimited data plan. It was offered when iOS 3.0 was released for an extra $20 a month.
Am I typing in a foreign language that you are not understanding?
This defeats your whole argument.
Yeah, your analogy I think is one of the few that actually do make sense, haha. The analogy people make that you can use your home internet connection on multiple machines without having to pay extra is also correct...the difference is just the business model that these companies are using.
Your ISP's for home internet have it built into the business model for you to be able to do this, and they allow it. Phone companies didn't originally have this scenario accounted for, and now that they do they are choosing a different route- asking you to pay more if you want to use multiple devices. Whether or not we like this is one thing- but it IS built into the contract, so they have the right to do whatever they want to protect it.
As far as I'm concerned though, I just don't care. These companies are always looking for a way to stick it to consumers, nickel and dime us and make an extra buck- adding or changing terms to contracts whenever they want etc. So while I know it's against what THEY want, and what we originally agreed to- I don't give a crap, i'll do the same and get what I can, how I can until they decide to stop me. I don't use data on multiple devices simultaneously, I use the same amount of data I would have used on my phone surfing there, but surfing it on my iPad instead because I want the bigger screen while i'm on the bus or whatever. If i'm using a laptop I'm always on wifi so I'm not blowing through more data there. To me, I'm just avoiding paying extra for using the exact same amount of data. If they want to pop up and stop me, more power to them- I'll cross that bridge when I come to it.
Call it justification, call it stealing, call it whatever you want- I won't lose a wink of sleep.
Last edited:
As I mentioned before, I have no axe to grind either way, but my take on it is that your iPhone can only ever receive data at "x" speeds/rates.
For example, in my iPhone I have a Vodafone (UK) SIM and at home for example I get about 2.5Mbps down on any given speed test.
Now, if I were to download at full pelt on my iPhone for an hour I could only download "x" amount of data in that 60 minutes due to the network I'm on and my location.
So, if I were to tether my phone to my iPad and my laptop for example, I am still only able to download at that same speed for that 60 minutes, so what's the issue (apart from the contract saying that I'm not allowed to tether)?
Connecting 2 x extra devices to my iPhone's data connection isn't going to magically make Vodafone increase the speeds I get (and therefore increase the amount of data I can receive).
Just my 2p's worth.
you paid for a data connection for your phone, not the right to saturate the line 24/7. They had reasonable expectations for how much data people would use their phones for. Tethering changes those expectations, which is why there is an extra fee and why tethering plans don't offer unlimited data.
If you combine G4 phones, tethering and unlimited data, suddenly many people could do away with their home ISP and use their data plan instead. That clearly wasn't the intent of unlimited data service for phones and quite clearly uses tons more bandwidth usage per month than the same phone without tethering.
it's illegal (and unethical) to steal service without paying for it.
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think there is any risk of this actually happening, lol. If people wanted a crappy, slow data connection to share on all their computers at home, they'd just pay the 10-20 bucks or whatever it costs to get it through a normal isp. Why would you pay all that money for phone service and data connection just to get it through tethering...
I read the T&C and it specifically prohibits tethering without buying the additional service.
the have a very easy way to prove it. if data coming from your phone is requesting web pages from a browser that identifies itself as a desktop or iPad browser, you have to be tethering.
undue harm to other visitors? no
stealing content? yes
just because it's easier than robbing a bank doesn't make it right.
Last edited by a moderator:
It may be unethical but it's not illegal. Why does everyone make it seem like the people that tether are stealing a car or running a cable line to their neighbors house?
It's not "illegal" but it does break the TOS. That's about it.
the potential peak is the same. The bandwidth actually used is different. The ISP factors this into their pricing. If your ISP offered a discount for people who didn't have routers, would you use the same argument to take the discount and then add a router?
Actually it does. If a customer with an unlimited data and unlimited nights and weekends wants to call moviefone and stream Netflix or Pandora while they sleep, it's within their rights.
If they had reasonable expectations that people would use between 1GB-2GB a month then they should never have offered the Unlimited Plan and started with a 2 GB plan. Sorry they miscalculated.
They don't offer it because they are greedy and because their network sucks. They've had the iPhone for years now and could have upgraded their network but they haven't and have only introduced even more smartphone to the line-up of offerings.
This is laughable. I tether on Verizon and also when I had AT&T and I'd get a whopping 1-2mps download and god knows how slow upload. It'd take me 2 days to watch a Netflix movie while tethered and trying to do something else.
I get 30-35mps on my home ISP for $50 a month so no way I'd get rid of my home service and I doubt many others would either.
However, I wanted to test it and see how WOW would perform and it did quite well.
Anymore invalid arguments you'd like to try?
Yes, I know that. But it doesn't say they can charge you if they "catch" you. It says that if they change anything on your contract without your permission that you can end the contract with no ETF.
And that they can terminate you for any reason at anytime.
Sounds like a win-win to me. Get out of the contract. Keep and sell the AT&T phone for $400-$500 and then use the $500 to go get a Verizon phone without a contract.
Okay dude. Now you're just getting ridiculous. I could tell you the sky is blue right now and you'd disagree with me just because you do not want to be wrong or admit that someone else MIGHT be right.
Last edited by a moderator:
it most certainly is illegal to steal service. Try googling illegal tethering. Even sites that give instructions for how to do it say
and it's pretty much exactly like running a cable line to your neighbor's house. I have DirecTV, which charges a per receiver fee. It would be just as illegal to hack a receiver so I could use it on another TV without paying the per-receiver fee.
from their phone. Even streaming netflix while they sleep isn't' going to saturate a G3 or G4 connection, but tethering allows for multiple simultaneous netflix connections, which could.
Last edited by a moderator:
But it would not be "illegal" or "unethical" to use only one box and a splitter and run a cable from that single box to multiple TV's in the house. Or to move the box from room to room depending on which TV you were watching at the time.
You are paying for one box and only using one box. You can only watch the same channel in each room at a time, but it's the same concept.
No they didnt. The unlimited plan was never eligible for a tethering plan. AT&T made it very clear that in order to qualify for tethering you either had to have their 2 or 4 gig plans. There is a reason they discontinued the unlimited plan right when they offered tethering.
Since you seem to be so sure that they did offer a plan like they did, I challenge you to provide a cite (from an authoritative source) that confirms that the tethering plan in eligible under the unlimited plan. Provide an authoritative claim and I will retract my claim. If you cannot provide such a cite, please retract yours.