-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
Root I'm torn over free tethering...
- Thread starter Travisimo
- Start date
-
- Tags
- motorola droid x
If all you're doing is checking email and facebook, why don't you just do that on your phone. There's an app for that! It takes all of 5 minutes to add tethering to your account, and another 5 minutes to remove it after your trip. Yes, I think it would be awesome if they had a button on the Wifi App that allowed you to easily add/remove the service from your account, but it's clear that Verizon wants you to add it to your plan and forget about it, paying them $20 a month for a service that is rarely used. This is in their interest, and as long as the customer is too lazy to remove the feature, then I'm fine with that. Corporate America shouldn't screw over their customers, however it's not their job to hand-hold the customer who is too lazy to take care of themselves.
You can pay $40 for a mobile broadband account with 250MB or $60 with 5GB of traffic, with no cell minutes. I would say 2GB for $20 is quite nominal. If that is not nominal, then use a different provider. Or continue to use Verizon against the TOS, but don't claim you "aren't given a choice" or are doing something morally justifiable.
I'm not intending to get to a personal level, simply pointing out flaws in our society when the culture of "I'd entitled to whatever I want" gets out of hand. 2GB for $20 is perfectly acceptable compared to 5GB for $60. Even going with different providers with similar coverage (e.g. cell companies, not clearwire with it's limited coverage/range) this is considered normal, if not fair. This is a winning argument on my part because if you find someone who is cheaper/"more fair" then you should simply use them. Why continue to support a company with "unfair" pricing plans and practices. Again, T-Mobile was given as a solution, since they appear to be comfortable with their users tethering.
The fact is users who tether for 500MB or less a month are probably of minimal concern to Verizon but annoyance is cumulative and if enough users are tethering "just a little" then it will add up. Nevermind users who are using 2GB+ a month of tethering and not paying for it.
Compared to other LEGAL solutions, 2GB for $20 is quite reasonable/nominal, especially given the coverage/speed that Verizon offers. And yes, I'm aware that other networks may be faster in certain areas, but out in rural America, Verizon's network speed when no one else even has signal is amazing.
Do what you want, there are certainly worse things you could do than steal a little wifi tethering. However don't say that it's morally correct to do so when the usage isn't based on the total amount of traffic (fixed GB a month) but is instead unlimited traffic on limited devices (your phone).
$20 for 2 GB isn't really a competitive price. Personally, my home connection (ten times faster, but non-mobile) is $45 for ~300 GB (theoretically unlimited, but I'd say my ISP would start to care at that point). It should be at least five faster than that, but Verizon and the other Bell companies used the tax payer's $200 billion dollar incentive to upgrade their mobile networks rather than replace the copper network with fiber optics, as was the deal, during the Clinton administration. More recently, some of the 700 MHz spectrum was sold to Verizon with the stipulation that it be open access, which they've fought tooth and nail (after winning the bid, thus keeping anyone else from immediately creating an open network).
So, basically, as a citizen of the US, Verizon owes you quite a bit of internet service. But they chose to mark it up an order of magnitude or two. It is mobile, which increases its value a bit, but you can't judge value without controlling for their manipulation of American broadband. Their actions aren't defensible legally nor ethically, so, IMHO, their TOS and profit margin have no bearing on a discussion of either.
So, basically, as a citizen of the US, Verizon owes you quite a bit of internet service. But they chose to mark it up an order of magnitude or two. It is mobile, which increases its value a bit, but you can't judge value without controlling for their manipulation of American broadband. Their actions aren't defensible legally nor ethically, so, IMHO, their TOS and profit margin have no bearing on a discussion of either.
Dang, what national wireless provider is offering 300GB+ for $45 a month for a connection available in every US state? As an IT technician, I could really use a connection like that...
Oh, it's not mobile, well then, that's different...
Your representatives owe you an answer as to where the money, your money went. I'm no fan of the spending congress has done with our money, and their spending on broadband initiatives have been pretty lackluster. Your representatives spending recklessly on bills that make them appeal to stupid constituents who merely read the titles of the bills hardly entitles you to anything that Verizon Wireless, a non-government entity last time I checked, is currently offering. If you want to complain about the lack of progress with broadband proliferation with your tax dollars complain to your congressmen, not to Verizon.
Wireless networks are completely different than wired networks. Anyone who believes that you should be getting wire-level speeds out of a massively available wireless network with a high-number of subscribers per tower should learn more about topics they have no clue about before posting about them.
