-
After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.
Verizon Tethering Crackdown?
- Thread starter Hightech
- Start date
Saw it, it'll be interesting to see how this is countered by the Tethering apps...
This probably spells the end of tethering without a app at the very least.
i.e.
http://androidforums.com/incredible-tips-tricks/74400-howto-tether-natively.html
This probably spells the end of tethering without a app at the very least.
i.e.
http://androidforums.com/incredible-tips-tricks/74400-howto-tether-natively.html
varkie
Android Enthusiast
This article says that Verizon is also going to throttle all usage over 2.5 GB per month down to 256 kbps starting in October.
Verizon Starts its Attack Against Unauthorized Tethering | News & Opinion | PCMag.com
Verizon Starts its Attack Against Unauthorized Tethering | News & Opinion | PCMag.com
ned4spd8874
Android Enthusiast
I attached a screenshot of a warning that comes up when trying to hide tethering on PDANet. It sounds like it tries to do some hiding by default anyway. I don't use it a lot for sure (~1GB/mo. for everything) and have never enabled this, but I'm thinking of starting just to be safe.
Attachments
Just saw this article in another post. Says Verizon will throttle users over 2.5gig a month.
I am at 1.5 only 6 days into my billing month.
Wow looks like I am gonna be screwed.
Anyone else?
Not tethered.
Damm
Verizon Starts its Attack Against Unauthorized Tethering | News & Opinion | PCMag.com
I am at 1.5 only 6 days into my billing month.
Wow looks like I am gonna be screwed.
Anyone else?
Not tethered.
Damm
Verizon Starts its Attack Against Unauthorized Tethering | News & Opinion | PCMag.com
A.Nonymous
Extreme Android User
That's going to piss me off since VZW just encouraged me to sign up for Rhapsody. You want me to sign up with a streaming music service, but not actually stream? Ok. That makes sense.
I had started this thread separate.
Thought more would see it if it was not in a tether thread.
But I guess mods know best...
varkie
Android Enthusiast
Yeah I hear you I have siriusxm, netflix and dish network on my phone and can run up to 6GB easily.
iowabowtech
root@android:/ #
What really irks me is the people that go to Walmart etc and get these plans that are pretty much unlimited everything without a contract and then proceed to use Verizon's network (and others). Why in THE h-e-double hockey sticks does Verizon give them full usage while we, the true Verizon customers that built this network in the first place are being restricted? Maybe if they didn't allow all these scabs on the network, they wouldn't have to worry about bandwidth problems.
6StringDave
Member
I need to understand something here. Is there language in the Verizon contract which gives them the right? Without skimming through mine (wherever that is), I believe that the terms called for "unlimited" data, and that word is nullified at any point where Verizon, for any reason, imposes limits on any users who have such a contract.
Verizon offered me a device which is capable of facilitating everything from online radio, streaming video, to file sharing (all legal, of course!). By using Verizon resources according to the terms which they had promised in my contract, knowing that my device is designed for such things, I do nothing which anybody has the cause or right to condemn me for, much less penalize me in any way. On the contrary, it is Verizon's responsibility to maintain the network infrastructure for as many "unlimited" two-year contracts as they sell, and provide such unlimited service just as they sell it. If I didn't intend to use my phone's more powerful features, I would have taken a cheapo freebie instead!
When the Verizon network resources are over-taxed, then Verizon's has the obligation to upgrade it's resources, or be held liable for breach of contract - it is not, and never should be the consumer's responsiblity to use the network less! If I'm not missing something here on the legal &%#@, this action by Verizon against it's consumers is the gravest outrage which I've seen to date, and it borders on the criminal! At best, when they slow down my service (and I think they did this already when my speed test peaked at 4mb dl), they will deny me the service which I pay them for. Before anyone says I'm being over-the-top on this, remember that there is already a high premium charge on smartphone data plans - you should be asking why that money hasn't been invested in the network.
There is language in the contract that lets them do this. And you're still absolutely getting unlimited data. They very specifically reserve the right to manage network resources as needed, and they make absolutely no contractual promise for network speed.
AND it absolutely should be the consumers responsibility to use the network RESPONSIBLY. Just because I pay a flat rate for utilities doesn't mean I should leave every faucet in the house running constantly just because I can. Network bandwidth is a finite resource, using excessive bandwidth hurts other subscribers.
