The modem is separate from the main CPU that does the higher level network processing thus by your definition every smartphone is always using tethering which would forbid any use with a data service on those operators. That's the reason why I say that tethering is a made up term in this context because the implied meaning is completely different from technical reality.
Technical reality seems to be the one you're living in.
The fact is that tethering is a made up term used to describe a functionality of certain end devices instead of being a technical or lawful term that could be used to impose limits in contracts. Many devices (even those sold by the operators together with these contracts) are employing the very same "tethering" mechanism as the single possible way to use the data service at all. In Europe clauses in contracts which are surprising to the customer (eg. because they prevent the use of product for its intended purpose like here) are completely void. So while it would be lawful to exclude the use of a data service for more than one concurrent end device (which is quite likely what the tethering clauses are supposed to mean) it is not lawful to forbid the use of an intermediate access device (which is what tethering really means).
In my opinion Apple here chose to play nice with the operators solely for their own gain without having any real obligation to do so.
I find your argument very persuasive, and apart from the legality, I concur with your opinion that Apple chose to play nice with the carriers, and really didn't need to do so.
Do you find a parallel with carriers charging for txt/sms messages? It is my understanding that they are delivered within the unused space of the handshake packets which mobile phones must send and receive to maintain contact with cell towers. The handshakes are sent and received constantly and are a part of the phone's standby activity. The txt/sms message is a mere re-arrangement of the data already being transferred, and costs the carrier zero. In fact, it costs them to actively monitor whether there is an embedded message, solely in order to bill you for it.
The takeaway here is: Is it not up to Apple to decide and/or enforce who can use this function or not. That's strictly between the operator and the customer and Apple trying to be a MITM is shady behaviour.
Actually, yes it is up to Apple if they wish their devices to be usable on those networks. The carriers have strict requirements that Apple and any other manufacturers with cellular components must follow before they're allowed in the network. They have contacts in place to ensure each device does not take up the allowable amount of data based on the data plan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf
How do carriers justify their tethering policies? How does loading a webpage on an iPhone affect the network any differently from loading a webpage on an iPad that happens to be connected to the internet through the iPhone?
Here's the beauty of it, they don't have to justify it. It's their networks, they can do whatever they want with it.
If you're not happy, you can switch to a different carrier with a better tethering policy.
In the past, this is justified because of the unlimited data plans. Back then, you could practically use your cell phone as a primary internet access for all devices in your home. That eats up a lot of data and something that's not sustainable for the carriers given the finite resources available for the spectrum.
That's why they're enabling tethering more freely on the new data plans that are no longer unlimited.
I wish FCC and/or Congress can step in and tell all carriers that as long as there's a data cap, they have no rights to charge customers for using it in any way they want.
Until then, we're stuck with this usual business being greedy crap.
Note that if you're paying for an unlimited Internet plan at home, there are restrictions in place as well. They can still legally terminate your service if you use too much data in a given timeframe. Sad but it's true.
Actually, yes it is up to Apple if they wish their devices to be usable on those networks. The carriers have strict requirements that Apple and any other manufacturers with cellular components must follow before they're allowed in the network. They have contacts in place to ensure each device does not take up the allowable amount of data based on the data plan.
Not true, there's no such thing as an obligation to have contracts with every operator on the planet. In fact if you buy a $20 cheaper phone from India or a $50 smartphone from the friendly chinaman around the corner you can pretty much expect that they haven't even talked to any major operator in their life and yet the phones do work just fine.
Do you find a parallel with carriers charging for txt/sms messages? It is my understanding that they are delivered within the unused space of the handshake packets which mobile phones must send and receive to maintain contact with cell towers. The handshakes are sent and received constantly and are a part of the phone's standby activity. The txt/sms message is a mere re-arrangement of the data already being transferred, and costs the carrier zero. In fact, it costs them to actively monitor whether there is an embedded message, solely in order to bill you for it.
Huh? Sorry but that's completely off (and -topic as well). Of course they can charge whatever they want for any service, how much it costs them to provide this service (and I completely disagree with your bill here, maintenance, support, interop testing, and things like lawful interception do cost money) does not matter at all.
It's very telling whose side AppleInsider is on, by their uncritical, un-ironic use of the word "abuse" in this context. There is 100% agreement, literally very human being on the planet, that carriers should not charge extra for tethering. I am saying that anyone who does not agree is not human, but potentially human if they change their mind to the right side of this issue.
It's very telling whose side AppleInsider is on, by their uncritical, un-ironic use of the word "abuse" in this context. There is 100% agreement, literally very human being on the planet, that carriers should not charge extra for tethering. I am saying that anyone who does not agree is not human, but potentially human if they change their mind to the right side of this issue.
We all agreed to the rules, and just because we pay for something doesn't entitle us to use it however we want.
We all agreed to the rules, and just because we pay for something doesn't entitle us to use it however we want.
