Pdanet hide usage vs MyWi

[lavrishevo]

So, I received the dreaded AT&T you have been tethering message and I switched back to Pdanet, which has the option to "hide" tethering. Can anyone comment how this is working for them in regards to AT&T seeing that you are still tethering. Pdanet does seem slower but I would rather have tethering that is slower compared to none at all.

 

[Shenaniganz08]

So, I received the dreaded AT&T you have been tethering message and I switched back to Pdanet, which has the option to "hide" tethering. Can anyone comment how this is working for them in regards to AT&T seeing that you are still tethering. Pdanet does seem slower but I would rather have tethering that is slower compared to none at all.

will still be caught. It doesn't matter if you use 2gb/mo 90gb/mo pdanet, miwi, a VPN connection, just connect an ipad, etc

AT&T has figured out somehow how to recognize data that does not originate from an iphone device. The best theory/explanation is that even with a VPN connection you still need to send out a signal of a) what browser you are using b) what device is being used

 

[dexthageek]

This question has been asked for months and there is still not clarification on if PDANet successfully hides tethering?

 

[Spectrum Abuser]

I find that the PDAnet level one usage hider is enough. Been going for a few months now with no issues.

 

[Applejuiced]

So, I received the dreaded AT&T you have been tethering message and I switched back to Pdanet, which has the option to "hide" tethering. Can anyone comment how this is working for them in regards to AT&T seeing that you are still tethering. Pdanet does seem slower but I would rather have tethering that is slower compared to none at all.

Its BS.
People using PdaNet's hide usage feature still get caught by AT&T.

 

[james-jones]

Information

I'll use my unlimited bytes how I see fit, thank you very much

Getting back to the topic at hand and adding value to the conversation, there are only a few ways to detect tethering, some of which require more effort on the part of AT&T than others.

TTL: In my opinion, the most likely telltale signal of tethering. iOS packets originate with a TTL of 64, so if they see anything else they know something is up. This is very easy to check, as the TTL is checked by each router as the packet is handled. (the address on the envelope - doesn't require opening the letter, to use an analog analogy)

APN: Another possible sign of tethering is data being routed over the access point set up for the built-in tethering feature. The makers of MyWi have allegedly said that they have always used the same APN that the built-in mail app, etc. use, so I don't know about this one. PDANet surely also uses the phone APN by now, if it didn't always. TetherMe at one point did use the other APN I believe, and there is a Cydia package to change it. Again, this is easy to check without deep packet inspection.

User-agent: This is where carriers would need to get heavy-duty equipment and a willingness to be invasive to detect tethering. Your browser sends information about itself to remote web servers, and this information could be checked. I do not think AT&T is doing this (to detect tethering at least,) as it is not proof of tethering since anyone can easily use another browser from the App Store that reports a different User Agent.

Web Sites Visited: Again, highly invasive, though it doesn't require DPI. If you're using the DNS servers of the carrier, they could look for requests for certain domain names like windowsupdate.com etc. This wouldn't be proof either, though.

I would bet that they are using TTL. I have only used Bluetooth tethering to my iPad since before they started doing this nonsense, and have never gotten a message, before changing my TTL, so tunneling the TCP/IP packets that way probably resets the TTL to the default of the WAN interface on the phone. Tethering only with an iPad isn't enough by itself - you need to tether an iPad (possibly more) using Bluetooth only in my experience.

I don't tether very much, though I do use a bunch of data on my unlimited iPhone plan. (I'll download a few massive Linux BluRay ISOs this month, just for you Spectrum need to bring up the averages)

I've seen tons of people using under 2GB getting messages about tethering, so I think they want to get unlimited users off of those plans regardless.

As for whether PDANet will work, I've never tried it personally, but I've seen reports that people were left alone after turning on Level 2 masking. I don't know what PDANet does to mask it, but at the very least it changes the user agent.

You can manually change the TTL on a laptop or iPad to 65 as well, so packets originating from the cell modem will have the expected TTL of 64. Just google for it and I'm sure you'll find it. (iPad needs to be jailbroken to do this)

I need to put together directions on how to take a TCP/IP packet capture from the iPhone WAN interface so we can settle this matter once and for all.

 

[Spectrum Abuser]

I was 'trolling.

 

[bruinsrme]

Its BS.
People using PdaNet's hide usage feature still get caught by AT&T.

Is this first hand experience or from another posting?
If from a post was it on macrumors?

 

[james-jones]

Downloading BluRays over 3G

No. You're breaking the contract that YOU signed. Unless your parents signed it and in that case they are liable to be punished. Hell, you broke a legal agreement and if AT&T wanted to make a statement they could take you to court.

