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
The argument isn't really about how many devices are connected. Currently you can't connect any other device based on the contract:
Some people have the misconception that they should be able to use the data plan however they decide and somehow they are entitled to make this determination themselves. The reality is that we'll end up with whatever AT&T decides. There is no entitlement for using the data plan however you'd like to use it. AT&T makes their own rules.
It doesn't have to be logical or even necessarily fair. That's just how it is.
Unfortunately, none of these analogies work for the simple reason that licensing agreements can be artificial and arbitrary. You cannot use License Agreement A from one domain and cite that as justification for License Agreement B from another domain.
Here's a recurring counter example for you: You share your DSL or Cable line at home among multiple computers without paying additional fees. This is the most pertinent analogy because the same company (AT&T) that imposes no extra fees for bandwidth-limited DSL sharing may end up imposing extra fees for bandwidth-limited cellular data sharing. It's like a two-headed monster that is at odds even with itself.
Those who continue to belabor the argument that we feel entitled to free tethering are completely missing the point. Entitlement has nothing to do with it. It's an argument about what constitutes fair use.
And sure AT&T can do whatever it wants, but that is not the point of the argument either. The argument is about fair use. If excess bandwidth is the issue with tethering, then placing a cap makes perfect sense and constitutes fair use.
Stop using logic. It makes their irrational ears bleed.
Clearly, everyone advocating the use of additional charges for tethering even when still adhering to the fair use terms of the contract must have purchased separate internet services for each computer or otherwise internet-capable in their house.
My opinion is that they shouldn't charge any extra as long as we dont go over the 5GB soft cap. I have been using PDAnet for 3 months now and have never went over 2 GB of total data in any month. And I play WOW at work on the connection, 
To bad there isnt some way they could just block torrents and newsgroups from the 3G connection, then they probably wouldnt have to worry about a surge of use.
To bad there isnt some way they could just block torrents and newsgroups from the 3G connection, then they probably wouldnt have to worry about a surge of use.Of course they bought separate lines for each home computer because they know the terms and conditions of every product they own, and they follow those terms unerringly.
not fair to charge more than internet companies
Ya it's wireless internet you could have wherever you have service, but to charge much more than an actual internet company that provides internet speeds almost 10fold faster than 3G is unacceptable.
In otherwords, I agree with people who say it's acceptable for 5-10$/month additional charge to a total of 35-40$/month for data on your phone. I THink to charge an ADDITIONAL $70/month like initial reports said it would be is just outrageous. That's more than my fiber-wire internet and HDTV at my house. That's totally unacceptable.
Ya it's wireless internet you could have wherever you have service, but to charge much more than an actual internet company that provides internet speeds almost 10fold faster than 3G is unacceptable.
In otherwords, I agree with people who say it's acceptable for 5-10$/month additional charge to a total of 35-40$/month for data on your phone. I THink to charge an ADDITIONAL $70/month like initial reports said it would be is just outrageous. That's more than my fiber-wire internet and HDTV at my house. That's totally unacceptable.
"You share your DSL or Cable line at home among multiple computers without paying additional fees. "
Many don't pay feed. But actually - I know that some companies DO charge for the use of a router on their system. It's a flat fee - not per computer based.
Fair use is determined by the agreement between ATT and you when you selected their service. Their fair use does NOT include tethering. Period. They've stated it in their agreement. You can argue until you're blue in the face what YOU consider fair use. They've already dictated the terms of the agreement. And since it's their service, not ours, they get that right.
Many don't pay feed. But actually - I know that some companies DO charge for the use of a router on their system. It's a flat fee - not per computer based.
Fair use is determined by the agreement between ATT and you when you selected their service. Their fair use does NOT include tethering. Period. They've stated it in their agreement. You can argue until you're blue in the face what YOU consider fair use. They've already dictated the terms of the agreement. And since it's their service, not ours, they get that right.
No, but if an ISP decided to charge per device, or by usage, I'd say it's within their rights to do it.
I can't believe you guys are still arguing about this.
Just wait for the threads when they announce the extra charges for tethering.
But AT&T does not charge extra for sharing the single DSL stream. If AT&T considers that to be Fair Use of DSL, then why should tethering not be considered by the same company to be Fair Use?
This is incorrect. AT&T has not announced its iPhone tethering policy. Period.
