Sprint reneges on a written offer

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Kovie wrote:

> I see. I'm no expert on this, but it just doesn't make sense that there's NO
> way to tell the difference between phone and non-phone Vision access.
> Wouldn't non-phone browsers such as IE make HTTP calls that a phone-based
> one never would,

The Vision browsers use WAP 2.0 and can accept XHTML output as well as some
other content. I guess you could check the Accept header and see if the browser
accepts WAP, but I don't think that's necessarily reliable. I have a WAP
simulator on my computer because I've created sites built for cell phones
before, and that simulator will send the same Accept header that a phone would.

> perhaps there's nothing in an HTTP call that explicitely says "Hey, I'm
> Internet Explorer!", but surely there's some fairly obvious indirect way of
> telling what the source is?

Sorta - as I mentioned, it's not really reliable.

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http/JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Steve Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
news:ck6vjl$gci$2@ratbert.glorb.com...
> Kovie wrote:
> > Isn't this a billing error rather than Sprint policy, as others have
> noted,
>> especially if you're being charged for phone Vision access on your
>> unlimited Vision plan?
> Old, slow Wireless Web access is not included in the Vision plans.
>
> However, if you're using a Vision phone, Vision should be used
> automatically to browse the web.
>
> I'd suggest to the person having problems that they speak to Sprint tech
> support; something does smell fishy here.
>
>
>
> --
> JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http/JustThe.net/
> Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) /
> sjsobol@JustThe.net
> PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
> Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.

I might have read somewhere that this sometimes happens when someone has
unlimited Vision but for some reason has chosen to keep their old WW
service. Not sure if this is the issue here.

--
Kovie
kovie@earthlink.netizen

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Kovie wrote:

> I might have read somewhere that this sometimes happens when someone has
> unlimited Vision but for some reason has chosen to keep their old WW
> service. Not sure if this is the issue here.

If this is the case, perhaps closing out WW would help - it's not necessary to
have it, since Vision includes web browsing.



--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http/JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Kovie" <kovie@earthlink.netizen> wrote in message
news:A2D9d.330393$mD.213579@attbi_s02...
<snipped>

> Which is why I didn't bother to comment on that aspect of his posting.
> Thanks Steph.
>
> Bob--you're nit-picking here and missing the point. I was just trying to
> fill in the OP on the inconsistencies one can expect when calling Sprint
> about previously made offers. I had a similar situation, where I was
offered
> a great deal by one rep, which I wasn't ready to sign onto at the time,
and
> then had to call multiple times before getting another rep who could give
me
> the same offer. Whatever one thinks of this "policy", it's the way it is
and
> one just has to be aware of it and find a way to work around it.
>

Call it what you will Kovie, but I was trying to get an answer from the
original poster here, who by the way, hasn't replied on that point. Next, I
asked whether he had spoken with the retention dept the second time, and
guess what, no reply back on that either.

The point is that the retention dept offered that prior deal, and it's never
been made clear whether he spoke to someone in a lower tier of CS or the
retention dept, who has the highest limit of authority to offer deals.

Bob

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Steve Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
news:ck72du$gue$2@ratbert.glorb.com...
> Kovie wrote:
>
>> I see. I'm no expert on this, but it just doesn't make sense that there's
>> NO way to tell the difference between phone and non-phone Vision access.
>> Wouldn't non-phone browsers such as IE make HTTP calls that a phone-based
>> one never would,
>
> The Vision browsers use WAP 2.0 and can accept XHTML output as well as
> some other content. I guess you could check the Accept header and see if
> the browser accepts WAP, but I don't think that's necessarily reliable. I
> have a WAP simulator on my computer because I've created sites built for
> cell phones before, and that simulator will send the same Accept header
> that a phone would.
>
>> perhaps there's nothing in an HTTP call that explicitely says "Hey, I'm
>> Internet Explorer!", but surely there's some fairly obvious indirect way
>> of telling what the source is?
>
> Sorta - as I mentioned, it's not really reliable.
>
> --
> JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http/JustThe.net/
> Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) /
> sjsobol@JustThe.net
> PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
> Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.