I absolutely think that 2.5 gigs is well inside of what I consider reasonable, and I'm very much against this move (it should be atleast 5GB). And they should only throttle network hogs during periods of high network load. But this attitude of "I have unlimited data, how DARE Verizon throttle it." People using massive amounts of data are effectively throttling the connection of everyone else on the network.
And upgrading infrastructure costs money. Since you aren't PAYING any more for the excessive data, why on earth are you expecting other subscribers to pay for the infrastructure for your excessive usage?
I haven't been able to find any confirmation about it... But knowing how "big" companies think. I could easily see this being "sneaked" in by them and hoping know one would notice...
I also think the "only 1-3% of our customers would be affected by these changes" is a red herring. Smart phones are a RAPIDLY evolving technology most people haven't really got used to them or how convenient they can be for music,internet,video. Once people catch on I think your average person using 2-5gb a month is not going be unheard of.
As far as infrastructure, its not there because the wireless companies are greedy little %$#$#'s that only care about the bottom line. Not because they didn't have the money to invest.
Most likely not, this would just apply to "grandfathered" unlimited plans...
There's not much in the way of confirmation of the "throttle plan" at this point...
6StringDave
Member
I have a bad feeling that my reactions may be construed as a thread-hijacking, and if so I apologize - I would never do this intentionally. I can only hope that what I feel so compelled to air for the benefit of other consumers such as myself is in the spirit and intentions of the OP.
RE: Comments by euph_22
To begin with, from one consumer to another (I presume you are that, and not on the Verizon payroll), P_E_A_C_ E_!!! I am not the enemy. The enemy is a wolf, a corporate wolf, which has donned a pricey suit (courtesy of our hard-paid premium smartphone service fees), and taken the bully pulpit to divert attention from the evil which it has wrought by turning consumer against consumer. Although this sort of ploy is as old as the practice of human politics, and business is politics, I don't think there's a precedent for it in American business. But If you are wise, you should see right through the sham.
A word on me: I consider myself the average consumer. I spend more time using data than talk minutes, but while others yap incessantly on their cells, I use much less than the smallest plan allotment which I pay for, and still my call quality has degraded. Notably, there is specific Verizon contract language for overuse of talk time with additional charges specifically listed. I don't text, but I use my internet connection for everything from email and google searches to occasional file sharing (all perfectly legal, of course
), and the latter only when I travel, or when I must have it sooner than I can be near a computer. There are sources and lots of apps for checking news and weather online as well, and then there's my navigation system, as well as a few handy apps which add minimal amount to my data footprint. I do wonder how much of my new 2.5 GB limit would dry up if I were to go on an app-testing binge, or spend a couple of hours on a rainy day downloading new wallpaper apps.
Other stress factors on a network include online radio, full-length online streaming-video movies, heavy online gaming, and Wi-Fi tethering, none of which I use, so I'm hardly a heavy user, even if I do a fews big downloads once in several months. The fact is that we are all being actively encouraged by the phone makers and software developers to use our phones for these purposes, and new apps for downloading ebooks and fasters web browsers help add to the strain which should not exist. It should not, because each new customer is a new contract sale, which should be more than enough to support network upgrades as necessary in order to accommodate us all.
The above activities do add up, and the level of such usage may have grown faster than anticipated (doesn't it always), and so then Verizon can fund network upgrades AND third vacation homes for Verizon executives by changing new contract policies to limit new data plans with over-use charges.
As for me, as probably with you, my contract specifies unlimited use. Therefore, I stand by my "attitude" that I cannot be legally penalized for taking advantage of such terms, which I have already paid dearly for, at any time during my contract duration, should I decide to, even if I decide to use >200 GB!
When a large percentage of the market changes the usage trend, they tend to establish changes in what is considered "normal". While one of us here seems to have the notion that only a few are squeezing the limited resources, no small percentage could possibly cause the impact which has been squeezing us all (including they who use our network a lot). We're talking a lot of people who have use for much more than 5 GB per month, much less the Verizon wolf-pig's paltry 2.5 GB! These are people who were sold a phone with promises of great power at their fingertips, they know what their phones are capable of, and that when you have that power from the phone in your hand, it's the obligation of the owners of the network which sold it to you to back it up with that network.
