Sprint reneges on a written offer

[Steph]

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

"Kovie" <kovie@earthlink.netizen> wrote in
news:HcD9d.93687$He1.7483@attbi_s01:

> "Steph" <CUT_skipatrol@hotmail.com_CUT> wrote in message
> news:Xns957B517051898skipatroluunet@24.25.203.148...
>> "Kovie" <kovie@earthlink.netizen> wrote in
>> news:SCX8d.342590$Fg5.24837@attbi_s53:
>>
>>> I'm wondering why Sprint "allows" people with unlimited Vision to
>>> access the internet via a laptop and cable, even though it's
>>> forbidden under the TOS, so long as you don't abuse this (which at
>>> present seems to be no more than 300-500MB/month).
>>
>> I get charged no matter what.
>> I have only used the tethered access sparingly when connected, and
>> only maybe 7-10 days total out of a year.
>>
>
>>
>> Improperly managing expectations is just a recipe for disaster. I
>> have unlimited Vision (and it appears my account was modified somehow
>> back when they did a warranty replacement on the handset), yet get
>> charged for virtually any internet access. I don't even use the
>> vision on the handset hardly now.
>>
>
>
> 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?
>



Almost certainly. But dealing with Sprint CS can be a bit troublesome -
especially given that I have a very poor signal both at home and in my
current office location - so I haven't found the time to set aside and
sit on hold to deal with it.

after arguing that a Vision charges should not have been levied on a
plan that included unlimited vision even though the computer didn't show
visionbeing signed up for; I mean seriously..... what kind of bullsh!t
is that. They were "nice enough" to take off the charges that time,
but then the next month the credits were missing and the additional
charges were still there. I spent over an hour on the cell in my yard
talking to multiple layers of support; again the charges were taken
off, but I literally didn't have the strength to remain calm and deal
with the configuration issue of the account.

 

[Guest]

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

"Kovie" <kovie@earthlink.netizen> wrote in message news:kEJad.457535$8_6.188795@attbi_s04...
> 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.

If I was a Sprint employee, there is no way I'd use my real name when
posting here. Rob could have been more forthright if he had done the same.

--
John Richards

 

[Guest]

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

Kovie wrote:

> 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?

Let me put it this way:

Aside from my duties running my small web-design company, I also now work for a
company that sells Sprint phones and service. So I do have *some* information
that others might not have. However, I do not and have never worked for Sprint.
Rob Vargas was a Sprint employee working in tech support for PCS Vision, so if
he's said something about Vision that contradicts something I've said, he's
much, MUCH more likely to be correct than I am. I have worked on the Internet
since 1995 and what I said is true of Internet/web connections IN GENERAL.
Sprint may have mechanisms in place that I am not aware of.

--
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?)

Steph wrote:

> after arguing that a Vision charges should not have been levied on a
> plan that included unlimited vision even though the computer didn't show
> visionbeing signed up for; I mean seriously..... what kind of bullsh!t
> is that. They were "nice enough" to take off the charges that time,
> but then the next month the credits were missing and the additional
> charges were still there. I spent over an hour on the cell in my yard
> talking to multiple layers of support; again the charges were taken
> off, but I literally didn't have the strength to remain calm and deal
> with the configuration issue of the account.

FWIW, if you're having trouble with the cell, you ought to call 888-211-4PCS
from a landline instead of trying to find a spot where the cell will work.



--
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?)

"Isaiah Beard" <sacredpoet@sacredpoet.com> wrote in message
news:1aVad.13739$9Q3.1818@fe62.usenetserver.com...
> 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.
>

This all makes sense, but from what I've gleaned from this ng, the consensus
seems to be that so long as users restrict their non-phone Vision use to
under a certain threshold, which appears to be anywhere from 300MB to 1GB
per month, Sprint will probably look the other way. I don't know if Rob was
the source of this, but by revealing that Sprint is able to detect and track
the amount on non-phone Vision use, and that it is prepared to take action
against those whose use of this prohibited usage crosses a certain byte
threshold, I imagine that he already revealed more than Sprint was willing
to be revealed about their abilities and policies. So, while I'm sure that
had he provided more specific details regarding this then Sprint would have
been even more upset with him, I'd guess that he'd already crossed a red
line with them by revealing what he had revealed. Is that why he got the
boot ultimately?