Got it. Being the incurable skeptic and tinkerer that I am, I'm not
completely convinced that there's no reliable way of knowing what the source
device is (hey, we're all entitled to our innocent delusions...). But also
not being an expert on this, I'll have to take your word on it.

--
Kovie
kovie@earthlink.netizen

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Kovie" <kovie@earthlink.netizen> wrote in message
news:KQG9d.331265$mD.37816@attbi_s02...
> "Steve Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
> news:ck72du$gue$2@ratbert.glorb.com...
> > Kovie wrote:
> >
> >> I see. I'm no expert on this, but it just doesn't make sense that
there's
> >> NO way to tell the difference between phone and non-phone Vision
access.
> >> Wouldn't non-phone browsers such as IE make HTTP calls that a
phone-based
> >> one never would,
> >
> > The Vision browsers use WAP 2.0 and can accept XHTML output as well as
> > some other content. I guess you could check the Accept header and see if
> > the browser accepts WAP, but I don't think that's necessarily reliable.
I
> > have a WAP simulator on my computer because I've created sites built for
> > cell phones before, and that simulator will send the same Accept header
> > that a phone would.
> >
> >> perhaps there's nothing in an HTTP call that explicitely says "Hey, I'm
> >> Internet Explorer!", but surely there's some fairly obvious indirect
way
> >> of telling what the source is?
> >
> > Sorta - as I mentioned, it's not really reliable.
> >
> > --
> > JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http/JustThe.net/
> > Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) /
> > sjsobol@JustThe.net
> > PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
> > Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three
kids.
>
> Got it. Being the incurable skeptic and tinkerer that I am, I'm not
> completely convinced that there's no reliable way of knowing what the
source
> device is (hey, we're all entitled to our innocent delusions...). But also
> not being an expert on this, I'll have to take your word on it.
>
> --
> Kovie
> kovie@earthlink.netizen

Before Rob left, he mentioned that SPCS does know how to determine when data
was through the phone or a laptop.

Bob

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Bob Smith" <usirsclt_No_Spam_@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:cLH9d.12779$gs1.8623@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "Kovie" <kovie@earthlink.netizen> wrote in message
> news:KQG9d.331265$mD.37816@attbi_s02...
>> "Steve Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
>> news:ck72du$gue$2@ratbert.glorb.com...
>> > Kovie wrote:
>> >
>> >> I see. I'm no expert on this, but it just doesn't make sense that
> there's
>> >> NO way to tell the difference between phone and non-phone Vision
> access.
>> >> Wouldn't non-phone browsers such as IE make HTTP calls that a
> phone-based
>> >> one never would,
>> >
>> > The Vision browsers use WAP 2.0 and can accept XHTML output as well as
>> > some other content. I guess you could check the Accept header and see
>> > if
>> > the browser accepts WAP, but I don't think that's necessarily reliable.
> I
>> > have a WAP simulator on my computer because I've created sites built
>> > for
>> > cell phones before, and that simulator will send the same Accept header
>> > that a phone would.
>> >
>> >> perhaps there's nothing in an HTTP call that explicitely says "Hey,
>> >> I'm
>> >> Internet Explorer!", but surely there's some fairly obvious indirect
> way
>> >> of telling what the source is?
>> >
>> > Sorta - as I mentioned, it's not really reliable.
>> >
>> > --
>> > JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http/JustThe.net/
>> > Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) /
>> > sjsobol@JustThe.net
>> > PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
>> > Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three
> kids.
>>
>> Got it. Being the incurable skeptic and tinkerer that I am, I'm not
>> completely convinced that there's no reliable way of knowing what the
> source
>> device is (hey, we're all entitled to our innocent delusions...). But
>> also
>> not being an expert on this, I'll have to take your word on it.
>>
>> --
>> Kovie
>> kovie@earthlink.netizen
>
> Before Rob left, he mentioned that SPCS does know how to determine when
> data
> was through the phone or a laptop.
>
> Bob
>
>

Sorry, I'm not a regular visitor to this ng so I'm not sure who Rob is. And
did he indicate what means they use to tell how you're accessing Vision
services?

--
Kovie
kovie@earthlink.netizen

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Bob Smith" <usirsclt_No_Spam_@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:cLH9d.12779$gs1.8623@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...