Your statements are consistently off-topic and have nothing to do with the question asked. Don't presume to know what I signed or when.

If you want to pay AT&T $45 to download a Linux ISO, have fun I'm happy to tether and knowing that self-righteous toads like you, Spectrum, are bothered by it makes each byte that much more sweet

Is this first hand experience or from another posting?
If from a post was it on macrumors?

Bruins - I have seen a couple posts elsewhere from PDANet users who were sent followup texts. You can read some here: http://appadvice.com/appnn/2011/08/how-to-avoid-having-att-kill-your-unlimited-data-plan

What we really need to do is get tcpdumps of each tethering method to compare effectiveness. Heck, if PDANet won't do it properly, I'll write my own version

 

[Spectrum Abuser]

Hmm..

 

[Applejuiced]

Is this first hand experience or from another posting?
If from a post was it on macrumors?

From many posts I came across multiple forums.
I don't think it hides anything, more like a gimmick thing IMO.
But give it a shot and hope they don't notice right away.

 

[gngan]

Who ever gave a thumbs down for Spectrum Abuser are people that thinks they can do whatever they want with their so call "unlimited plan". Though i believe any carriers should offer unlimited tethering for an additional charge but taking away the unlimited plan for tethering is not right.

james-jones: Why don't you look at your agreement with ATT and see if it includes tethering?

 

[james-jones]

You got me. I'm completely bothered that people like yourself ruined unlimited data for the rest of the U.S. Pay for a legitimate home internet service and or mobile service and quit being a leech on society.

Yeah, that's it, not AT&T losing out on the FCC spectrum auction to Verizon and creating a panicked atmosphere to justify acquiring T-Mobile's AWS bandwidth

AT&T doesn't have a chance of providing nationwide LTE coverage themselves without getting the acquisition through and subsequently obsoleting existing T-Mobile members' phones to use 1700/2100MHz blocks for the new network. Funny how those awful ads don't mention that little tidbit.

Imagine, people watching Netflix, CNN, HBO or listening to Pandora without a meter running - it's almost as novel a concept as when AOL introduced unlimited dial-up. I imagine you also harbor resentment toward people like myself that dared to utilize the advertised product and (gasp) leave their modem connected overnight (or for several days) downloading a single file.

I'll continue using my legitimate unlimited data plan regardless if the carrier wants to try and gouge me for watching the content on an iPad screen instead. Consider the sheer lack of reasoning in this argument:
Internet Video Content->AT&T->Cell Phone->HDMI->TV = OK, no problem
Internet Video Content->AT&T->Cell Phone->WiFi->iPad = Tethering, naughty abuser

Obviously, if AT&T had a way of detecting HDMI output they'd find a way to put a surcharge on that as well.

While you're busy making worthless posts because you're angry you missed out on unlimited or whatever, go flame CNN and Wired for also encouraging people to actually use the service and device they pay for. It wasn't some massive moral dilemma for them.

Jailbreaking for free hotspots
If you're down with getting a little dirty, you can use your Android phone or iPhone as a hotspot without paying monthly fees by hacking your device.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/mobile/03/18/ipad2.3g.skip.wired/index.html

Available through the underground Cydia app store, MyWi is the No. 1 reason you need to jailbreak your iPhone. In a few seconds, the app turns your iPhone into a wireless 3G hotspot — extremely useful in times when you don't have a Wi-FI connection and need to surf the web with your computer, or even your Wi-Fi-only iPad. That's right — unlimited tethering with no monthly fees.
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/12/most-wired-ios-apps/?pid=1029

You've inspired me to beat these traffic identification methods once and for all Look for a detailed analysis of the packets sent to AT&T shortly.

 

[jlmitnick]

No. You're breaking the contract that YOU signed. Unless your parents signed it and in that case they are liable to be punished. Hell, you broke a legal agreement and if AT&T wanted to make a statement they could take you to court.

Um, actually they can't "take you to court" for tethering. They, and you, agreed to binding arbitration for contract disputes. Also, if you break the agreement, they can cancel you and charge you an ETF, or they can add the tethering onto your plan, but again, they don't just "take you to court".

Also, the "unlimited" clause in the contract hasn't really been borne out or clarified - someone could sue AT&T for limiting their unlimited data, as advertised at the time, and win.

Also, the "fine print" of not being able to tether could be construed as an adhesion contract and declared invalid.

Believe it or not, "fine print" doesn't always protect the company. If it can be shown that they misled, or if the contract terms are proved to be unconscionable, then they will be invalidated. You actually can't just put ANYTHING you want into a contract's fine print and have it hold up under legal scrutiny.