My point, btw, was not that corporations are more concerned about protecting
their secrets and public image than they are about relatively minor and
low-cost abuses of their policies, which makes perfect sense to me, but
rather that they'd go to the trouble of ferreting out potential rogue
employees in a public forum such as this. Well, I guess that makes sense as
well, given what's at stake for them, but it's certainly pretty creepy!

Then again, it wasn't as if Rob was a whistleblower revealing some deep dark
secret about his evil company. Sprint has every right to have, and enforce,
a given policy, so long as it makes it publicly known (which it has) and
that it's legal (which it is). And I suppose that the fact that, for
whatever reasons, it was choosing to only enforce this policy in cases of
obvious abuse, is, if anything, to its credit.

Still, if its unofficial policy was to look the other way most of the time,
and everyone knew this by now, I still don't quite understand why they'd be
upset with Rob if he was just saying what everybody already knew. Unless, of
course, he was one of the primary sources of this information to begin with.
But as I'd said, I haven't been following this issue long enough to know.
Was he the guy who first let the cat out of the bag?

--
Kovie
kovie@earthlink.netizen

 

[Guest]

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

"Bob Smith" <usirsclt_No_Spam_@earthlink.net> wrote in message
newsSRad.1086$NX5.245@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
>>
>> 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.

Perhaps, but I think it's less a question of ease, than of usefulness. If
Sprint could track usage, and there was a good reason for them to do so,
then I'm sure that they would do it, regardless of cost. Obviously, though,
they do find it useful to monitor their employee's usenet contributions, for
reasons others have pointed out in this thread.

>> 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
>
>

Bob, I'm not that concerned with Sprint's cracking down on me for tethered
usage. I rarely do this (or need to do this), and even if I did this more
regularly, I'd be careful to not exceed a reasonably threshold of usage
(~300MB/mo seems about right, from what I've seen here). I was simply
wondering if they CAN track this sort of usage, and if so, why they choose
to not enforce their no tethered use policy, and what they ARE using this
ability for.

Sure, of course, this is none of my business, and as someone else pointed
out in this thread anyone who works for Sprint who reveals such information
is subject to disciplinary action. But I'm not asking anyone who works for
Sprint, or who is privy to inside information, to tell us what they know
about this matter. I'm just asking people what they think might be going on
here, in a speculative, just out of curiosity way. And I see no harm in
that, or reason to get upset over it.

I just think it's interesting that Sprint supposedly has a way of tracking
tethered use, yet chooses to not enforce a policy that specifically states
that you cannot do this, and simply wonder how they do this, and why they
choose to not enforce this policy. Sort of along the lines of how do they
get the cream inside Twinkies without obvious seams or holes.

That's all, no need to make a federal case of it. ;-)

--
Kovie
kovie@earthlink.netizen

 

[Guest]

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

"Steve Sobol" <sjsobol@JustThe.net> wrote in message
news:cki6js$g99$1@ratbert.glorb.com...
> Kovie wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
> Let me put it this way:
>
> Aside from my duties running my small web-design company, I also now work
> for a company that sells Sprint phones and service. So I do have *some*
> information that others might not have. However, I do not and have never
> worked for Sprint. Rob Vargas was a Sprint employee working in tech
> support for PCS Vision, so if he's said something about Vision that
> contradicts something I've said, he's much, MUCH more likely to be correct
> than I am. I have worked on the Internet since 1995 and what I said is
> true of Internet/web connections IN GENERAL. Sprint may have mechanisms in
> place that I am not aware of.
>
> --
> 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.

So, you're saying that none of the mechanisms that you are aware of that
could potentially be used to determine whether Vision is being accessed via
phone or computer are reliable enough in your opinion to be able to do this
with enough certainty to be very useful. At the same time, though, you're
not ruling out that there might be other mechanisms, perhaps propietary (but
not necessarily), that only Sprint might be privy to, that could be used to
determine this. Correct?