It figures there would be some window left to provide the pretense of legitimacy or right for any stunt which a company such as Verizon may pull on us. What should count is the fact that demos were made by Verizon officials which defined their ADVERTISED high-speed connections, which in that way constitutes a promise which has since been violated. Moreover, there is the legal issue of penalizing individual subscribers who pay as much as any other user, and are not specifically violating any terms of of their contracts. Again, my "attitude" is that attacking other consumers (just like attacking other voters in your party) is exactly what the corporate wolf wants you to do, so don't do it! Consumers need to unite, and bombard Congress with their ultimatum that they won't serve again without tightening consumer contract protections. The wolf scat out a contract and foisted it on us, but we can use it to our advantage.
I do understand the social implications of what you are saying, in asking me to be courteous to millions of strangers by conserving my own use of the network, but you forget that my relationship (and the same with you if you are truly a consumer just as I am) is one of business. You would ask me to give up what I have been paying for, which I do find most offensive. In government politics, this idea has a parallel, and it is called socialism.
1. raise the rates on new contracts, which would be bad business politics and would not quickly raise the profits of a company which has peaked and is now coasting hellward
2. vote themselves a pay cut
Or they could
3. Use social politics against the consumer in a way which would divert public attention from their failure to truly make good on what they had promised their customers. Most consumers would be further distracted from this fact by Verizon's recent announcement and threat to practice such an unprecedented policy against a "few", "bad" consumers. When most of their customers are angry, the game is to deflect their anger away from company officials and onto a few, imagined scapegoats among themselves. While no good changes are made, it will enable Verizon executives to happily proceed on the purchase of their third, fourth, or fifth vacation homes with boathouse for their fleets of pleasure craft.
In short, the situation is absolutely (and again I am not mocking you) not the fault of any of their consumers, the liability does in fact lie entirely with Verizon executives. It is they who need to be held to this liability by you and me, for the future of the American consumer!
RE: Comments by euph_22
To begin with, from one consumer to another (I presume you are that, and not on the Verizon payroll), P_E_A_C_ E_!!! I am not the enemy. The enemy is a wolf, a corporate wolf, which has donned a pricey suit (courtesy of our hard-paid premium smartphone service fees), and taken the bully pulpit to divert attention from the evil which it has wrought by turning consumer against consumer. Although this sort of ploy is as old as the practice of human politics, and business is politics, I don't think there's a precedent for it in American business. But If you are wise, you should see right through the sham.
A word on me: I consider myself the average consumer. I spend more time using data than talk minutes, but while others yap incessantly on their cells, I use much less than the smallest plan allotment which I pay for, and still my call quality has degraded. Notably, there is specific Verizon contract language for overuse of talk time with additional charges specifically listed. I don't text, but I use my internet connection for everything from email and google searches to occasional file sharing (all perfectly legal, of course
), and the latter only when I travel, or when I must have it sooner than I can be near a computer. There are sources and lots of apps for checking news and weather online as well, and then there's my navigation system, as well as a few handy apps which add minimal amount to my data footprint. I do wonder how much of my new 2.5 GB limit would dry up if I were to go on an app-testing binge, or spend a couple of hours on a rainy day downloading new wallpaper apps. Other stress factors on a network include online radio, full-length online streaming-video movies, heavy online gaming, and Wi-Fi tethering, none of which I use, so I'm hardly a heavy user, even if I do a fews big downloads once in several months. The fact is that we are all being actively encouraged by the phone makers and software developers to use our phones for these purposes, and new apps for downloading ebooks and fasters web browsers help add to the strain which should not exist. It should not, because each new customer is a new contract sale, which should be more than enough to support network upgrades as necessary in order to accommodate us all.
The above activities do add up, and the level of such usage may have grown faster than anticipated (doesn't it always), and so then Verizon can fund network upgrades AND third vacation homes for Verizon executives by changing new contract policies to limit new data plans with over-use charges.
As for me, as probably with you, my contract specifies unlimited use. Therefore, I stand by my "attitude" that I cannot be legally penalized for taking advantage of such terms, which I have already paid dearly for, at any time during my contract duration, should I decide to, even if I decide to use >200 GB!