> Before Rob left, he mentioned that SPCS does know how to determine when data
> was through the phone or a laptop.

I've never seen any confirmation of that (Rob's) statement.
Even if true in a theoretical sense, SPCS apparently makes no use
of that capability.
Incidentally, Cingular is now offering an unlimited G3 data access
option (including tethered use) for $19.95:
https/www.cingular.com/media/media_purchase

Perhaps SPCS will start feeling the heat of competition with
respect to data plans.

--
John Richards

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"John Richards" <supportdesk70-NO-SPAM@NO.SPAM.sbcglobal.net> wrote in
message news:TNJ9d.7993$Rf1.7787@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> "Bob Smith" <usirsclt_No_Spam_@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:cLH9d.12779$gs1.8623@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
>> Before Rob left, he mentioned that SPCS does know how to determine when
>> data
>> was through the phone or a laptop.
>
> I've never seen any confirmation of that (Rob's) statement.
> Even if true in a theoretical sense, SPCS apparently makes no use
> of that capability.
> Incidentally, Cingular is now offering an unlimited G3 data access
> option (including tethered use) for $19.95:
> https/www.cingular.com/media/media_purchase
>
> Perhaps SPCS will start feeling the heat of competition with
> respect to data plans.
>
> --
> John Richards

I certainly hope so. Assuming that their 3G network could support the extra
usage, I think this would be a great incentive to get more people to join
Sprint, add Vision, and add a new source of revenue. Actually, I think they
should do this in tiers, with free cable usage up to a certain MB limit, a
per-MB fee for those exceeding this limit, and unlimited usage for those
willing to pay an extra flat fee per month. Kind of like how they charge for
Vision and SMS right now.

--
Kovie
kovie@earthlink.netizen

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Kovie" <kovie@earthlink.netizen> wrote in message
news:7FI9d.213773$D%.83756@attbi_s51...
> "Bob Smith" <usirsclt_No_Spam_@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:cLH9d.12779$gs1.8623@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...

<snipped>

> > Before Rob left, he mentioned that SPCS does know how to determine when
> > data
> > was through the phone or a laptop.
> >
> > Bob
> >
> >
>
> Sorry, I'm not a regular visitor to this ng so I'm not sure who Rob is.
And
> did he indicate what means they use to tell how you're accessing Vision
> services?

Rob / Osiris was a CS rep for SPCS who posted here on a regular basis. He
left SPCS right around the time where SPCS made it's deal with IBM to take
over some of the CS responsibilities for SPCS.

Bob

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Bob Smith" <usirsclt_No_Spam_@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:vsQ9d.13023$gs1.8000@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "Kovie" <kovie@earthlink.netizen> wrote in message
> news:7FI9d.213773$D%.83756@attbi_s51...
>> "Bob Smith" <usirsclt_No_Spam_@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:cLH9d.12779$gs1.8623@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> <snipped>
>
>> > Before Rob left, he mentioned that SPCS does know how to determine when
>> > data
>> > was through the phone or a laptop.
>> >
>> > Bob
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Sorry, I'm not a regular visitor to this ng so I'm not sure who Rob is.
> And
>> did he indicate what means they use to tell how you're accessing Vision
>> services?
>
> Rob / Osiris was a CS rep for SPCS who posted here on a regular basis. He
> left SPCS right around the time where SPCS made it's deal with IBM to take
> over some of the CS responsibilities for SPCS.
>
> Bob
>
>

Thanks Bob, but I'm still waiting for you to answer my question. ;-)