--
Kovie
kovie@earthlink.netizen

 

[Guest]

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

Kovie wrote:

> So, you're saying that none of the mechanisms that you are aware of that
> could potentially be used to determine whether Vision is being accessed via
> phone or computer are reliable enough in your opinion to be able to do this
> with enough certainty to be very useful. At the same time, though, you're
> not ruling out that there might be other mechanisms, perhaps propietary (but
> not necessarily), that only Sprint might be privy to, that could be used to
> determine this. Correct?

No. I'm saying that it's not possible based on my relatively extensive
knowledge of how the web works in general, but Sprint may have some proprietary
ways to figure out what type of devices are being used - proprietary methods
that I have no clue about.

--
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:ckia5r$gv3$1@ratbert.glorb.com...
> Kovie wrote:
>
>> So, you're saying that none of the mechanisms that you are aware of that
>> could potentially be used to determine whether Vision is being accessed
>> via phone or computer are reliable enough in your opinion to be able to
>> do this with enough certainty to be very useful. At the same time,
>> though, you're not ruling out that there might be other mechanisms,
>> perhaps propietary (but not necessarily), that only Sprint might be privy
>> to, that could be used to determine this. Correct?
>
> No. I'm saying that it's not possible based on my relatively extensive
> knowledge of how the web works in general, but Sprint may have some
> proprietary ways to figure out what type of devices are being used -
> proprietary methods that I have no clue about.
>
> --
> 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.

No need to explore this in great detail but isn't this pretty much what I
said? I.e., you don't know of any known and reliable way to do this, but
Sprint might have a proprietary method that can.

--
Kovie
kovie@earthlink.netizen

 

[Guest]

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

"Kovie" <kovie@earthlink.netizen> wrote in message
news:5rYad.460017$8_6.126853@attbi_s04...
<snipped>
> Still, if its unofficial policy was to look the other way most of the
time,
> and everyone knew this by now, I still don't quite understand why they'd
be
> upset with Rob if he was just saying what everybody already knew. Unless,
of
> course, he was one of the primary sources of this information to begin
with.
> But as I'd said, I haven't been following this issue long enough to know.
> Was he the guy who first let the cat out of the bag?

No, he wasn't. No one let it out of the bag. We figured it out by ourselves
before Rob came onto the group. As for Rob leaving the company, his
particular service center was being downsized, and IIRC, he left before the
downsizing took place voluntarily.

Bob

 

[Guest]

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

"Kovie" <kovie@earthlink.netizen> wrote in message
news:1Zfbd.175363$wV.47222@attbi_s54...

<snipped>

> Ok, we're splitting hairs here. "Tethered" use, per se, can also mean
> syncing up my phone's contacts with Outlook or uploading images. By
> "tethered", I meant, and assumed you meant, using a phone as a modem under
> an unlimited Vision plan, which as you pointed out is not allowed under
> Sprint's TOS, and which I understand and do not challenge.

Yes, I meant accessing the web via tethered use. And once and for the last
friggin' time, SPCS does not disallow tethered usage under the TOS. Go to
the Terms and Conditions link at the bottom of www.sprintpcs.com and tell me
where it's disallowed.

The text I quoted came from the Vision FAQ PDF, and I posted that link.

>
> All that I was asking...for the umpteenth time...was whether Sprint had a
> way to tell when a phone was being used as a modem, and if so why they
were
> nonetheless choosing to look the other way for customers who used their
> phones as a modem, but below a certain byte limit (which, if true, implies
> that they do have a way of tracking this), and what methods they might be
> using to do this.

And you received an answer, many times. The device or way to determine the
difference was never discussed.

> And these were all asked out of simple curiosity, and not
> out of a desire to take advanatage of this "policy" or uncover some deep
> dark secret about Sprint.
>
> I certain appreciate your and others' responses to my questions on this
> matter. Everyone seems to have a theory about what Sprint can and cannot
do
> in terms of tracking usage, and why they don't enforce this "policy"
except
> for obvious abusers, and it's been enlightening to hear them all. So I'm
> really not sure where the apparent annoyance comes from. This is just a
> discussion...

It's because you keep bringing it up, and TPTB @ SPCS who reads this
newsgroup, might want to change their current billing, to include any use of
the web while tethering the phone to the laptop. IOW, accept the answers
you've received ... and drop the issue.

