It is not free there is an additional charge for it. There is a 29.99 charge to use the Wireless hotspot feature. Where are you getting your info from?
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.
Ralph de la Vega's contact information
- Thread starter zombitronic
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It is not free there is an additional charge for it. There is a 29.99 charge to use the Wireless hotspot feature. Where are you getting your info from?
I know and when i google the EVO Mobile hotspot plan it shows 29.99. Also i called radio shack and sprint and they said the same thing too that it is not free.
So where are you getting your info from?
That's the official sprint playbook and it states tethering is not free
Really?
It also seems like Sprint doesn't want to get in the way of the mobile hotspot functionality in Froyo, so there's reason to be optimistic. Still, allowing that functionality would instantly euthanize Sprint's own $29 Wi-Fi service, so Sprint will either have to take a financial hit or a PR hit on this one, and I'm not sure which they'll pick.
http://techblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2010/05/sprint-says-it-will-allow-pdan.html
People really need to start thinking for themselves. I bet you called BP and made sure they are doing everything they can to stop the oil leak and believed them...
I never said Sprint will not turn off the feature, there are other ways to enable the hotspot feature and tethering for free.
Well you stated that sprint was not going to charge for tethering. Does sprint make pda net? No. So like i said earlier sprint is charging for tethering.
And according to the article it says they won't block PDA net. Sprint does not make PDA net and therefore they are not giving away free tethering.
But if people abuse the PDA net usage then i'm sure sprint will find a way to circumvent the app
Where did I say Sprint isn't going to charge for tethering? BTW if you are in a 4G area you do get free hotspot for the first month.
Oh right buddy, like At&t is actually doing this to save the average user more money. They capped the data usage because they want to make more money, plain and simple. I would love to see the numbers on how many 4G users go over their $5 200MB data plan the first month.
Ever heard of the Sprint EVO?
Hasta la vista baby.
I left Sprint for AT&T mainly because of the iPhone and also because of Sprints high rate of dropped calls. I would be sitting at a stop light and have a dropped call. people are leaving Sprint in record numbers for a reason.
Saving the customer money is NEVER the goal of ANY for-profit company. (Unless it's saving money against another business as their business model...ala Mint.com).
It's a shame that this is your level of maturity. Perhaps you'll grow up someday.
mcdj, AT&T does provide bandwidth and support for data. I'm completely willing and happy to pay for this. The issue is that AT&T is not slicing and dicing anything in regards to tethering. My device is what splits up my connection, not my provider.
It seems that there are still many posters here who do not understand the technical process of tethering. None of us are asking AT&T to give us something for nothing; on the contrary, AT&T is asking us to give them something (an extra $20) for nothing.
Here are some (very crude) diagrams of an untethered iPhone vs. a tethered iPhone.
Untethered:
Tethered:
Do you see the additional technical service that AT&T provides for tethering? That's right, none. The fact that jailbroken iPhones can already tether should reinforce this.
kas23, thanks for the info. I realize that a complaint previously resulted in a cease and desist letter, however, I plan to write a polite email detailing what many of us know about the technical aspects of tethering, AT&T's role in (allowing) tethering, and finally to request a reply regarding AT&T's formal justification for charging $20 for a for a feature that is technically enabled and provided by the iPhone's hardware and software.
As long as people are polite, the worst you should expect is an answer you don't agree with. A few posters on this site should take that to heart.
Attachments
Why is this so hard for people to understand? AT&T sets their prices based on how much data people actually use, not on everyone maxing out their connection. They can offer a 2 GB cap for $25/mo because they know that very few people will actually use that much data.
Tethering will increase the total amount of data people will use. Even if no more people go over their cap, the total amount of bandwidth used will increase. Increased usage means increased cost for service and infrastructure upgrades. You can complain all you want about how you've paid for your two GB, but that really make no difference to AT&T's balance sheet. Whether you like it or not, that increase in total/average data use will mean that AT&T will have to increase data plan prices to recoup their costs.
Since these increases will be the direct result of people's tethering usage, doesn't it seem basic fairness that those who tether should bear the increased cost of their increased usage? Sure, AT&T could increase the price of everyone's plan, but how fair would that be?
I unlocked my iphone and have unlimited everything. No cap. I also have tethering on my iphone and have never gotten hit with any fees using the feature. Although Im jail broken as well as unlocked
No, you have to market to the masses the way they understand it. So this is a complete fail on AT&T's part. Most people will see this as "I paid for 2GB, I should be able to use my 2GB as I see fit."
Personally, I used to tell my friends that using PDA Net or jailbreaking and hacking the tethering was basically stealing from AT&T. However, now I'm re-evaluating that thought.
it's a business feature. anything that is sold to businesses is priced at rip off prices and features are nickel and dimed
There is a very good business reason for adding a cap to the tethering plan. They want to discourage abuse of their network. 3% of smartphone customers are using 40% of the bandwidth. That's serious usage. I'd bet 99% of them who are using iPhones are using it for tethering illegally.