When a large percentage of the market changes the usage trend, they tend to establish changes in what is considered "normal". While one of us here seems to have the notion that only a few are squeezing the limited resources, no small percentage could possibly cause the impact which has been squeezing us all (including they who use our network a lot). We're talking a lot of people who have use for much more than 5 GB per month, much less the Verizon wolf-pig's paltry 2.5 GB! These are people who were sold a phone with promises of great power at their fingertips, they know what their phones are capable of, and that when you have that power from the phone in your hand, it's the obligation of the owners of the network which sold it to you to back it up with that network.
Absolutely? Right! Granted, the argument that time is a limiting factor not only on speed, but the accumulation of quantity is an argument which counts only among physicists.
I don't wish to sound mocking about this, but there you go again - "absolutely"!
It figures there would be some window left to provide the pretense of legitimacy or right for any stunt which a company such as Verizon may pull on us. What should count is the fact that demos were made by Verizon officials which defined their ADVERTISED high-speed connections, which in that way constitutes a promise which has since been violated. Moreover, there is the legal issue of penalizing individual subscribers who pay as much as any other user, and are not specifically violating any terms of of their contracts. Again, my "attitude" is that attacking other consumers (just like attacking other voters in your party) is exactly what the corporate wolf wants you to do, so don't do it! Consumers need to unite, and bombard Congress with their ultimatum that they won't serve again without tightening consumer contract protections. The wolf scat out a contract and foisted it on us, but we can use it to our advantage.
See the above on who is RESPONSIBLE for what!
There could not be a more faulty argument than this one. I make good use of every bit of data which I use, little if any gets wasted at my hands. See the above on how I make use of data. By the way, if I left all the lights on, watered and air-conditioned the whole neighborhood, other customers would not pay the bill. This is of course why the utilities do not offer unlimited contracts, but Verizon, having set their contract terms so arbitrarily as they did, chose to put the onus on itself. Therefore, they have made themselves responsible for keeping up with the consequense of their wide-open invitation for any who can to use their resources as they see fit.
I do understand the social implications of what you are saying, in asking me to be courteous to millions of strangers by conserving my own use of the network, but you forget that my relationship (and the same with you if you are truly a consumer just as I am) is one of business. You would ask me to give up what I have been paying for, which I do find most offensive. In government politics, this idea has a parallel, and it is called socialism.
Yeah! How DARE they! And this time I am not mocking you.
Wrong again, and again see reasons stated above.
I am not expecting (or at least I would not ask) other subscribers to pay any more than what they currently are at the moment in order for Verizon to make good on what they sold to all of us, and for it be available penalty-free per our contracts, at any time within the duration of the same. The fact is that Verizon executives have found out that the appropriate level of service which goes along with the product which they have sold us all along would cost more than they are willing to pay out of the profits which they were expecting in order to make good on their sales promises. They had sold themselves into a corner, and found they had three options. They could:
1. raise the rates on new contracts, which would be bad business politics and would not quickly raise the profits of a company which has peaked and is now coasting hellward
2. vote themselves a pay cut
Or they could
3. Use social politics against the consumer in a way which would divert public attention from their failure to truly make good on what they had promised their customers. Most consumers would be further distracted from this fact by Verizon's recent announcement and threat to practice such an unprecedented policy against a "few", "bad" consumers. When most of their customers are angry, the game is to deflect their anger away from company officials and onto a few, imagined scapegoats among themselves. While no good changes are made, it will enable Verizon executives to happily proceed on the purchase of their third, fourth, or fifth vacation homes with boathouse for their fleets of pleasure craft.
In short, the situation is absolutely (and again I am not mocking you) not the fault of any of their consumers, the liability does in fact lie entirely with Verizon executives. It is they who need to be held to this liability by you and me, for the future of the American consumer!
Do the words "in short " make anyone else laugh?
I read your entire manifesto and I must say it reads a bit long winded. You suggest they raise prices in future contracts which is exactly what they are doing by removing unlimited plans.
I wonder if Verizon would have to throttle if people were not breaking their contracts to tether without paying. I also wonder how.many people who do not tether will be throttled.
I have a bad feeling that my reactions may be construed as a thread-hijacking, and if so I apologize - I would never do this intentionally. I can only hope that what I feel so compelled to air for the benefit of other consumers such as myself is in the spirit and intentions of the OP.