 

[Krandor]

If you want to pay AT&T $45 to download a Linux ISO, have fun I'm happy to tether and knowing that self-righteous toads like you, Spectrum, are bothered by it makes each byte that much more sweet

and it is people using their phone to download things like a linux ISo "just because they can" which is the reason that AT&T is trying to identify tether users in the first place. If all people did was tather to an iPad or sometthing like that then they would have no reason to do this, but we have some people who must download a BluRay over their tether connection in order to "stick it to the man".

 

[maturola]

From many posts I came across multiple forums.
I don't think it hides anything, more like a gimmick thing IMO.
But give it a shot and hope they don't notice right away.

OP, Apple is right, PDANet all it does is proxy the data so all the traffic that get out of the phone actually come from the phone, this will "reduce" your chances of getting caught by a bot parsing the traffic, however it is "NOT" an effective way to hide from tethering usage, some Applications, programs, HTPPS access still require direct access to the client exposing you to the parser. Also in this cases your traffic get flagged for review by a human and then it will be process so there is not work around this, if you are tethering and At&T got you, you have only 2 options left, pay the tethering plan or stop tethering.

 

[ckong]

While I don't advocate the stealing of service, this thread toggled an old memory...

Back in the day when home broadband came out, the service providers (Time Warner in my case) discouraged people using more than one PC on their Cable/DSL modem Internet connection. Do you guys remember how long it took for software work-arounds and then the first Linksys router to come out? Back then I paid over $150 for my Linksys...and it didn't even have a wireless AP built-in.

Ah the memories.

 

[robotphood]

It just seemed like it was bound to happen that we'd lose tethering. I enjoyed it while it lasted but I'm not mad it's gone. However, it's a shame you can't even tether on a capped data plan. Good luck on your quest.

 

[lavrishevo]

Thanks everyone for the replies. I decided I am just going to go ahead and get the second phone I needed for local business and use it for the times I have no WiFi available. It's not on AT&T. To bad because AT&T is just going to loose money. I barely ever used more then 3 gb's a month. Sad.

 

[tjb1]

Until Verizon decides to run broadband or DSL to my house like they have been saying for the past 11 years...I will continue to use 10 GBs a month. Dont like it, shut up. When you have had 21.6 kbps dial up for 11 years you will understand.

 

[Captain America]

Um, actually they can't "take you to court" for tethering. They, and you, agreed to binding arbitration for contract disputes. Also, if you break the agreement, they can cancel you and charge you an ETF, or they can add the tethering onto your plan, but again, they don't just "take you to court".

Also, the "unlimited" clause in the contract hasn't really been borne out or clarified - someone could sue AT&T for limiting their unlimited data, as advertised at the time, and win.

Also, the "fine print" of not being able to tether could be construed as an adhesion contract and declared invalid.

Believe it or not, "fine print" doesn't always protect the company. If it can be shown that they misled, or if the contract terms are proved to be unconscionable, then they will be invalidated. You actually can't just put ANYTHING you want into a contract's fine print and have it hold up under legal scrutiny.

It's this very debate and issue that has led me to create an account on this forum. I've popped in and out of this site due to various links over the last two years or so and learned some nice things.

I'm one of the people who have been contacted by AT&T about this. I think it's ridiculous that my "unlimited" data plan is being limited. If they didn't want people doing it, they should have said so in the first place. I expect to receive unlimited usage with an unlimited plan.

 

[labman]

It's this very debate and issue that has led me to create an account on this forum. I've popped in and out of this site due to various links over the last two years or so and learned some nice things.

I'm one of the people who have been contacted by AT&T about this. I think it's ridiculous that my "unlimited" data plan is being limited. If they didn't want people doing it, they should have said so in the first place. I expect to receive unlimited usage with an unlimited plan.

it's very well known that at&t and Verizon charge seperate on the tethering. While I would love them to include if. You agreed to it in your terms and conditions. They also have every right to try to catch you. I can't blame you for trying to get away with it. however suck it up when your caught. Find a carrier that tethering is included with unlimited.

 

[Spectrum Abuser]

.

 

[TC25]

Spectrum Abuser - You have committed the cardinal sin by introducing facts into a thread filled with the Entitled whining, "I paid for [unlimited] data and I should be..." Nevermind, it's too annoying to even quote them.

 

[Spectrum Abuser]

Spectrum Abuser - You have committed the cardinal sin by introducing facts into a thread filled with the Entitled whining, "I paid for [unlimited] data and I should be..." Nevermind, it's too annoying to even quote them.

Indeed.