--
Kovie
kovie@earthlink.netizen

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Kovie" <kovie@earthlink.netizen> wrote in message
news:6UW9d.334449$mD.80113@attbi_s02...
> "Bob Smith" <usirsclt_No_Spam_@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:vsQ9d.13023$gs1.8000@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Kovie" <kovie@earthlink.netizen> wrote in message
> > news:7FI9d.213773$D%.83756@attbi_s51...
> >> "Bob Smith" <usirsclt_No_Spam_@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >> news:cLH9d.12779$gs1.8623@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >
> > <snipped>
> >
> >> > Before Rob left, he mentioned that SPCS does know how to determine
when
> >> > data
> >> > was through the phone or a laptop.
> >> >
> >> > Bob
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Sorry, I'm not a regular visitor to this ng so I'm not sure who Rob is.
> > And
> >> did he indicate what means they use to tell how you're accessing Vision
> >> services?
> >
> > Rob / Osiris was a CS rep for SPCS who posted here on a regular basis.
He
> > left SPCS right around the time where SPCS made it's deal with IBM to
take
> > over some of the CS responsibilities for SPCS.
> >
> > Bob
> >
> >
>
> Thanks Bob, but I'm still waiting for you to answer my question. ;-)

Wish I could Kovie, but Rob didn't pass on how they determine the
difference.

Bob

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Bob Smith" <usirsclt_No_Spam_@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:aBX9d.13452$gs1.11806@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "Kovie" <kovie@earthlink.netizen> wrote in message
> news:6UW9d.334449$mD.80113@attbi_s02...
>> "Bob Smith" <usirsclt_No_Spam_@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:vsQ9d.13023$gs1.8000@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> >
>> > "Kovie" <kovie@earthlink.netizen> wrote in message
>> > news:7FI9d.213773$D%.83756@attbi_s51...
>> >> "Bob Smith" <usirsclt_No_Spam_@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> >> news:cLH9d.12779$gs1.8623@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> >
>> > <snipped>
>> >
>> >> > Before Rob left, he mentioned that SPCS does know how to determine
> when
>> >> > data
>> >> > was through the phone or a laptop.
>> >> >
>> >> > Bob
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Sorry, I'm not a regular visitor to this ng so I'm not sure who Rob
>> >> is.
>> > And
>> >> did he indicate what means they use to tell how you're accessing
>> >> Vision
>> >> services?
>> >
>> > Rob / Osiris was a CS rep for SPCS who posted here on a regular basis.
> He
>> > left SPCS right around the time where SPCS made it's deal with IBM to
> take
>> > over some of the CS responsibilities for SPCS.
>> >
>> > Bob
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Thanks Bob, but I'm still waiting for you to answer my question. ;-)
>
> Wish I could Kovie, but Rob didn't pass on how they determine the
> difference.
>
> Bob
>
>

As a previous poster (Steve) indicated, there might not be a reliable way of
telling whether someone used a phone or laptop to connect via Vision. Too
bad Rob wasn't more forthcoming, although his lack of specifics does
indicate a possible credibility issue.

It also occured to me that one other possible way to tell is to check upload
usage. I can't imagine a WAP broswer using anywhere near as much upload
capacity as a full browser.

--
Kovie
kovie@earthlink.netizen

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

In article <NQY9d.212100$MQ5.126220@attbi_s52>, "Kovie" <kovie@earthlink.netizen> wrote:
>
>As a previous poster (Steve) indicated, there might not be a reliable way of
>telling whether someone used a phone or laptop to connect via Vision. Too
>bad Rob wasn't more forthcoming, although his lack of specifics does
>indicate a possible credibility issue.

I believe there is no way to be absolutely certain that access is tethered
or not, and further that it can reduce to silly definitions and splitting of
hairs. For example, it is clearly possible to write a Palm app for a Palm
phone or a WinCE app for a Smartphone or PPC phone which acts like
any legit phone network app, but in fact is a proxy for a laptop via the
USB port. It would be impossible to know whether the TCP/IP packets
or data bytes were generated internally by the phone or merely passed
by the phone from a laptop.

However I think it is equally clear that given a decent set of heuristics,
that it would be possible to guess whether a phone was being used as a modem
for a laptop or not, and be right perhaps 95% of the time. For simple uses
(single tasking, reading email, simple HTTP, telnet), it would be difficult to
tell, but multitasking (interwoven POP3, HTTP, FTP packets), large bandwidth
usage, etc, are not scenerios that can readily be explained by the phones of
today.