RE: Comments by euph_22
To begin with, from one consumer to another (I presume you are that, and not on the Verizon payroll), P_E_A_C_ E_!!! I am not the enemy. The enemy is a wolf, a corporate wolf, which has donned a pricey suit (courtesy of our hard-paid premium smartphone service fees), and taken the bully pulpit to divert attention from the evil which it has wrought by turning consumer against consumer. Although this sort of ploy is as old as the practice of human politics, and business is politics, I don't think there's a precedent for it in American business. But If you are wise, you should see right through the sham.
A word on me: I consider myself the average consumer. I spend more time using data than talk minutes, but while others yap incessantly on their cells, I use much less than the smallest plan allotment which I pay for, and still my call quality has degraded. Notably, there is specific Verizon contract language for overuse of talk time with additional charges specifically listed. I don't text, but I use my internet connection for everything from email and google searches to occasional file sharing (all perfectly legal, of course
Other stress factors on a network include online radio, full-length online streaming-video movies, heavy online gaming, and Wi-Fi tethering, none of which I use, so I'm hardly a heavy user, even if I do a fews big downloads once in several months. The fact is that we are all being actively encouraged by the phone makers and software developers to use our phones for these purposes, and new apps for downloading ebooks and fasters web browsers help add to the strain which should not exist. It should not, because each new customer is a new contract sale, which should be more than enough to support network upgrades as necessary in order to accommodate us all.
The above activities do add up, and the level of such usage may have grown faster than anticipated (doesn't it always), and so then Verizon can fund network upgrades AND third vacation homes for Verizon executives by changing new contract policies to limit new data plans with over-use charges.
As for me, as probably with you, my contract specifies unlimited use. Therefore, I stand by my "attitude" that I cannot be legally penalized for taking advantage of such terms, which I have already paid dearly for, at any time during my contract duration, should I decide to, even if I decide to use >200 GB!
When a large percentage of the market changes the usage trend, they tend to establish changes in what is considered "normal". While one of us here seems to have the notion that only a few are squeezing the limited resources, no small percentage could possibly cause the impact which has been squeezing us all (including they who use our network a lot). We're talking a lot of people who have use for much more than 5 GB per month, much less the Verizon wolf-pig's paltry 2.5 GB! These are people who were sold a phone with promises of great power at their fingertips, they know what their phones are capable of, and that when you have that power from the phone in your hand, it's the obligation of the owners of the network which sold it to you to back it up with that network.
Absolutely? Right! Granted, the argument that time is a limiting factor not only on speed, but the accumulation of quantity is an argument which counts only among physicists.
I don't wish to sound mocking about this, but there you go again - "absolutely"!
It figures there would be some window left to provide the pretense of legitimacy or right for any stunt which a company such as Verizon may pull on us. What should count is the fact that demos were made by Verizon officials which defined their ADVERTISED high-speed connections, which in that way constitutes a promise which has since been violated. Moreover, there is the legal issue of penalizing individual subscribers who pay as much as any other user, and are not specifically violating any terms of of their contracts. Again, my "attitude" is that attacking other consumers (just like attacking other voters in your party) is exactly what the corporate wolf wants you to do, so don't do it! Consumers need to unite, and bombard Congress with their ultimatum that they won't serve again without tightening consumer contract protections. The wolf scat out a contract and foisted it on us, but we can use it to our advantage.
See the above on who is RESPONSIBLE for what!
There could not be a more faulty argument than this one. I make good use of every bit of data which I use, little if any gets wasted at my hands. See the above on how I make use of data. By the way, if I left all the lights on, watered and air-conditioned the whole neighborhood, other customers would not pay the bill. This is of course why the utilities do not offer unlimited contracts, but Verizon, having set their contract terms so arbitrarily as they did, chose to put the onus on itself. Therefore, they have made themselves responsible for keeping up with the consequense of their wide-open invitation for any who can to use their resources as they see fit.
I do understand the social implications of what you are saying, in asking me to be courteous to millions of strangers by conserving my own use of the network, but you forget that my relationship (and the same with you if you are truly a consumer just as I am) is one of business. You would ask me to give up what I have been paying for, which I do find most offensive. In government politics, this idea has a parallel, and it is called socialism.
Yeah! How DARE they! And this time I am not mocking you.
Wrong again, and again see reasons stated above.