Verizon is required to provide coverage to 40% of the population by 2013 (4 years from purchase) in order to be considered for renewal after 10 years. As it is neither 2013, nor is it past their 10 year renewal date (8 years if they fail to meet the 40% stipulation withing 4 years) you are still owed NOTHING. Are you even aware what "Open Access" even means?
D13
Android Expert
Slow your horses buddy there is no reason to become hostile toward anyone.
The only thing in that post that could be considered hostile would be asking if they knew what open access means. I think this is a valid question and a honest answer of no would be greeted with an explanation of what the terms are. This etoile be helpful to more than just this one user if assume. Perhaps I'll make a post to that end later anyways.
Apparently I wasn't well versed on the concept of Verizon's "Open Network". The first article I read basically makes this entire debate moot since it states in no uncertain terms that Verizon is fine with using a different app for WiFi tethering.
https://www22.verizon.com/opendev/112707_news.aspx
"WiFi Tether" falls under "Any App", and rooted devices fall under "Any Device". This took effect in 2008. They did not state "any app except tethering", or "any app except those that provide proxy access". Also, in case someone wants to say that only applies to LTE, here's their agreement:
"Following the Commission
https://www22.verizon.com/opendev/112707_news.aspx
"WiFi Tether" falls under "Any App", and rooted devices fall under "Any Device". This took effect in 2008. They did not state "any app except tethering", or "any app except those that provide proxy access". Also, in case someone wants to say that only applies to LTE, here's their agreement:
"Following the Commission
sund0wn
Android Expert
forget about whether or not it is moral in regards to the company. and forget about whether verizon owes us anything because of how it invested it's money (and by that i mean verizon, not verizon wireless. verizon wireless is 45% owned by vodafone). but think about what you are doing to yourself and the other customers you share this network with.
because of all the data hogs on the network, we WILL see capped data plans. so, take advantage now, but we will see repercussions in the future. it already happened at AT&T, and there is no doubt it was because of the iPhone. and, android users on verizon are poised to take over AT&T users in terms of data usage by next year according to ABI Research.
also, according to ABI "Currently smartphone users are the biggest consumers of mobile data but that will change by 2014 when connected computing devices will overtake smartphones." So, discussing whether or not to tether seems kinda moot. It will be regulated in the near future.
because of all the data hogs on the network, we WILL see capped data plans. so, take advantage now, but we will see repercussions in the future. it already happened at AT&T, and there is no doubt it was because of the iPhone. and, android users on verizon are poised to take over AT&T users in terms of data usage by next year according to ABI Research.
also, according to ABI "Currently smartphone users are the biggest consumers of mobile data but that will change by 2014 when connected computing devices will overtake smartphones." So, discussing whether or not to tether seems kinda moot. It will be regulated in the near future.
By the way, has anybody determined whether verizon will pro-rate their tethering service? Meaning, if I add it to my account and use it for a week and then cancel, do you still get charged the full $20? I'm just wondering how viable it would be to turn it on and off as you need it. I suppose even if they did pro-rate, you'd have a tough time keeping track of data usage since e 2gb would also be pro-rated.
I suggested that they might, based on my past experience with adding then removing Mobile Broadband to my blackberry in the past. I have not checked again, as I am not going on a trip for another 3 weeks or so, but will find out then. As I'll be gone for 18 days, I'm not terribly concerned either way since I'll get my moneys worth, but am curious nevertheless.
Both an in-store rep and a 611 CSR have told me that it is prorated, just like Mobile Broadband Connect (i.e. wired tethering). I haven't tried it myself to confirm it, though.
Assuming it works like MBBC, then the following will happen:
* Your bill will be charged for the remainder of your billing cycle (e.g. $15 if you turn it on one week in), and they'll add a credit for the unused portion of the month. Depending on where you are in the billing cycle when you turn it on and off (like if you have it on spanning your billing date), it can make your bill look a little screwy, but it works out correctly in the end.
* You won't be able to turn it off through the web site. You'll have to call CS.
* The My Verizon app will show you how much data you've used tethering (it's broken out separately from 'regular' data usage), but I've found the running total can be as much as three days behind. Usually it's about a day behind.
* And yes, you'll have to keep an eye out because they'll prorate the data allowance at about 67Mb/day.
