MyWi WiFi hotspot alternative?

[Strawbis]

If you go to an "all you can eat buffet" it's not really all you can eat how you want. You can't take food with you when you leave, nor can you pass it out the window to your kids sitting out in the car. You can try to spin it however you want, but there's always caveat to any promotion, and if you're unable or unwilling to comply, you can either complain, or take your business elsewhere.

You can feel as wronged as you want, but you agreed to the terms.

yes, yes! I saw that analogy in a thread that was locked earlier. but they are saying "All You Can Eat", and then telling you to stop when they think you've had enough, not when you're full.

 

[bella92108]

yes, yes! I saw that analogy in a thread that was locked earlier. but they are saying "All You Can Eat", and then telling you to stop when they think you've had enough, not when you're full.

If you were saying "it's unfair for them to tell me how much I can use on my iphone" I agree 100%, but you're CONNECTING (yeah, prohibited in itself) and using the iPhone's CONNECTION to deceive them into thinking the data is consumed from the iPhone when it's not. You don't have a leg to stand on. They're not telling you you can't use as much as you want on your iPhone, they're telling you you can ONLY use as much as can be used from your phone.

This argument is stupid. Clearly you chose to interpret the way you want. I guess the tethering bolt-on your carrier offers is just there for the hell of it and they tell you the data has to be consumed from the intended device doesn't apply to YOU... whatever, I'm done with it... if you don't like it, cancel your service or don't try to justify the legality, because their contract couldn't be clearer, you just don't like it. Use your tethering, just don't say they allow it unless you also supply a letter you write to their legal department stating you tether and don't pay the tether package, and their legal department's response indicating you're free to do so within your contract. Hell, let's see ANY legitimate lawyer take that case on your side. LOL, it'll never happen. Well they'll take it any day, but want pre-payment, hahaha.

 

[Block]

Edit: Going to avoid joining this argument

 

[Cinemagic]

There's nothing illegal about what's in their contract, which is why they have not been sued. They're not charging for the same data any more than if you bought two houses across the street from each other that you'd argue you should be able to connect them by a cable and watch the same TV subscription. No court would side with you, plain and simple. You're cheating AT&T because you know you're supposed to subscribe to the tethering plan but you're not. I'm not saying they're right to charge for tethering, in fact, I think it's BS, but it's within their legal right to do so. They're not chasing customers because it's not worth their time, but how about this. Cancel in protest, and see if they don't slap you with an early termination fee and chase you and your credit report for it.

I think it's funny how people argue the law on here to whatever is convenient for them. There's absolutely no relationship between the jailbreak legality and the terms of use. If you rent a BMW car, it's perfectly legal to use 89 octane gas in the vehicle, but if your rental agreement states that the manufacturer recommends using 92 therefor your contract with the rental car agency states that you must use 92 or better gas, then you're bound to do so. If you don't like the terms, don't sign up with them, this is a free country, you have options.

In this case you're right, AT&T will never come after you, nor will they know, but if you apply the same flawed logic and misunderstanding of the law to other situations you'll find yourself in trouble one day.

First, I did not argument that I was NOT violating their TOS, if their TOS says I cannot tether without a specific plan and I do so, then I clearly violate their TOS. What I said was that IMO, the provision in their TOS may not be enforceable. If it is not enforceable, then I have every right to do so. I further said that a court would have to be the one to make a final determination as to the enforceability of this provision.

And you have case law to support your arguments? How do you know what a court would do? I certainly don't. I would contend in your first analogy, that if you owned both houses and lived in both houses you would be able to run a cable (notwithstanding the logistics involved). If you rented one, then you would not have such entitlement. Nothing is "plain and simple" when it comes to court decisions. And you're right that people argue the law when it is convenient for them. That's why there so many lawyers and law suits in this country. What may seem "plain and simple" to you is not necessarily "plain and simple". I will say that in your scenario, I would actually take your position in the argument. But I can certainly see that the other side can make some very valid arguments and actually stand a fairly good chance to prevail.

Your analogy of the BMW is a poor analogy since 1) the automobile is still owned by the leasing company (though you can certainly argue that AT&T still owns the towers and data flow), and 2) a person that leases an automobile still has certain rights and privileges that had been the subject of much litigation and legislation.

The relationship between jailbreaking and TOS is simply that just because a company says it's illegal and puts it in their contract does not make it so. As I mentioned, Apple contended that jailbreaking was illegal. Well, just because they said it was, didn't make it so, did it? Jailbreaking is legal. The relationship between the two is that just because AT&T says tethering without a specific tethering plan is a breach of their contract, doesn't necessarily make it so. Yes, jailbreaking and tethering are two separate issues, but the contention by a company (regardless of what company it is) that something is illegal by virtue of the fact that they put it in their terms of service or contract is the same. If there are differing opinions, then it is up to a court to decide which party is right.

AT&T has not been sued because they haven't pushed the issue. If I violate their TOS and they do nothing, why would I sue? Law suits, particularly in Federal Court, is extremely costly. If I was able to bring a class action suit against AT&T, could I recover costs? What would the damages be? AT&T has to evaluate what they think their chances of prevailing in a court would be if they pushed the issue. Then weigh this against the revenue they would gain of lose by winning or losing the case. Since they can work out the deal with Apple to incorporate their plan into the firmware and since the percentage of people who violate this TOS is relatively small, it may not be worth the risk and cost of litigation.

