Froyo Update: Carriers Control Who Has Tethering

Status
Not open for further replies.

figgus

Distinguished
Jan 12, 2010
233
0
18,830
For devices with the unmodified "Google Experience" OS (namely Motorola Droid, Nexus One, etc), it's speculated that tethering will be part of normal data plans because carriers can't implement their payment switch into the OS.

I TOLD you guys that this was the reason Verizon and ATT didn't want to carry the Nexus1 in pure form, and Google wasn't going to let them modify it. The carriers are afraid of losing their upcharges, and they leaned on Google to modify their OS to protect their profits.

I got marked down, but seriously, who DIDN'T see this one coming?
 

Anomalyx

Distinguished
Apr 2, 2010
195
0
18,630
I think charging for tethering is kind of ridiculous. If I pay for wireless internet, I should have the ability to take that signal I receive wirelessly and put it out over a wire. AT&T doesn't charge me extra to take their wired signal (DSL) and put it over the air (wireless router). The same should hold true for the reverse. Another analogy involving the same situation would be charging extra to allow your home internet to service any more than a single PC. I'm "tethering" my PCs to the internet connection my router is establishing. C'mon, wireless providers, use some common sense, rather than just trying to get an extra couple bucks out of everybody. You have enough already!
 

tayb

Distinguished
Jan 22, 2009
663
0
18,930
So basically Android 2.2 is going to get the same treatment from the carriers that iPhone OS 3.0 got from AT&T. This is nonsense.
 

tokenz

Distinguished
Mar 11, 2006
206
0
18,830
I think the fcc needs to step in and make phones universal hookup. I mean I should be able to take a phone to any carrier. Not have to unlock it, or in my case, all we have is cdma around here, not have to hack the qualcomm chip to allow me to hookup a bb from verizon to alltel. It peaves me the all the competing companies here do not have any good phones. US cellular no storm, no iphone(not that I would buy it anyways) no droid, nothing just crap.
 

anamaniac

Distinguished
Jan 7, 2009
1,035
0
19,230
Bad telecom companies, bad.
Give me a cheap unlimited data and stop bitching already. Isn't the fact that locally it's $85/month for 5GB bad enough already?
 

zoemayne

Distinguished
Aug 2, 2009
208
0
18,830
sprint wont allow tethering most companies probably wont allow tethering because than we can completely avoid the USB/hot spot services. Bad business their greedy.
 
G

Guest

Guest
"AT&T doesn't charge me extra to take their wired signal (DSL) and put it over the air (wireless router). The same should hold true for the reverse. Another analogy involving the same situation would be charging extra to allow your home internet to service any more than a single PC. "

You think they *wouldn't* charge you for either of those things if they had a chance? The cablecos spent YEARS telling people they weren't allowed to use a NAT box, until it became clear that not using one was basically putting a "please pwn my ass" sign on most Windows machines.
 
G

Guest

Guest
hmm, sounds like I need to stick with 2.1 or root my phone. I wonder if 2.2 is going to automatically install on the phone or if users will have the option to skip it.
 

figgus

Distinguished
Jan 12, 2010
233
0
18,830
[citation][nom]dontthinktheywouldnt[/nom]The cablecos spent YEARS telling people they weren't allowed to use a NAT box, until it became clear that not using one was basically putting a "please pwn my ass" sign on most Windows machines.[/citation]

True. That was the original reason for home routers to do MAC address emulation. You needed to trick the modem into thinking the router was just your PC...
 

kinggraves

Distinguished
May 14, 2010
445
0
18,940
What people need to understand is that they as consumers have the real power here. Don't like it, don't buy it. If you don't appreciate the Telcos telling you how to use your own equipment, don't buy it. What happens is they don't make profits and change their minds. If you act like you just HAVE to have the latest phone at whatever cost, they'll just keep setting that cost on their terms, and their terms will never be friendly.
 

Dandalf

Distinguished
Sep 18, 2009
98
0
18,580
I don't understand how this works. Can someone explain to me? At the moment I have a Windows Mobile 6.1 device, and can use the "internet connection sharing" to allow my netbook onto the mobile broadband via USB. I already pay for the broadband, so what else would I be paying for here? The ability to use the broadband on something that isn't my phone?
 

hellwig

Distinguished
May 29, 2008
817
0
18,930
[citation][nom]Anomalyx[/nom]I think charging for tethering is kind of ridiculous. ...[/citation]
[citation][nom]jenesuispasbavard[/nom]If I'm already paying a ridiculous $30 for data, why charge me more for tethering? Foolishness I say; I'm off to buy me a Nexus One.[/citation]


I'm not justifying telecom pricing here, but there's a reason they don't want you to just hook-up a PC to your phone, and that's usage. Look at how the iPhone is crippling AT&Ts network. You think the iPhone can download anywhere near the amount of data a PC can? Imagine all those people who might want to run their bit torrents out on the road, using up the 3G to send and receive CONSTANTLY.

