Pdanet hide usage vs MyWi

[ftflintstone]

Spectrum is actually there...for now

I'm glad several users agree with me on the entire issue of illegal tethering. And kudos for the analogy of broadband companies facing this same exact issue over a decade ago. Unfortunately these two scenarios are far too different to predict any accurate outcomes. You see with broadband/dsl/cable they are not limited with the amount of data they can process. All it takes is to route the data into several different wires all going to different 'distribution' centers and upgrade hardware. With cellular data you are limited by the amount of available spectrum on a given frequency. 'LTE' is a much more efficient data exchange that can fit massive amounts of data into the same air space that would have 3G crawling on its knees. But again this is not an answer to spectrum shortage. When a copper line can no longer provide any more data flow all the company has to do is lay down another line to allow for 2X the amount of data then originally supplied. A cellular company can't just build new spectrum. They can buy more but its a limited resource.

Not that I agree or disagree with you on the legality of tethering without a tethering plan, but I disagree with your comment on spectrum being the limiting factor at this time. As I've done work for wireless carriers, I have seen first hand that the bottleneck at the majority of sites for a major carrier is the meager 1-3 old T1's that tie that site back to the backbone. I'm sure there are some large cities are more up to date, but many are not. We provide fiber to homes yet still run towers off of copper and no they don't just lay down another run when it's saturated. My opinion is that the spectrum is there for the time being, the cabled links from the sites to data center are inadequate. Most have not been updated and are still based on over subscription just like the old dialup days when counting on only 1 of 7 paying customers being online at a time.

Yes spectrum is somewhat limited, but consider that additional radios can be deployed at same sites on other freqs to handle more density of users and is probably cheaper to implement than the additional copper run that was previously mentioned or even fiber in those cases. Again, IMO, the issue is that the carriers just simply hate the additional infrastructure costs. Heck, that cuts into their bottom line.

They truly believe the network will be "good enough" for 3-4 more years when they get rid of everyones unlimited data plan, any way they can.

 

[Spectrum Abuser]

.

 

[jlmitnick]

Hey man, "spectrum abuser" I agree with you that it violates the contract, but you are just ridiculous in your assertion that it is "illegal". You can't go to jail, there is no law against tethering. It's just a breach of contract. That's like saying when you want to exit your contract before the 2 years that you agreed to you've committed an "illegal" act. No, you've breached your contract but it's not illegal. Technically, illegal can be used more broadly like "illegal procedure" in football, but the way you're implicitly using the term here is incorrect.

 

[D-Love]

Quit stealing data and spectrum. If you want to stream all the Pandora or Netflix on your PHONE over Edge/3G that's fine. But if you want to tether pick the appropriate plan and pay for your usage. In the ToS it states that you are granted unlimited data access for your specific device and nothing else.

Hi there random AT&T rep who created an account to anonymously troll people on MacRumors who "steal" your precious data.

I'll use my data as I wish, thank you. When you pay for a data plan, WITH CAPS, and you are forced to pay $20 extra just because of HOW you use it, THAT is a crime. I'm not even going to get into the ridiculous amount of money users are charged for simply texting. Thats even MORE of a crime. Its BS like this that forces regulation of the industry. Uncontrollable GREED.

 

[james-jones]

More Actual Information

And kudos for the analogy of broadband companies facing this same exact issue over a decade ago. Unfortunately these two scenarios are far too different to predict any accurate outcomes. You see with broadband/dsl/cable they are not limited with the amount of data they can process. All it takes is to route the data into several different wires all going to different 'distribution' centers and upgrade hardware. With cellular data you are limited by the amount of available spectrum on a given frequency. ... A cellular company can't just build new spectrum. They can buy more but its a limited resource.

Wrong again Spectrum - perhaps this misconception explains your irrational defense of the telecoms. For the record, I am a free market capitalist and don't think the government should force anything on the the wireless providers, but as customers we have to DEMAND good service and a good value, and not get taken to the cleaners by people who use technical terms to obfuscate reality.

(unfortunately the government does get involved by auctioning off spectrum as a tax and barrier to entry, rather than perhaps a commitment of a certain spend on network build-out instead which would allow carriers to spend tens of billions more on providing good service)

My analogy of dial-up customers is most directly comparable as the ISP has a limited number of physical lines they can use to provide access for subscribers, and they overbook by a wide margin. (perhaps readers remember AOL busy signals in the '90s) Thus, leaving a computer connected downloading a file for multiple days in a row completely denies service to other subscribers, far worse than some slight degradation in the quality of service.

A similar analogy does apply for broadband internet, where providers sell subscribers a connection, perhaps 10mbits, but know that nobody utilizes that 100%. They only provision say 50kbits for them on the backend link with their providers, which works unless something like, say, streaming video comes along and all of a sudden providers need to cut into their generous profit margins and pay more for bandwidth and hardware upgrades. That also provides incentive to come up with Internet overcharging schemes, like AT&T's new home DSL/U-verse caps.

As to the supposed inability of AT&T to "build new spectrum," or being limited by spectrum when it comes to servicing existing frequencies, that is also simply not true. By reducing the cell size (adding additional cell sites,) more capacity can be added to a given frequency range. This is how large cities can be served despite not having that much more spectrum available than other areas.

AT&T's main quality of service issues are caused by congestion on signaling channels, which are utilized when initially making a connection or sending a notification like a text message or incoming call.

One a connection is established, AT&T's network is currently limited by cell site backhaul, which is easy to upgrade and has nothing to do with available spectrum. Once the connection is established, it's not any more responsible for dropped calls whether it is a steaming video or SSH session being transmitted.

(this Ars article has more detail: http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2010/02/how-smartphones-are-bogging-down-some-wireless-carriers.ars)

If AT&T really wanted to improve network quality, they would start capping text message plans at 200 (and add more backhaul), but they know that would drive users to free low-bandwidth text messaging apps and they'd lose all of those lucrative plans.

Bandwidth caps are simply providers trying to monetize free Internet video content.

Lack of available spectrum is a convenient scapegoat and in the end an excuse to acquire a nimble competitor, a thin veil over the true intentions of facilitating AT&T's LTE buildout, at the expense of current T-Mobile customers who will suffer reduced quality of service as the spectrum they are currently using is repurposed.

(note AT&T stands to lose $3b + spectrum valued at $4b if the T-Mo deal falls through due to terms of their initial agreement, so look for a very dirty fight!)

 

[b24pgg]

Quit stealing data and spectrum.

If you can't answer the OP's question, there's no need to inflate your post count. No one asked for or cares about your opinion on morality.

Tethering is not stealing. You are using the data you've already paid for. By attempting to charge you twice for data you've already paid to use, the carrier is the scam artist, not the person tethering.

 

[TC25]

If you can't answer the OP's question, there's no need to inflate your post count. No one asked for or cares about your opinion on morality.

Tethering is not stealing. You are using the data you've already paid for. By attempting to charge you twice for data you've already paid to use, the carrier is the scam artist, not the person tethering.

And if you can't answer the OPs question, engage in rationalization....and start a new thread on the same topic. <thumbs up>

 

[Spectrum Abuser]

If you can't answer the OP's question, there's no need to inflate your post count. No one asked for or cares about your opinion on morality.

Tethering is not stealing. You are using the data you've already paid for. By attempting to charge you twice for data you've already paid to use, the carrier is the scam artist, not the person tethering.

I was trolling.. Hence the name.

 

[b24pgg]

I was trolling.. Hence the name.

Oh my bad then, I'm dumb