HUGE FAIL. As of current - here is the policy YOU agreed to (my bolds):
Examples of prohibited uses include, without limitation, the following: (i) server devices or host computer applications, including, but not limited to, Web camera posts or broadcasts, automatic data feeds, automated machine-to-machine connections or peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing; (ii) as a substitute or backup for private lines, landlines or full-time or dedicated data connections; (iii) "auto-responders," "cancel-bots," or similar automated or manual routines which generate excessive amounts of net traffic, or which disrupt net user groups or email use by others; (iv) "spam" or unsolicited commercial or bulk email (or activities that have the effect of facilitating unsolicited commercial email or unsolicited bulk email); (v) any activity that adversely affects the ability of other people or systems to use either AT&T's wireless services or other parties' Internet-based resources, including "denial of service" (DoS) attacks against another network host or individual user; (vi) accessing, or attempting to access without authority, the accounts of others, or to penetrate, or attempt to penetrate, security measures of AT&T's wireless network or another entity's network or systems; (vii) software or other devices that maintain continuous active Internet connections when a computer's connection would otherwise be idle or any "keep alive" functions, unless they adhere to AT&T's data retry requirements, which may be changed from time to time. This means, by way of example only, that checking email, surfing the Internet, downloading legally acquired songs, and/or visiting corporate intranets is permitted, but downloading movies using P2P file sharing services, redirecting television signals for viewing on Personal Computers, web broadcasting, and/or for the operation of servers, telemetry devices and/or Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition devices is prohibited. Furthermore, plans(unless specifically designated for tethering usage) cannot be used for any applications that tether the device (through use of, including without limitation, connection kits, other phone/PDA-to computer accessories, BLUETOOTH® or any other wireless technology) to Personal Computers (including without limitation, laptops), or other equipment for any purpose. Accordingly, AT&T reserves the right to (i) deny, disconnect, modify and/or terminate Service, without notice, to anyone it believes is using the Service in any manner prohibited or whose usage adversely impacts its wireless network or service levels or hinders access to its wireless network, including without limitation, after a significant period of inactivity or after sessions of excessive usage and (ii) otherwise protect its wireless network from harm, compromised capacity or degradation in performance, which may impact legitimate data flows.
Also it would have people in an uproar. I'm not saying AT&T or any other carrier shouldn't charge for tethering. I'm saying that the amount they charge is usually completely overpriced. For example:
Say most users only tether 20% of the time data is in use on their device out of a month. Now say a standard data plan is $50 and tethering adds another $50. (these are just examples of pricing, i know they're not realistic.) Logic would tell us that you should be paying about 20% of $50 to cover the tethering of your device. What sense does it make to charge the customer the price of another FULL data plan that will be used with the device, and yes it is the same device? Regardless of whether that phone is plugged into a laptop, the phone is still the one that is tx/rx'ing the data.
Why do you think this is a hard problem to crack? I have an AT&T DSL Modem (a Motorola model) that has a built-in wireless router. Because every computer registers itself, the modem could send that information back to AT&T.
Putting something into a contract does not make it legally binding if what is in the contract can be shown to be contrary to law in court. Whether this could be shown to be legal or not, I cannot say. But it would seem that the use of the word "Unlimited" leaves a lot of room for interpretation.
No need to be melodramatic! We all know this clause. The contract says do not tether and I've already stated that I don't. We are waiting for a new tethering policy to be announced soon. A new policy. Not an existing one.
I wouldn't mind paying an additional $5-10/month to use the iPhone's "unlimited" data for tethering, but with all the criticism around AT&T and carriers here in the US, I think it would cause major backlash if they don't do this for free.
Charging to add additional data on top of the "unlimited" data at the going data rate ($30/5GB = $6/GB) if a user needed more bandwidth, would be acceptable by all though.
Charging to add additional data on top of the "unlimited" data at the going data rate ($30/5GB = $6/GB) if a user needed more bandwidth, would be acceptable by all though.
Of course there are. And there are also other ways AT&T could deduce excess use. So what?
"Putting something into a contract does not make it legally binding if what is in the contract can be shown to be contrary to law in court. Whether this could be shown to be legal or not, I cannot say. But it would seem that the use of the word "Unlimited" leaves a lot of room for interpretation."
That's irrelevant to the comment I was responding to.
KSZ asserts that tethering isn't covered in his agreement. It is. Clearly. As are several other inappropriate uses.
You can disagree with it until the cows come home - but as I said before - ATT has made it clear what you can and can't do before being liable for additional charges.
That's irrelevant to the comment I was responding to.
KSZ asserts that tethering isn't covered in his agreement. It is. Clearly. As are several other inappropriate uses.
You can disagree with it until the cows come home - but as I said before - ATT has made it clear what you can and can't do before being liable for additional charges.
You'd have to be able to define excess use. Maybe I have one computer with two network cards in it downloading every single Linux distro on the planet. There's no way for them to know. If I have my modem plugged into a computer acting as a router that does not hand off computer info to AT&T there is no way they can find out what is on my network short of illegal access to my network or breaking into my home.