They charge extra for the tethering, and have a cap... most people who use tethering will keep an eye on their usage, therefore more for everyone else.
It's a feature that they provide, they can charge what they want. If you don't want to pay... you don't have to.
They charge extra for the tethering, and have a cap... most people who use tethering will keep an eye on their usage, therefore more for everyone else.
It's a feature that they provide, they can charge what they want. If you don't want to pay... you don't have to.
I'm with you on this one. Charging any amount of money for tethering on capped data plans makes absolutely zero sense. Same goes for other carriers that do the same stupid thing.
To AT&T et al.: if a customer goes over 2GB via tethering, charge him extra!!!!! Do you get it?? Charge him extra!!!!!! Bytes on iPhone and bytes on PC are no different!!!! They are still the same freakin' bytes!!!!!!!! What's your f******g problem??????!!!!!!!! Die, AT(f***g)T, die!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Actually it makes perfect sense. If you had any experience running a business and setting pricing, you would realize it not only makes sense but is perfectly reasonable.
The other option was to raise EVERYONE'S monthly fee to like $35-$38 a month and include tethering for free. As someone who does not want tethering I am glad they did not choose that option.
This is what people don't understand, providing a $25 2 gig capped with free tethering, or $30 unlimited with free tethering was NEVER an option for them. Financially neither of those made sense.
So they had to do something else. Like I said they could have raised everybody up $5-$10 a month and piss everyone off, or they could give a good portion of their users cheaper access and let those who want to use more data with tethering to pay for it.
I know those of you who want tethering think I should help pay for your tethering but I don't want to... and the cost for you to have tethering is an extra $20 a month. If they don't charge you for it, they have to charge me for part of it, and I don't like that idea.
I know this is an old topic, but I've been pretty fired up about this lately. I understand that you think this is the reason why they do this, but I'm a little skeptical. It seems to me that people who are barely using their data plan probably wouldn't even notice that tethering is a feature they could use, or would want to use. I really don't think it will have as big of an effect on the average data consumption as you, or AT&T, would think.
With that said, I e-mailed customer service when the data plans were first announced, asking why they thought they were justified to charge for tethering when you're already paying per byte. This was their response:
"Historically, all of our Smartphone Data plans have required an extra charge for tethering, as do other providers. This practice is continuing with the new plans, so that we can stay competitive with the other providers plans. Again, I do apologize for any frustration that we charge extra for tethering."
Basically, "other carriers do it, we've done it before, we're going to keep doing it". I think that's a pretty bologna answer, I would've been much happier with an answer like the poster above gave, but I don't think AT&T trains their customer service responders that well. On top of the fact that if they lifted the charge for the feature, it would help them stay competitive MORE, because they're offering something their competitors don't offer!
And even if what the above poster said is true, that by including tethering, the average data usage would go up and they'd have to charge more for data plans, that's fine. Charge me $5/month. Maybe even $10. But to nearly double the cost of your data plan just to use that data on another device is disrespectful and insulting. Would the cost offset really be that much? If they put the tethering plan at an additional $5/month, would the average data usage go up that much more? I understand that they probably did a lot of research to show that $20 might be the best price point to mitigate the usage, but they aren't even saying that. Instead they're saying "it's an added value", even though it's not a value that THEY add!
All in all, I'm pretty annoyed. I'm planning on started a complaint website, similar to fixoutlook.org, where users can have their voices heard and maybe even send harassing e-mails to the CEO (whom is now a much nicer one, btw). I'm especially annoyed because I want to get the new iPad and I believe I'm entitled to use the 2Gb I already paid for on that device (go ahead, make fun of my American sense of entitlement, I think when I pay for something it should be mine). I hope the OP sees this post and is interested in getting in on the action for the website. Maybe engadget and gizmodo will promote it and we can actually get some momentum to use our responsibility as consumers to make change. The only reason captialism fails is because the consumers don't take this responsibility seriously, and just let companies call the shots. Let's not be afraid to make waves!
You realize that this is actually capitalism at it's best, you're talking about more of a socialist set up where people actually get treated fairly. Beyond this, you're missing 2 key points:
AT&T isn't alone in this pricing structure
No carrier or company is under any obligation to give its customers what they want. Is is fair that I pay for cable (well, actually I don't, but if I did) and can't location shift what I'm paying for? How about that I can't run a server off my home internet? Or that I can't transfer my car insurance between vehicles whenever I want to?
If you ever get in touch with old Ralph, I'd rather you just ask him why ATT wins so much at sucking? Crappy service, spend more on saying they are good instead of actually improving things, if you have an ATT email account, you have to use freaking POP3 on an iPhone sold by ATT. stuff like that.
stuff like that.