Finally, I think part of the reason that Sprint allows modest laptop usage is:
why not ? splitting hairs between phone and laptop usage is pointless. What
costs is bandwidth, not what kind of device generates and consumes packets.
Why should Sprint care if the 10Mb/month usage is because my phone read
my emails or my laptop read those exact same emails ? It is really the big
bandwidth usage that is of concern and my guess is that if you wrote a
Palm app or a PPC app for your phone that just endlessly downloaded Gb's,
that Sprint would also be on your back even though it is technically covered
by an "unlimited" Vision data plan for your phone.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Kovie wrote:

> I see. I'm no expert on this, but it just doesn't make sense that there's NO
> way to tell the difference between phone and non-phone Vision access.

When you log into a standard ISP connection, can the ISP make
restrictions based on whether you use IE or Mozilla? No, generally not
without actually opening the packets and examining the information.
This is generally not something that people are comfortable with doing,
not to mention it tends to not be cost effective.

Likewise, Sprint probably could start sniffing packets to see what kind
of data is being processed, but the manpower/equipment required to make
that a reality for every user is unrealistically expensive, and would
cost them more than losses from the estimated number of people using
their phones for laptop connections. And it would also open up privacy
issues. Who knows, the same people up in arms over the "inconsistency"
of Sprint's policy enforcement would probably be just as up in arms if
the reverse were true, only they'd be griping about the massive invasion
of privacy that would make such enforcement effective.

> Wouldn't non-phone browsers such as IE make HTTP calls that a phone-based
> one never would, at least at the current level of phone-based browser
> technology?

From the outset, your phone makes http calls on port 80 and acts just
like any other web browser. You'd have to examine the individual
packets to get an inkling that something was different.



--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Kovie wrote:

> As a previous poster (Steve) indicated, there might not be a reliable way of
> telling whether someone used a phone or laptop to connect via Vision. Too
> bad Rob wasn't more forthcoming, although his lack of specifics does
> indicate a possible credibility issue.

Rob said what he was allowed to say. Over in the VZW newsgroup I know at least
a couple VZW employees who said more than the company wanted them to say and
they are not with VZW anymore...

I can vouch for Rob's credibility. I trust him...

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http/JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / sjsobol@JustThe.net
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Steve Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
news:ckffrb$fg$5@ratbert.glorb.com...
> Kovie wrote:
>
>> As a previous poster (Steve) indicated, there might not be a reliable way
>> of telling whether someone used a phone or laptop to connect via Vision.
>> Too bad Rob wasn't more forthcoming, although his lack of specifics does
>> indicate a possible credibility issue.
>
> Rob said what he was allowed to say. Over in the VZW newsgroup I know at
> least a couple VZW employees who said more than the company wanted them to
> say and they are not with VZW anymore...
>
> I can vouch for Rob's credibility. I trust him...
>
> --
> JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http/JustThe.net/
> Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) /
> sjsobol@JustThe.net
> PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
> Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.

Thanks. I qualified my statement with the word "possible" because I wasn't
familiar with him. It is interesting to note, though, that if what you're
saying is true, cell phone providers appear to be less interested in
tracking prohibited cell phone use (e.g. using a phone as a modem) than in
tracking what their employees say or don't say online on their own time. Of
course, if what Rob said was true, they CAN track usage, but choose not to,
not officially at least, for reasons of their own. I'm still curious as to
how they can track this, and why they choose not to.

--
Kovie
kovie@earthlink.netizen

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Steve Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
news:ckffrb$fg$5@ratbert.glorb.com...
> Kovie wrote:
>
>> As a previous poster (Steve) indicated, there might not be a reliable way
>> of telling whether someone used a phone or laptop to connect via Vision.
>> Too bad Rob wasn't more forthcoming, although his lack of specifics does
>> indicate a possible credibility issue.
>
> Rob said what he was allowed to say. Over in the VZW newsgroup I know at
> least a couple VZW employees who said more than the company wanted them to
> say and they are not with VZW anymore...
>
> I can vouch for Rob's credibility. I trust him...
>
> --
> JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http/JustThe.net/
> Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) /
> sjsobol@JustThe.net
> PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
> Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.

Wait a sec, now I'm confused again. Earlier in this thread you said that
there's no reliable way for Sprint to know whether Vision was accessed via
the phone, or via a computer and cable. But here you're vouching for the
credibility of someone who claimed that there IS a way for Sprint to know,
but who is not in a position to say how. Am I missing something or are you
contradicting yourself here?

