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.
For those that think Tethering shouldn't incur an additional fee....
- Thread starter samcraig
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
There is a difference between buying one data stream from AT&T and buying two data streams. I can buy one DSL line or I can add a second phone line and, with it, a second independent DSL line. With 2 independent lines, I can justify the need to pay for them individually (because I am buying 2 times the bandwidth, hence 2 times the price), but what I do with one of those lines should not be AT&T's concern as long as I am not exceeding my alloted bandwidth.
The difference here is that the "restriction to one device" should really be a restriction to one data stream. I am purchasing a "Data Plan" from AT&T, not a device. In other words, I am buying bandwidth, or data. Bandwidth or data is independent of device (that's my position) and therefore restriction to one device is a violation of "fair use".
AT&T's current policy says "do not tether." Those who are tethering in violation of the terms and conditions as they exist today are on their own. The rest of us are talking about an upcoming tethering policy from AT&T that, we hope, will honor the principles of Fair Use.
a) you keep going back to DSL as a model and I keep telling you it's apples and oranges.
b) that might be your position - but the truth is - you're buying the unlimited data FOR a device. You can't just go to ATT and order unlimited mobile internet. You need to have a device to use it. Furthermore - you can't buy unlimited internet and buy 10 phone lines and have that one internet plan on ALL your devices. That means that ATT is selling you internet for the one device on your plan (at a time)
So yes. one data stream, as you said is correct. But as of now the policy is one device = one data stream. How ATT deals with it in the future is anybody's guess. But the MODEL that exists across carriers in the US is that they will treat tethering as increased usage separate from your data plan.
Remember all the analogies you painted such as the Gym Membership? You were comparing Apples to Oranges, but a comparison of DSL sharing and Cellular Data sharing seems perfectly reasonable to me. In both cases we are talking about sharing a data plan -- data plan for DSL and data plan for cellular -- apples and apples. In both cases we are talking about the same provider -- AT&T for DSL and AT&T for cellular -- apples and apples.
First, AT&T does not yet have a policy on the actual 'use' of tethering (saying "do not tether" is not saying how you can 'use' tethering). With DSL, the physical phone line is the conduit through which the DSL signal flows. With cellular, your cellular phone is the conduit. But my DSL signal is not limited to one consuming device. By extension, neither should my cellular signal be limited to one consuming device.
You can also argue a technicality, as follows: If you take the SIM out of iPhone 1 and put it into iPhone 2, you are now using the data on a different device. Do you think that should be allowed or disallowed? Remember that you activated your data plan on iPhone 1, but not on iPhone 2.
I think there's some confusion here. The difference is simple: You can buy 1 concurrent data stream or you can buy multiple concurrent data streams. If my needs were such that I needed twice the bandwidth, I would buy a second concurrent data stream. But if 1 data stream is sufficient for my needs, I am justified in connecting 10 PCs to that single stream.
Let's hope the plan they announce is consistent with the principles of Fair Use. That might mean imposing a cap (e.g. 5 GB) on monthly data use, which would be fine and fair. Anything beyond that can be billed separately.
The way I see it, it does make a difference. IF you can't browse on your iphone a the same time as tethering then that renders your iphone (the one you have the data on) useless for that period of time, therefore as another poster has alluded to, you are using your notebook as a monitor. The fact that you can hook up more than one notebook is something the network providers should maybe look at.
They may base their fees on the fact that you can use multiple systems for tethering, but i'll bet the majority would far prefer tethering to be restricted to one motebook and the cost being zero.
I still stand by my original argument.
Your phone is accessing the data, which we all have unlimated data plans with fair usage policy, which is understandable so people don't go raping iPlayer and the like.
Your phone is accessing the data, your just displaying it in a different way, why do some people fail to understand this?
Your laptop is not accessing the data, it's just displaying it for you, your phone is doing all the work.
Why do you fail to understand that every phone provider charges additional for tethering. So why should us special iPhone owners NOT be charged?
It is a lot easier to eat data on a laptop in comparison to a phone. So, while you may be sending the data through your phone, your computer is still in control and thus you have a much easier ability to eat up bandwidth and drag down the network. ok?
Lets use a different example: college housing. My on-campus apartment has 1 ethernet jack per student, and NO wireless. You are NOT allowed to hook up a router or switch, or any other device that may allow more than 1 system on the network at any given time. Using your logic you could argue that all the data is going through the same port anyway so what does it matter? That isn't the point, more devices allow you to keep more simultaneous connections via that port at any given one time thus allowing you to eat up more bandwidth.
Just because every provider charges for tethering doesn't make it right. If I pay for unlimited data to and from my iPhone, there's no reason why I shouldn't be able to transfer said data to and from another device if both devices have the capability. AT&T's services are not required for that transfer, and they should not be able to charge for it. I could give less than a crap if Verizon does.
Yet iPhone owners are the only ones who complain. Crazy isn't it. AT&T doesn't want you to use the iPhone to replace your ISP. Thus, they will never allow unlimited tethering. Get over it. The network can't handle it and with the large quantity of people who b***h about the AT&T network, I am AMAZED at the outcry for free, unlimited tethering. You people are nuts.