Bob

 

[Guest]

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

"Bob Smith" <usirsclt_No_Spam_@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:dlhbd.3612$NX5.2844@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "Kovie" <kovie@earthlink.netizen> wrote in message
> news:1Zfbd.175363$wV.47222@attbi_s54...
>
> <snipped>
>
>> Ok, we're splitting hairs here. "Tethered" use, per se, can also mean
>> syncing up my phone's contacts with Outlook or uploading images. By
>> "tethered", I meant, and assumed you meant, using a phone as a modem
>> under
>> an unlimited Vision plan, which as you pointed out is not allowed under
>> Sprint's TOS, and which I understand and do not challenge.
>
> Yes, I meant accessing the web via tethered use. And once and for the last
> friggin' time, SPCS does not disallow tethered usage under the TOS. Go to
> the Terms and Conditions link at the bottom of www.sprintpcs.com and tell
> me
> where it's disallowed.
>
>> I certain appreciate your and others' responses to my questions on this
>> matter. Everyone seems to have a theory about what Sprint can and cannot
> do in terms of tracking usage, and why they don't enforce this "policy"
>> except for obvious abusers, and it's been enlightening to hear them all.
>> So I'm
>> really not sure where the apparent annoyance comes from. This is just a
>> discussion...
>
> It's because you keep bringing it up, and TPTB @ SPCS who reads this
> newsgroup, might want to change their current billing, to include any use
> of
> the web while tethering the phone to the laptop. IOW, accept the answers
> you've received ... and drop the issue.
>
> Bob
>

I would drop it if you didn't keep splitting hairs. Here's an excerpt of the
Sprint TOS you quoted:

"Plans/options with unlimited Sprint PCS Vision access are not available
with Sprint PCS Vision Phones used as a modem. Sprint PCS Vision services
are also not available...as substitutes for private lines..."

What, may I ask, is using a phone as a modem, or as a substitute for a
private line, if NOT as (what you call) "tethered use"?!? Sprint's phrasing
might be a bit awkward, but if I'm understanding the above correctly, if you
have a Vision-enabled phone, and unlimited Vision plan (or option), you
CANNOT take advanage of this unlimited Vision access by using the phone as a
modem--i.e. in tethered mode. When you tether a laptop to your phone to
access the web via your vision account, you're using the phone as a modem,
not as a Vision phone. I.e. tethered use = phone as modem use.

So I'd really like to know, what's the "friggin" difference, Bob? Again,
this looks like hair-splitting to me, unless I'm still missing something
here--and if so, I'd love to know what that is, and would gladly apologize
for wasting your and others' time and bandwidth if clearly shown it.

--
Kovie
kovie@earthlink.netizen

 

[Guest]

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

"Bob Smith" <usirsclt_No_Spam_@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Xdhbd.3607$NX5.2376@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "Kovie" <kovie@earthlink.netizen> wrote in message
> news:5rYad.460017$8_6.126853@attbi_s04...
> <snipped>
>> Still, if its unofficial policy was to look the other way most of the
> time,
>> and everyone knew this by now, I still don't quite understand why they'd
> be
>> upset with Rob if he was just saying what everybody already knew. Unless,
> of
>> course, he was one of the primary sources of this information to begin
> with.
>> But as I'd said, I haven't been following this issue long enough to know.
>> Was he the guy who first let the cat out of the bag?
>
> No, he wasn't. No one let it out of the bag. We figured it out by
> ourselves
> before Rob came onto the group. As for Rob leaving the company, his
> particular service center was being downsized, and IIRC, he left before
> the
> downsizing took place voluntarily.
>
> Bob
>
>

I always thought you guys were a pretty smart group... ;-)

And I'm glad to hear that Rob left Sprint under relatively good conditions
(well, as good as imminent downsizing layoffs forcing you to leave
voluntarily could be).

--
Kovie
kovie@earthlink.netizen

 

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 21:18:19 -0700, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
wrote:

>No. I'm saying that it's not possible based on my relatively extensive
>knowledge of how the web works in general, but Sprint may have some proprietary
>ways to figure out what type of devices are being used - proprietary methods
>that I have no clue about.