D13
Android Expert
Fair enough
Old Man
Android Enthusiast
That is easy to say but can you support the argument that it is not fair? Do you have any evidence that the charge is unreasonable? "Reasonable and fair" is not determined by what someone wants to pay but on the actual costs and reasonable profits. Sometimes I have to wonder if they no longer teach the basic concept of supply and demand setting market value. I'd be more than willing to get on board with this argument if there was some objective, reliable basis for asserting that the costs are unreasonable.
izomiac, the 700MHz spectrum was not sold to Verizon, it was publicly auctioned with portions awarded to several companies including Verizon, AT&T and Qualcomm while other portions were reserved for 'first responder' life safety communications systems. There is still a small portion of the spectrum that no one bid on. However, before that spectrum has even been put into wide use the CTIA and others are already pushing for Congress, through the FCC, to allocate them even more spectrum. And not just any spectrum, but prime UHF spectrum already in use for other purposes. It is almost funny to read some of the related press, these groups arguing that the existing spectrum users should develop more bandwidth efficient technologies and spectrum management when they are some of the very same groups that a short time ago pushed for White Space or TV Band Devices to be able to share the UHF spectrum with existing users and got that only to apparently then not successfully develop the very technology they proposed.
I'm personally of the view that while there may certainly be reasons to disagree with terms contained in any contact, if you don't plan on abiding by the terms contained then you shouldn't accept the contract. You can argue all you want that the contract terms are unenforceable and it is one thing is something unforeseen arises that is affected by those terms, but if you are agreeing to terms with the intent to violate them then you seem to be making an agreement under false pretenses.
@c4v3man - We seem to be reading the same information but coming to different conclusions. I can only assume that either our underlying assumptions or logical framework differ significantly. My guess (gross oversimplification) is that you approach this as "they don't allow it", whereas I'm approaching this as "they don't forbid it". I'm fine with that, since my primary goal is to reduce ignorance.
- You agree to the contract by opening a box, I don't think that's quite what a reasonable person would expect. (By downloading this post you agree[d] to...)
- This is a discussion of ethics, and several of us support tethering without actually doing so. No contracts were broken in the writing of this post.
- [Citation needed]. The TOS doesn't forbid it so far as I can see. Since contracts only pertain to what was agreed upon, to me, that means if you can get tethering to work then it's fine. Just as I assume that I'm allowed to install a Woot-off monitor, despite the TOS never directly mentioning such an app.
You need to read the entire thread that I posted to get to the pertinent information, but here is a direct link to the key post.
Re: TOS limitations on tethering? Citation needed. - Page 2 - Verizon | Forums and Blogs - Verizon Community
The only thing that seems open to interpretation is the "any app, any phone", which again, there seems to be very little documentation other than news stories and press releases that discuss it. As such, it seems to be lip service at best, and the terms of the contract (see above) still are in effect preventing you from tethering.
Claiming the contract is non-binding as it is unreasonable to expect a user to read the entire contract is a weak argument that may be legally arguable, but is the cowards way out of being bound to a contract, especially if said contract is agreed to while knowing what you are doing is questionable at best.
Can tethering be done. Yes.
Can you get away with it? Most likely.
Is it acceptable according to the terms you agreed to? No.
D
Deleted User
Guest
Considering the speed limit in a car is 55, I'd never do 56 because the law is black and white. I'd better go pay the police for speeding since you know there is a fine and to not follow the law is unethical. Just saying, just because you can speed and your car is capable of it, you should. I'd better get off my high horse and pay my fines.
You were speeding, you know it, you know it's illegal, you know they charge for it, then go pay.
You were speeding, you know it, you know it's illegal, you know they charge for it, then go pay.
Ok, last post then I'm dropping out of this discussion. I apologize for stating this explicitly, but I don't seem to have implied it strongly enough earlier, and I am not fond of talking to any specific person in an open forum since it just becomes a back-and-forth. Furthermore, by being identified with a position, I've lost the ability to converse about it logically rather than defensively, which takes the fun out of it.
Yes, a direct link to a forum post linking to a verizon page that asks for location that takes you to a broken part of the website requiring you to reenter the website from the beginning, select plans, select a plan, select a phone, proceed with a pseudo order, then click a link to the terms. I was looking for a sign saying "Beware of the Leopard". Here's the relevant part of the VZ Email TOS (I'm not entirely sure it's related, but whatever):
The "Open" portion of the contract which is made to the US Government appears to only be relevant to their use of the 700Mhz spectrum. Even if they extend the same openness to their other frequencies, this does not seem to be relevant to their agreement with the US.
