Archived from groups: alt.cellular.sprintpcs (
More info?)
"Bob Smith" <usirsclt_No_Spam_@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:i4Wbd.5451$SZ5.5279@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> "Kovie" <kovie@earthlink.netizen> wrote in message
> news:0SBbd.127272$He1.116492@attbi_s01...
>>
>> The following is an except from Sprint's current TOS, found by clicking
>> on
>> the above T&C link:
>>
>> Terms & Conditions
>>
>> 9 - Terms and Conditions of Services
>> Effective June 30, 2004
>>
>> Other Sprint PCS Vision Terms.
>>
>> ...Vision is not available for use with server devices or host computer
>> applications, other systems that drive continuous heavy traffic or data
>> sessions, or as substitutes for private lines or frame relay connections.
>> Unlimited Vision plans/options may not be used with Sprint PCS phones or
>> smart phones being used as a modem in connection with other equipment
> (e.g., computers, etc.) through use of connection kits or other
>> phone-to-computer/PDA accessories, or Bluetooth or other wireless
>> technology. We may terminate services without notice for any misuse...
>>
> Ya gotta read between the lines. First off, the first sentence says
> "Vision
> is not available ..." We know that it is available, as we have used the
> service. They have to say that terminology. If "Not" was not included,
> then
> the interpretation would be that Sprint says it's ok to tether up and use
> the service to your heart's content. If this happened, everyone would be
> dropping their dial - ups for the $10 to $20/mo. option and taking all the
> available bandwidth. This was not the intent of Vision, at least not at
> this
> time. They might change this philosophy once they upgrade their hardware
> and
> software with EV-DO and then to EV-DV.
>
> Towards the end of the above paragraph, they say we can't use our phones
> to
> access Vision tethered to the laptop and that if we do, they may terminate
> service. So, they are saying the capability is there, but if you get
> caught
> using it, they might cancel the service. No one has disputed what's said
> in
> their legalese.
>
> So, going back to square one, it's against the rules, and yet they know we
> are using it. Most of us who post here and use the service in low to
> moderate amounts (99%), aren't getting any warnings from SPCS or threats
> of
> account cancellation. The remaining 1% are either getting billed for their
> usage or have had their accounts cancelled.
>
> Now, no one has posted here saying they had their accounts cancelled, but
> Rob has piped in saying that SPCS has cancelled a number of accounts. We
> have had some posters here who have piped in, saying that they are getting
> charged.
>
> IOW, as our former resident troll Phillipe said, those of us that are not
> incurring additional charges are staying under SPCS's radar. That's all
> there is to it.
>
> Bob
>
Now I really am confused. What have we been arguing about, if we both agree
that Sprint's TOS says that "we can't use our phones to access Vision
tethered to the laptop and that if we do, they may terminate service" (your
words)? I thought you said in an earlier post that Sprint's TOS DID NOT say
this. And I quote yet again:
"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."
Are we arguing over the differences between the terms "can't use" and "does
not allow"? I sure hope not, as that is about as meaningful as Clinton's
famous reinterpretation of the word "is".
Bottom line, we both (finally) appear to agree that Sprint's policy is that
while, technically, it is possible to use your phone as a modem, legally,
you're not allowed to do this, and can be cut off if you try, and that this
is stated (albeit not as clearly as it could be) in their TOS. We also both
agree that so long as they choose to look the other way, those of us who
choose to take advantage of this should be reasonable about our "abuse" of
this apparently rarely enforced policy.
If this is true, then what this debate has been about is now beyond me.
--
Kovie
kovie@earthlink.netizen
/JustThe.net/
Facebook
Twitter