I could care less what AT&T does or doesn't want. What I care about is what I pay for and what I get. I wouldn't even use tethering to be honest, but if you look at the entire situation the logical conclusion an informed consumer would have with regards to a separate tethering charge is that they are being fleeced.
It does not matter that other companies charge for tethering. In a competitive market, we do not want companies colluding to fix prices and/or policies, do we? That would violate anti-trust laws. It should matter that DSL sharing does not incur extra cost, so why shouldn't this apply to cellular data?
We have said this ad nauseam: Put a cap on it. Problem solved.
A single PC can still wreak havoc on bandwidth! Nevertheless, if your apartment manager imposed a monthly cap per line, this wouldn't be an issue.
"Just because every provider charges for tethering doesn't make it right. If I pay for unlimited data to and from my iPhone, there's no reason why I shouldn't be able to transfer said data to and from another device if both devices have the capability. AT&T's services are not required for that transfer, and they should not be able to charge for it. I could give less than a crap if Verizon does. "
It's the business model that exists. If you don't like it - start a petition, be active in a campaign to get it changed. But moaning and groaning that it's unfair on a message board does nothing. And breaking the TOS as an act of rebellion can and might land you in deep trouble if you're caught - so good luck with that.
Forget my analogies, everyone elses - the point is moot. That's NOT THE CELLULAR INDUSTRY MODEL. Doesn't matter if it's logical. That's how the cellular industry operates currently. I don't think it's logical that gas prices raise when there is still a huge surplus of oil. That doesn't give me the right to cheat the system either.
I'm not saying it's not logical or it is logical. It just is. And you don't have to take it. You can write your senators and congressmen, or whatever you want legally and I think that's great.
But most (maybe not all) are more than fine sitting in their homes, complaining about it to anyone who will listen without taking any real action. Instead - you'd rather cheat the system. That's not a way to make change - that's a way to guarantee the consumer will get screwed because the person providing the service will want to make sure their butts are covered.
That's really the bottom line.
It's the business model that exists. If you don't like it - start a petition, be active in a campaign to get it changed. But moaning and groaning that it's unfair on a message board does nothing. And breaking the TOS as an act of rebellion can and might land you in deep trouble if you're caught - so good luck with that.
Forget my analogies, everyone elses - the point is moot. That's NOT THE CELLULAR INDUSTRY MODEL. Doesn't matter if it's logical. That's how the cellular industry operates currently. I don't think it's logical that gas prices raise when there is still a huge surplus of oil. That doesn't give me the right to cheat the system either.
I'm not saying it's not logical or it is logical. It just is. And you don't have to take it. You can write your senators and congressmen, or whatever you want legally and I think that's great.
But most (maybe not all) are more than fine sitting in their homes, complaining about it to anyone who will listen without taking any real action. Instead - you'd rather cheat the system. That's not a way to make change - that's a way to guarantee the consumer will get screwed because the person providing the service will want to make sure their butts are covered.
That's really the bottom line.
Everybody who owns a smartphone knows that their data plan is for data access from the phone, not data access through the phone. Ya see?
But the complaint I see here is that "I play for unlimited data, I should get that via any device". Also, a cap on a college campus is not possible. We need our network connection for every class so you can't cap users, you can just restrict them by having 1 device and having 10Mbit ports. Your cell provider is not a computer ISP.
Wireless companies sell phones and charge for voice and unlimited data
Wireless companies sell aircards and charge for data (with a cap)
The unlimited data plan is $30
The 5 gig cap is $60 on an aircard
So, as far as I'm concerned - as long as tethering costs $30 or less, iPhone users are getting a "deal" based on the pricing model ATT has because they have unlimited ON THEIR DEVICE and the additional tethering (which we can assume will also be capped)
If anyone should complain - it's aircard users who pay $60 and only get 5gigs instead of unlimited for the same price as iPhone users will be getting. But the resons for not having unlimited on the aircard has already been discussed ad nauseum.
Wireless companies sell aircards and charge for data (with a cap)
The unlimited data plan is $30
The 5 gig cap is $60 on an aircard
So, as far as I'm concerned - as long as tethering costs $30 or less, iPhone users are getting a "deal" based on the pricing model ATT has because they have unlimited ON THEIR DEVICE and the additional tethering (which we can assume will also be capped)
If anyone should complain - it's aircard users who pay $60 and only get 5gigs instead of unlimited for the same price as iPhone users will be getting. But the resons for not having unlimited on the aircard has already been discussed ad nauseum.
Are you sure you want to lump everybody into that category? Dangerous assumption. Nevertheless, the point you're missing is this: you feel that the status quo is justified and are happy to go along with it. Many of the rest of us don't feel that way. We are much more value conscious as consumers. Because we're talking about a future policy, we are advocating a policy that honors the principles of Fair Use. Forget about existing policies; forget about the past. We're speaking about the future.