--
Kovie
kovie@earthlink.netizen

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

Kovie wrote:

> It is interesting to note, though, that if what you're
> saying is true, cell phone providers appear to be less interested in
> tracking prohibited cell phone use (e.g. using a phone as a modem) than in
> tracking what their employees say or don't say online on their own time.

I guess you haven't dealt with corporations much.

It's generally accepted in the business world that if an employee talks
about their work in a public forum, even if it is on his or her own
time, the public perception ends up being that s/he is representing the
company, even if in fact they have neither the authority nor knowledge
to do so. The employee could be totally wrong in what he or she is
saying, and could say things are potentially damaging to the company.
And the public would bve likely to buy it, whether it was true or not.
Or just as bad, they could start detailing pro[rietary information or
trade secrets, allowing competitors to make use of that info.

As a result, most corporations will go *apeshit* when an employee enters
a usenet newsgroup or other forum and starts divulging internal company
policies or procedures. The perception is that the damage that can be
done is tremendous, and far worse than a customer clandestinely
violating a policy about terms of usage.

Example: if a group of people hook up their laptops to PCS phones and
start surfing on a tethered Vision connection, that group gambles with
having their account revert to metered billing, possibly meaning a hefty
bill later on. What the trigger could be anyone's guess, and they might
fly under the radar, or they might not. The damage is containable. And
that's the way things are now. At the moment, we can make some educated
guesses at what Sprint might looking at in identifying people who abuse
Vision, but we can't be sure.

If however, Rob had come on here and cut and paste the internal policies
about when and how Sprint gathers information to enforce the no-tether
rule, then those policies - and how to circumvent them - potentially
become common knowledge of every Sprint PCS user with a laptop.
Further, that post, with all pertinent information, would be archived
indefinitely on google. If people missed the original posting, they
could just go back and look for it.

The potential risk is no longer containable at that point, because
everyone would know how to keep under the radar, meaning that everyone
is a potential abuser of the policy and causing Sprint great expense
without getting caught, rather than just a handful of power users who
are willing to take a risk and a hunch.

And that's why if Rob had been detailed in the information he shared, he
probably would have gotten the boot at Sprint much sooner than he
ultimately did (and not due to cost-cutting).


--
E-mail fudged to thwart spammers.
Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (More info?)

"Kovie" <kovie@earthlink.netizen> wrote in message
news:kEJad.457535$8_6.188795@attbi_s04...
> "Steve Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
> news:ckffrb$fg$5@ratbert.glorb.com...
> > Kovie wrote:
> >
> >> As a previous poster (Steve) indicated, there might not be a reliable
way
> >> of telling whether someone used a phone or laptop to connect via
Vision.
> >> Too bad Rob wasn't more forthcoming, although his lack of specifics
does
> >> indicate a possible credibility issue.
> >
> > Rob said what he was allowed to say. Over in the VZW newsgroup I know at
> > least a couple VZW employees who said more than the company wanted them
to
> > say and they are not with VZW anymore...
> >
> > I can vouch for Rob's credibility. I trust him...
> >
> > --
> > JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http/JustThe.net/
> > Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) /
> > sjsobol@JustThe.net
> > PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
> > Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three
kids.
>
> Thanks. I qualified my statement with the word "possible" because I wasn't
> familiar with him. It is interesting to note, though, that if what you're
> saying is true, cell phone providers appear to be less interested in
> tracking prohibited cell phone use (e.g. using a phone as a modem) than in
> tracking what their employees say or don't say online on their own time.

It's a hellava lot easier to see what one or a few souls say about the
company's proprietary information, than track online usage for each account.

> Of
> course, if what Rob said was true, they CAN track usage, but choose not
to,
> not officially at least, for reasons of their own. I'm still curious as to
> how they can track this, and why they choose not to.

Maybe because how they track it, is that it's none of your business? What's
more, it's more than possible that they are tracking usage, to collect data
on future plans and options, but haven't completed collecting data yet, to
formulate and create future plans and options.

If you are so concerned about getting charged for usage via being tethered
to a lap top ... don't do it. It's that simple Kovie.

Bob