But fair enough, I appreciate your desire to end the back-and-forth, and certainly hope you don't read the above as me getting/taking "the last word". I simply wanted to make one last point not in an attempt to "win the argument", but simply to clarify something that seems incorrect in my perception of the situation.
This is directed at the thread/OP:
If you feel contracts are legally binding, read the contract. If you feel verbal statements are binding, ask a verizon rep (and record the call). Point is I've done my research and have come to the conclusion that it is not ethical to use a service that you are not paying for that you are (in my opinion) explicitly told not to use without paying for it.
deadinside
Well-Known Member
I can understand what some people come from with the whole "If its unlimited, then why should I not be able to use it as I see fit?"
With the same thought in mind, Do you spend all day at a all you can eat buffet, because it said "all you can eat"?
I would want to assume your answer is going to be no.
When the first G1 launched with T-Mobile, there was one major snag. There was a limit to the MB used per month. People became furious that they were limited with a smart phone with a apps market, web browsing and steaming media with a cap on the service. The entire process had to be thought out to be more easier on the user, so T-Mobile switched to a unlimited plan. Now they are giving the users options for their data service now, because some people would rather use WiFi for their major needs and use 3g for smaller files.
Most major ISP's are even starting to cap their users. I just found out this week that my ISP, Comcast, capped me at 250gbs of transfer a month. On one hand I am sorta peeved, on the other I realized If I am downloading 250GB's per month, then I have some serious issues.
I am willing to bet the reason for the cap is for those users who download constantly, all day, all night because it was "unlimited and their right" as well.
Oh, and I know for a fact as being a previous Verizon DSL/FiOS helpdesk agent. Verizon does have ways to find when people break TOS for certain things. Uncapped DSL modems and Multiple IP leasing were something caught and fixed all the time. Their testing tools would show the modem/router and devices connected to it. I would imagine they have similar abilities on the wireless side too.
With the same thought in mind, Do you spend all day at a all you can eat buffet, because it said "all you can eat"?
I would want to assume your answer is going to be no.
When the first G1 launched with T-Mobile, there was one major snag. There was a limit to the MB used per month. People became furious that they were limited with a smart phone with a apps market, web browsing and steaming media with a cap on the service. The entire process had to be thought out to be more easier on the user, so T-Mobile switched to a unlimited plan. Now they are giving the users options for their data service now, because some people would rather use WiFi for their major needs and use 3g for smaller files.
Most major ISP's are even starting to cap their users. I just found out this week that my ISP, Comcast, capped me at 250gbs of transfer a month. On one hand I am sorta peeved, on the other I realized If I am downloading 250GB's per month, then I have some serious issues.
I am willing to bet the reason for the cap is for those users who download constantly, all day, all night because it was "unlimited and their right" as well.
Oh, and I know for a fact as being a previous Verizon DSL/FiOS helpdesk agent. Verizon does have ways to find when people break TOS for certain things. Uncapped DSL modems and Multiple IP leasing were something caught and fixed all the time. Their testing tools would show the modem/router and devices connected to it. I would imagine they have similar abilities on the wireless side too.
deadinside
Well-Known Member
This is never a good idea to record the call to discuss legal issues.
A. You have to identify you are recording the call to make it legal. If not, then it can be dismissed legally since it was not identified as being recorded. This is why you get "This call maybe recorded for Quality Assurance" Message when calling any call center. The problem is, the call may or may not be recorded.
B. Most reps are not fully trained on legal issues or even considered as a legal consult. So if you state you are recording the call, they maybe able to disconnect the call on you.
This was the process when I was in Verizon DSL/Fios. We even had a special script to cite when the end user calls in and stated they are recording the call on their end. Essentially it broke down to, "If you are calling us to discuss legal manners, then your lawyer needs to consult our legal department. Thank you and have a good day" and instantly end the call.
Even when we found out end users would call us trying to setup a web server and wanted assistance with this, we could not cite the TOS stating that a residential account cannot use web servers. We would have to send the information to another department to investigate and ban that users account for breaking the TOS.
I hated having to do this, but the double edge sword on this was if the call was recorded and I was not documented in forwarding the issue over, I would lose my job for allowing the user to break TOS.