I am not expecting (or at least I would not ask) other subscribers to pay any more than what they currently are at the moment in order for Verizon to make good on what they sold to all of us, and for it be available penalty-free per our contracts, at any time within the duration of the same. The fact is that Verizon executives have found out that the appropriate level of service which goes along with the product which they have sold us all along would cost more than they are willing to pay out of the profits which they were expecting in order to make good on their sales promises. They had sold themselves into a corner, and found they had three options. They could:
1. raise the rates on new contracts, which would be bad business politics and would not quickly raise the profits of a company which has peaked and is now coasting hellward
2. vote themselves a pay cut
Or they could
3. Use social politics against the consumer in a way which would divert public attention from their failure to truly make good on what they had promised their customers. Most consumers would be further distracted from this fact by Verizon's recent announcement and threat to practice such an unprecedented policy against a "few", "bad" consumers. When most of their customers are angry, the game is to deflect their anger away from company officials and onto a few, imagined scapegoats among themselves. While no good changes are made, it will enable Verizon executives to happily proceed on the purchase of their third, fourth, or fifth vacation homes with boathouse for their fleets of pleasure craft.
In short, the situation is absolutely (and again I am not mocking you) not the fault of any of their consumers, the liability does in fact lie entirely with Verizon executives. It is they who need to be held to this liability by you and me, for the future of the American consumer!
Please actually read the contract. And the fine print on any of their advertisements. Most of the points I made are based on specific contract/fine print language. If your going to get up in arms about corporate America stomping on your contractual rights, please start by figuring out what rights you have under the contract. Network speed is not a right.
It's all about corporate greed, plain and simple. It has nothing to do with "bandwidth hogs" or "upgrading the infrastructure". Sprint still offers TRUE unlimited data usage (for now) and it's looking awfully appealing. I expect a dick move like this from AT&T but to see Verizon jumping on board with this scam is just terrible. Wonder how long it takes for an "underground workaround" solution to emerge...
varkie
Android Enthusiast
Verizon would love it if everyone with an unlimited plan left for Sprint. Then when you saw how bad Sprint sucked and wanted to come back to Verizon you would have to sign up for a new tiered plan. This is coming from a former Sprint customer who will never go back no matter how tempting the offer. Even if Verizon throttles it speed to the proported 256 kbps its still unlimted and allows me to do a lot. I remember the day when 256 kbps was blazing fast and that wasn't too long ago.
6StringDave
Member
At least it wasn't "Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh!"
I realize how boring that was, and I'm sorry for that, but when you're forced to defend your position, it's more important to be thorough about it. On the other hand, it's people of short attention span who are easily led by corporate predators against their own interests.
varkie
Android Enthusiast
At least you have a sense of humor that's a good sign lol. I've had people go off on a flaming war for less.
6StringDave
Member
What I object to is Verizon violating it's existing contracts by squeezing those who hold them for doing nothing which they did not sign up for and pay up for. That, and their reneging on the demo-advertised promises which define, and limit the relativity, of "high speed".
If they go and remove unlimited data plans, you know it's par for the course anyway. ATT hasn't offered this for years. We could all be good and do what they tell us, like good little sheeple-people,and they would still eliminate unlimited plans, because they can! All that matters to VZ is that they out-compete (or out-confuse) their competitors in the market.
What, there are contract limitations for tethering (nothing which I do personally)? How interesting that some here know the contract, but aren't posting the language. Anyway, I sorta doubt that such a contract prohibition has been tested in court, and I wonder how it would not go the way of prohibitions against phone rooting. As you already observed, Verizon isn't specifically going after the tetherers, even if that is illegal - the actions which they are taking is against anyone who uses a high quantity of data, and most of the high-use activities which would easily put a user over VZ's Draconian limit are perfectly legal. This may be a thread on VZ and tethering, but the action by VZ which has been discussed is much more than that.
Does nobody here remember how VZ, and other slime in the wireless biz went to court for the right to sue any user who rooted his phone? By rooting, you have access to uses which VZ may otherwise have charged you for! Also, I hope at least some here were too smart to pay VZ extra for use of that unremovable app, VZnavigator. You don't need it, Google Navigator is a standard Android component which works just as well as my old Garmin without paying extra, and you don't pay to update your maps either! Just some more examples of how VZ looks for ways to squeeze you, which I suspect mostly failed, and now they are trying to make the users eat their sour grapes!