If this were a truly fair-value market, phone data plans would be as "cheap" as they are now (compared to land-based internet access), because the intended use is less. Your average phone might use the network to download a song or app, upload a picture, send/receive email, and sometimes stream a low-quality video or radio station. Now, imagine your PC streaming high-def videos from Netflix or Youtube, downloading gigabyte+ torrents or applications, uploading gigabyte+ torrents or videos. Your PC can use a lot more of that network, and the phone companies want to charge you accordingly.

[citation][nom]anamaniac[/nom]Bad telecom companies, bad.Give me a cheap unlimited data and stop bitching already. Isn't the fact that locally it's $85/month for 5GB bad enough already?[/citation]

Here's where my argument completely falls flat though. Telecoms are clearly NOT charging fair prices for their services. My T-Mobile data plan (cheapest out there) is $25/month, and I barely get 3G anywhere (since I don't live in a state with a major metro area). My cable internet from Po-Dunk Regional is 8Mbit and I get that for an unsubsidized $45/mo (i.e. no discount for cable TV).

The two are clearly not comparable, so while I could understand the telecoms argument if my wireless access were $5/mo, I can't feel bad for Verizon and AT&T when they fleece their customers then cry for more.
 

drakenviator

Distinguished
Apr 8, 2008
9
0
18,510
I was talking to a Verizon rep last week about this, he skirted the issue since there was no 'official' announcement of 2.2 or tether, and since nothing was official his bosses had nothing to say that he could relay. Anyways... when I asked about Android and tether in general, (versus 2.2 specific) the rep told me that the Incredible offers USB tether for only $29.99! And that's when I knew (just like my BlackBerry) it was too good to be true.
 

fozzyfozborne

Distinguished
Jun 23, 2009
11
0
18,560
We're allowed 5GB per month on an "Unlimited" account. Does it matter if people are downloading 5GB on their phone per month or if it's on a laptop? I can't see how it makes a difference on their network. It just seems like an excuse to charge for something that should be free.
 

TheKurrgan

Distinguished
Sep 16, 2008
147
0
18,630
Not to be devils advocate here, but data ver the air is simply more expensive than any traditional method of providing an internet connection. A tower can only provide so much throughput per sector, and there can only be so many towers in a given area.
Cellular carriers are limited greatly by the frequency limitation they have. Here is why data pricing is screwed: There are 4 incompatible carriers operating in the US. From a technology stand point, if you eliminated the 4 companies ability to use a seperate system that must share the air with each other, and put it all together into ONE system that can occupy that entire spectrum, then it would be possible to serve up MUCH more bandwidth for less. Scenario: 1 Carrier style.

Screw CDMA, go to GSM / UMTS like the rest of the modern world. There is sprint / Verizons range freed up. Combine T-Mobiles AWS and AT&T's standard 3G + 850mhz UMTS. Now everyone is at 7.2Mbit theoretical link speed on their devices, AND these devices can roam between ALL of the spectrum allocated for cellular providers. This would let the 1 provider have up to 4 times the amount of bandwidth PER tower, as well as opens up a plethora of possibilities for coverage and what not. You then use the existing carriers to pipe in the telephony end of this as well as the data. You then purchase your "share" of this from whomever you choose. This wouldd be similar to the "Direct access" PG&E now offers and fall into the same method used by the national power grid. It would also save the companies money, and frankly with landlines going the way of the dinosaur, it seems like this may be the next step in eveolution for the phone company. But, at any rate the rapage has to stop.
TO charge additional for tethering at CURRENT makes HALF sense, but it could be done for a much lower cost than what is charged. Next level of reality: If you want free tethering you get it. I've not seen an iPhone / Android I couldnt tether on yet, legit or not. Bottom line: They dont want to fix the problem so they make it financially unattractive.
 

gmarsack

Distinguished
Jul 25, 2009
191
0
18,630
[citation][nom]thekurrgan[/nom]plethora[/citation]

hehehe you said "plethora".

... and I agree with you completely. Communications companies need to learn to do what they claim to do best; communicate. Hello. It's called standards, people. Pick one and stick with it. We'd all be better off this way, even them! Equipment, like cell towers are expensive and they could save billions a year by working together to build a single unified network, instead of competing to build a better wheel. They're working to saw their own legs off.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.