>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.

Isn't the phone via the "Vision" network operating at OSI layer 2? If
so, then we're really not talking about TCP/IP, but some other
"packet" switched protocol. I do remember reading something a year or
so ago about "bandwidth optimization" that is employed when using a
card, or tethered phone.

For now, all we can do is guess, I guess.

Art

 

[Guest]

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

Art Weeks wrote:

> Isn't the phone via the "Vision" network operating at OSI layer 2? If

I forget how OSI works - Application layer is layer 3 and layer 2 is transport,
right? I always thought it worked at the application layer, but the reality is
that I have no idea about the specifics.

> For now, all we can do is guess, I guess.

Indeed.

--
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:ckkvpj$2h9$1@ratbert.glorb.com...
> Art Weeks wrote:
>
>> Isn't the phone via the "Vision" network operating at OSI layer 2? If
>
> I forget how OSI works - Application layer is layer 3 and layer 2 is
> transport, right? I always thought it worked at the application layer, but
> the reality is that I have no idea about the specifics.
>
>> For now, all we can do is guess, I guess.
>
> Indeed.
>
> --

Agreed, but that's kind of the fun part, no? (And perhaps incentive for me
to finally try to figure out the whole OSI network model.)

--
Kovie
kovie@earthlink.netizen

 

[Guest]

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

Kovie wrote:

> I don't know if Rob was
> the source of this, but by revealing that Sprint is able to detect and track
> the amount on non-phone Vision use, and that it is prepared to take action
> against those whose use of this prohibited usage crosses a certain byte
> threshold, I imagine that he already revealed more than Sprint was willing
> to be revealed about their abilities and policies. So, while I'm sure that
> had he provided more specific details regarding this then Sprint would have
> been even more upset with him, I'd guess that he'd already crossed a red
> line with them by revealing what he had revealed. Is that why he got the
> boot ultimately?

Well officially, it was cost-cutting. From what Rob has stated (and I
hope he will correct me if I'm wrong), the particular call center he
worked at was closed and the employees laid off.

Maybe it was just convenient that this happened from Sprint's point of
view. We might never know.

> My point, btw, was not that corporations are more concerned about protecting
> their secrets and public image than they are about relatively minor and
> low-cost abuses of their policies, which makes perfect sense to me, but
> rather that they'd go to the trouble of ferreting out potential rogue
> employees in a public forum such as this. Well, I guess that makes sense as
> well, given what's at stake for them, but it's certainly pretty creepy!

Oh, I agree. And sometimes companies go too far in determining what is
"proprietary." I know of at least one person who was fired from their
job (not at Sprint) because they mentioned in a blog that the company
they work for uses PHP to deliver online content.

Now, anyone who looks at the URLs of that company's website would see a
..php extension at the end, and know that the pages were coded in PHP.
Further, PHP is open-source, and anyone can openly and freely look at
its source code by simply going to the www.php.net website and
downloading a copy for themselves. So, any reasonable person could
conclude that revealing the use of php, whose features and capabilities
are widely known and well documented, wouldn't be such a big deal. It's
almost like proclaiming that GM or Toyota makes cars with four wheels on
them, because you can plainly tell by sight alone that most of the cars
on their dealership lots do, in fact, roll on four wheels.

Nonetheless, the company felt this this very obvious fact was still a
"trade secret," and fired them for merely making the mention.


--
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:3kjbd.252237$3l3.12178@attbi_s03...

> I would drop it if you didn't keep splitting hairs. Here's an excerpt of
the
> Sprint TOS you quoted:
>
> "Plans/options with unlimited Sprint PCS Vision access are not available
> with Sprint PCS Vision Phones used as a modem. Sprint PCS Vision services
> are also not available...as substitutes for private lines..."

Kovie - Do you have a reading comprehension problem? (And no, that's not
meant as an insult, but a genuine inquiry). As I've explained two previous
times to you, the text above DID NOT come from the Sprint TOS. Why do you
keep saying this is part of the TOS?

It came from the Vision FAQ PDF file per the prior link I provided -
http/www1.sprintpcs.com/media/Assets/ueContent/Sprint-PCS-Vision-Guide.pdf

Now, as to my understanding of the above text, SPCS is saying that accessing
Vision while tethered to a laptop, is NOT included in the Vision plans, nor
is it to replace your regular ISP service.