 

[bella92108]

First, I did not argument that I was NOT violating their TOS, if their TOS says I cannot tether without a specific plan and I do so, then I clearly violate their TOS. What I said was that IMO, the provision in their TOS may not be enforceable. If it is not enforceable, then I have every right to do so. I further said that a court would have to be the one to make a final determination as to the enforceability of this provision.

And you have case law to support your arguments? How do you know what a court would do? I certainly don't. I would contend in your first analogy, that if you owned both houses and lived in both houses you would be able to run a cable (notwithstanding the logistics involved). If you rented one, then you would not have such entitlement. Nothing is "plain and simple" when it comes to court decisions. And you're right that people argue the law when it is convenient for them. That's why there so many lawyers and law suits in this country. What may seem "plain and simple" to you is not necessarily "plain and simple". I will say that in your scenario, I would actually take your position in the argument. But I can certainly see that the other side can make some very valid arguments and actually stand a fairly good chance to prevail.

Your analogy of the BMW is a poor analogy since 1) the automobile is still owned by the leasing company (though you can certainly argue that AT&T still owns the towers and data flow), and 2) a person that leases an automobile still has certain rights and privileges that had been the subject of much litigation and legislation.

The relationship between jailbreaking and TOS is simply that just because a company says it's illegal and puts it in their contract does not make it so. As I mentioned, Apple contended that jailbreaking was illegal. Well, just because they said it was, didn't make it so, did it? Jailbreaking is legal. The relationship between the two is that just because AT&T says tethering without a specific tethering plan is a breach of their contract, doesn't necessarily make it so. Yes, jailbreaking and tethering are two separate issues, but the contention by a company (regardless of what company it is) that something is illegal by virtue of the fact that they put it in their terms of service or contract is the same. If there are differing opinions, then it is up to a court to decide which party is right.

AT&T has not been sued because they haven't pushed the issue. If I violate their TOS and they do nothing, why would I sue? Law suits, particularly in Federal Court, is extremely costly. If I was able to bring a class action suit against AT&T, could I recover costs? What would the damages be? AT&T has to evaluate what they think their chances of prevailing in a court would be if they pushed the issue. Then weigh this against the revenue they would gain of lose by winning or losing the case. Since they can work out the deal with Apple to incorporate their plan into the firmware and since the percentage of people who violate this TOS is relatively small, it may not be worth the risk and cost of litigation.

Sorry, I wasn't saying anyone did anything criminal by using the tethering. I simply meant it was breach of contract, which is a strictly civil matter if anyone were to pursue it.

Either way, thanks for at least being the only one to reply with an intelligent analysis even if I don't agree 100%, so I respect that. Your observations are good and I respect that.

 

[Strawbis]

If you were saying "it's unfair for them to tell me how much I can use on my iphone" I agree 100%,.. yada, yada, yada, ...snip!

forget tethering, forget connecting another device.

They have used the word UNLIMITED and then go on to say there is a 2Gb cap on usage! This is mis-representation of the facts. IT IS NOT UNLIMITED - IT IS LIMITED TO 2GB.

That makes any contractual obligation null & void.

 

[MikePA]

forget tethering, forget connecting another device.

They have used the word UNLIMITED and then go on to say there is a 2Gb cap on usage! This is mis-representation of the facts. IT IS NOT UNLIMITED - IT IS LIMITED TO 2GB..

Being a newbie doesn't permit you to spout lies.

ATT has a 200mb plan ($15/mo) and a 2 gig plan ($25/mo), neither of these data plans are called unlimited. For those grandfathered in, there's an unlimited plan ($30/mo) which is unlimited, i.e., no cap on usage. Understand? There's nothing misrepresented except to people who can't, or wont, read.

 

[Strawbis]

Being a newbie doesn't permit you to spout lies.

...There's nothing misrepresented except to people who can't, or wont, read.

being a seasoned poster doesn't permit you to skip posts before pontificating to newbies.

I was talking about O2-UK. Read my previous posts & you'll see that bella mentioned AT&T, not I.

 

[MikePA]

being a seasoned poster doesn't permit you to skip posts before pontificating to newbies.

I was talking about O2-UK. Read my previous posts & you'll see that bella mentioned AT&T, not I.

Ah, yes, I see where 20 posts ago you switched the subject from ATT to O2. How foolish of me to not read every one of your posts in this thread.

 

[Strawbis]

Ah, yes, I see where 20 posts ago you switched the subject from ATT to O2. How foolish of me to not read every one of your posts in this thread.

that's not what's foolish - what is foolish is your preaching that I ..won't or can't read.. and you neglecting to read before posting insults!

Hypocrisy springs to mind.

BTW: I may be new here, but I've been around forums for quite some years and can usually handle myself against forum bullies of all cultures.

thanks for the welcome.

 

[MikePA]

Not to worry, MR tolerates all kinds of bad behavior by newbies.

BTW, I read and understood your recent posts, it was you who was not clear about what you were talking about. Much too easy to take out of context, particularly since the usual discussion about non-US carriers is they are as close to perfection as a carrier can get. But, all's well, my post resulted in you explaining your context. Good job. Isn't there some government agency in the UK that handles this that you can complain to? Tut, tut, pip, pip and all that rot.

 

[Goldinboy17]

Sorry you guys, I didn't know there were such strong feelings regarding this. I honestly only intended to use it for the rare emergency, the thing is seriously helpful. The power went out the other day and I had no option but to get MyWi to turn in an assignment. The lame part was when I realized that power outages = ridiculously slow data on the phone. Speedtest logged 15 to 100KBPS, it was awful!