This doesn't make much sense. One computer can wreak havoc on bandwidth. If your apartment manager has not found examples of abuse with the one-PC-per-line policy, why would he or she fear two-PCs-per-line or three-PCs-per-line?
o2 is my home broadband ISP, i have unlimited download (fair use policy)
o2 is my mobile phone provider, i have unlimited data (fair use policy)
Question is why do I then have to pay for the data again on tethering? At the least I should be offered a better price for it since I have both services through the same company?
o2 is my mobile phone provider, i have unlimited data (fair use policy)
Question is why do I then have to pay for the data again on tethering? At the least I should be offered a better price for it since I have both services through the same company?
But other than complaining here - what are you doing? Have you written to congress? A local representative? Advocating to other consumers who may or may not share your viewpoint isn't going to make ANY change.
"Question is why do I then have to pay for the data again on tethering? At the least I should be offered a better price for it since I have both services through the same company? "
Because like with MANY businesses that have different "arms" - they are different entities. Different accounting. Typically run as different busineses. GE Financial doesn't care how many GE appliances I buy for my home. They are two different "companies" under one umbrella.
With all due respect samcraig, you are the thread starter and one of the most passionate people here. The only difference is that you are passionate about how we should stop complaining. But all I see you do about it is complain on an internet forum. Have you written to your senator about how we should shut up? Have you taken the initiative and driven to ksz's house or place of employment in order to punch him in the face? Advocating to other consumers who may or may not share your viewpoint isn't going to make ANY change.
Its not a he/she issue, its a University policy spread across 4 cities. And its a pretty standard policy for many large universities. See, you are oversimplifying an issue, there are thousands upon thousands on systems on the network that they need to support.
Its completely different. The data is going THROUGH your phone but you are not USING your phone for the data access.
This is pointless. You people obviously have no idea how cell providers operate. But thats fine.
And quit avoiding my point about the AT&T network. People b***h about the network speeds and such, how do you think that will change if AT&T offers free tethering?
It is NOT completely different. AT&T's network is still being directly accessed by your iPhone. The only difference is the addition of the computer as an intermediary between the user and that data.
Network->Phone->User
Network->Phone->Laptop->User
The only thing AT&T should be concerned with is the step from network to phone. That is what the user pays for. How the user accesses the data after that point should be up to them.
Network->Phone->User
Network->Phone->Laptop->User
The only thing AT&T should be concerned with is the step from network to phone. That is what the user pays for. How the user accesses the data after that point should be up to them.
How easy is it to throw up a torrent client on your iPhone? How easy is it to play WoW on your iPhone? Now, how easy is it to throw up a torrent client on your computer? How easy is it to play WoW on your computer? Using data on your computer is SO much easier than on your iPhone.
"With all due respect samcraig, you are the thread starter and one of the most passionate people here. The only difference is that you are passionate about how we should stop complaining. But all I see you do about it is complain on an internet forum. Have you written to your senator about how we should shut up? Have you taken the initiative and driven to ksz's house or place of employment in order to punch him in the face? Advocating to other consumers who may or may not share your viewpoint isn't going to make ANY change."
I assume you're joking. But if not - you lack the fundamentals of debating. And the legal profession. The status quo or "pro side" doesn't have to change or offer any solution. They can do a counter-argument. The "con side" is the side which has the burden of proof and/or has to make an argument for the change.
I am not suggesting anyone shut up. If you read my last message you'll note that I encourage people, if they are disgruntled to take action. But if they aren't willing to take THAT step - then really, they aren't justified in complaining. If you want to see change - do something about it. If you try and fail, you have every right to "put down the man" (but not steal or break TOS to do so). If you're just logging on to vent frustrations, then you can't be surprised when ATT or any other carrier steamrolls right over your deepest desires.
I assume you're joking. But if not - you lack the fundamentals of debating. And the legal profession. The status quo or "pro side" doesn't have to change or offer any solution. They can do a counter-argument. The "con side" is the side which has the burden of proof and/or has to make an argument for the change.
I am not suggesting anyone shut up. If you read my last message you'll note that I encourage people, if they are disgruntled to take action. But if they aren't willing to take THAT step - then really, they aren't justified in complaining. If you want to see change - do something about it. If you try and fail, you have every right to "put down the man" (but not steal or break TOS to do so). If you're just logging on to vent frustrations, then you can't be surprised when ATT or any other carrier steamrolls right over your deepest desires.
So then AT&T can address that properly with bandwith caps and restrictions which they directly disclose in their advertising instead. Ease of access to different sources of data is not a valid argument against the free transfer of a paid unlimted data plan through the device you are paying to access said plan with to another device. The iPhone is more graphically powerful than ever. If an MMO client is released for the iPhone, should there be a separate surcharge for that data, or would that be included under "unlimited?"
I was joking, but please don't lecture me on debating. We are all speaking in hypotheticals here. No tethering rate plan has been announced yet for the iPhone, so there is no status quo yet. Neither party has the burden of proof since no policy yet exists to change. I don't see the difference in or requirement for initiative between either side of the argument. How can I write my senator to change a policy that has not yet been implemented?