SPCS sells a separate service for accessing the web via a laptop,
http/www1.sprintpcs.com/explore/ueContent.jsp?scTopic=wirelessLaptopAccess
to be used via a pcmcia card.

>
> What, may I ask, is using a phone as a modem, or as a substitute for a
> private line, if NOT as (what you call) "tethered use"?!? Sprint's
phrasing
> might be a bit awkward, but if I'm understanding the above correctly, if
you
> have a Vision-enabled phone, and unlimited Vision plan (or option), you
> CANNOT take advanage of this unlimited Vision access by using the phone as
a
> modem--i.e. in tethered mode.

That's correct.

> When you tether a laptop to your phone to
> access the web via your vision account, you're using the phone as a modem,
> not as a Vision phone. I.e. tethered use = phone as modem use.

You are accessing SPCS's web servers.

If they didn't have that wording, then everybody would expect to access the
web with their laptop tethered to their phone, with the cost included in the
monthly Vision cost.

> So I'd really like to know, what's the "friggin" difference, Bob? Again,
> this looks like hair-splitting to me, unless I'm still missing something
> here--and if so, I'd love to know what that is, and would gladly apologize
> for wasting your and others' time and bandwidth if clearly shown it.

You are missing it Kovie. If you didn't have the Vision option on your
account and accessed their server via #777 (or even just on the phone
itself), you would be charged on a KB basis. As it stands now for those that
do have Vision on their account, they aren't being charged ... if they are
doing it on a limited basis. If they do notice excess long (large
downloading or uploading) online sessions, they will take off the Vision
option on the account and start charging usage on the KBs transferred.

That's the current situation. No more and no less.

Bob

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 21:39:37 -0700, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
wrote:

>Art Weeks wrote:
>
>> Isn't the phone via the "Vision" network operating at OSI layer 2? If
>
>I forget how OSI works - Application layer is layer 3 and layer 2 is transport,
>right? I always thought it worked at the application layer, but the reality is
>that I have no idea about the specifics.
>
>> For now, all we can do is guess, I guess.
>
>Indeed.
>
>--
>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.

Layer 3 is the Network Layer. This is the layer that TCP/IP operates
on. Layer 2 is the transport layer. e.g. the phone line (if using
dial up), the DSL data line, private line, frame relay, etc..

So theoretically the phone could tag or encapsulate the data segments
(packets) differently if the phone is tethered vs if one is using the
phone's browser. The phone definitely knows the difference, and so the
network equipment could pick this up also.

But again, who knows..

 

[Guest]

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

"Art Weeks" <artweeks@at.sbcglobal.nospam.dotcom> wrote in message
news:416f16d0.5019437@news.lan.sbcglobal.net...
> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 21:39:37 -0700, Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Art Weeks wrote:
>>
>>> Isn't the phone via the "Vision" network operating at OSI layer 2? If
>>
>>I forget how OSI works - Application layer is layer 3 and layer 2 is
>>transport,
>>right? I always thought it worked at the application layer, but the
>>reality is
>>that I have no idea about the specifics.
>>
>>> For now, all we can do is guess, I guess.
>>
>>Indeed.
>>
>>--
>>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.
>
> Layer 3 is the Network Layer. This is the layer that TCP/IP operates
> on. Layer 2 is the transport layer. e.g. the phone line (if using
> dial up), the DSL data line, private line, frame relay, etc..
>
> So theoretically the phone could tag or encapsulate the data segments
> (packets) differently if the phone is tethered vs if one is using the
> phone's browser. The phone definitely knows the difference, and so the
> network equipment could pick this up also.
>
> But again, who knows..
>
>
>

It also occured to me that since you have to dial #777 to connect to the
internet via a laptop-phone tether, can't Sprint tell that the connection is
obviously not from the phone just by this? I tried dialing it directly from
my Vision-enabled phone and got a recording saying that it wasn't a valid #.
Pretty low-tech way of tracking usage but what's to stop them from using
this technique?

--
Kovie
kovie@earthlink.netizen