On the contrary, telecommunication firms' willing and ongoing complicity with the human rights violations committed by government agencies frees everyone to treat them with the same lack of moral or legal consideration.
On the contrary, telecommunication firms' willing and ongoing complicity with the human rights violations committed by government agencies frees everyone to treat them with the same lack of moral or legal consideration.
Wrong. You willingly do business with them knowing all this. Nobody forced you to get service from them.
Some users whose carrier does allow tethering but does not have a current partner agreement with Apple may have been inadvertently affected by the changes. [/quote]
Just why does Apple by default assume personal hotspot must be off?
If a carrier wants Apple to enforce its contractual right, make them certify with Apple to get a carrier profile on the iphone. Apple can choose to charge for that or they can give it to carriers in return for other commitments.
If the carrier does not or cannot certify with Apple, give the end customer all freedom to make settings as necessary.
Except that this is what happens when the reigns are relaxed even just a little. We get abject greed trumping ethical policy. There is absolutely zero justification for a supplier imposing rules on how you consume what you buy from them, yet this goes on even WITH the spectre of government intervention. Imagine how egregious the customer boning would become if you removed that threat.
There's every justification—business.
So it's okay for JuiceCo to tell you you're allowed to drink the juice out of the bottle but are forbidden to drink it from a glass? That's justifiable because it's "business?"
So it's okay for JuiceCo to tell you you're allowed to drink the juice out of the bottle but are forbidden to drink it from a glass? That's justifiable because it's "business?"
More like going to a buffet with 4 people, paying for only one person but feeding all 4.
More like going to a buffet with 4 people, paying for only one person but feeding all 4.
Depends on if you have unlimited data or not. In many cases the user has a fixed data cap. In that situation it should make no difference to the carrier, in fact they should probably encourage it because tethering is bound to put you over your data cap. In the case of unlimited data the throttling should discourage anyone from abusing the privilege of tethering. Best to play by the rules though especially since it is really quite affordable. But for grandfathered unlimited customers it is a no win situation when they throttle you. That is why I switched to family share. I almost never go over my cap and if I do it is just another $10 per GB and I continue to get full speed.
More like going to a buffet with 4 people, paying for only one person but feeding all 4.
That's not an accurate analogy because data plans are not served buffet style; unless you are one of the lucky few grandfathered into an unlimited plan, you pay for every GB you use. If I have four people tethering to my phone's data connection, I'll already have to pay for roughly four times as much data as I would normally use myself. At the end of the day, it's only total usage that matters to the operator. It makes no difference to the network whether I browse the internet on my iPhone, or on my iPad which is connected to the internet through the iPhone. All that changes in the latter case is that my iPhone is exchanging data with my iPad, but that's a purely local activity.
So it's okay for JuiceCo to tell you you're allowed to drink the juice out of the bottle but are forbidden to drink it from a glass? That's justifiable because it's "business?"
More like going to a buffet with 4 people, paying for only one person but feeding all 4.
No, not at all like that in any way, shape or form. There is one person using the data: me. I am paying based on the amount of bandwidth I consume. Whether I browse on my phone or my laptop via my phone, the outcome is EXACTLY THE SAME. It's as irrelevant to the supplier as whether I eat with a fork or a spoon. Making me pay more for one of them is a completely artificial and indefensible construct.
Comments
Technical reality seems to be the one you're living in.
The fact is that tethering is a made up term used to describe a functionality of certain end devices instead of being a technical or lawful term that could be used to impose limits in contracts. Many devices (even those sold by the operators together with these contracts) are employing the very same "tethering" mechanism as the single possible way to use the data service at all. In Europe clauses in contracts which are surprising to the customer (eg. because they prevent the use of product for its intended purpose like here) are completely void. So while it would be lawful to exclude the use of a data service for more than one concurrent end device (which is quite likely what the tethering clauses are supposed to mean) it is not lawful to forbid the use of an intermediate access device (which is what tethering really means).
In my opinion Apple here chose to play nice with the operators solely for their own gain without having any real obligation to do so.
I find your argument very persuasive, and apart from the legality, I concur with your opinion that Apple chose to play nice with the carriers, and really didn't need to do so.
Do you find a parallel with carriers charging for txt/sms messages? It is my understanding that they are delivered within the unused space of the handshake packets which mobile phones must send and receive to maintain contact with cell towers. The handshakes are sent and received constantly and are a part of the phone's standby activity. The txt/sms message is a mere re-arrangement of the data already being transferred, and costs the carrier zero. In fact, it costs them to actively monitor whether there is an embedded message, solely in order to bill you for it.
The takeaway here is: Is it not up to Apple to decide and/or enforce who can use this function or not. That's strictly between the operator and the customer and Apple trying to be a MITM is shady behaviour.
Actually, yes it is up to Apple if they wish their devices to be usable on those networks. The carriers have strict requirements that Apple and any other manufacturers with cellular components must follow before they're allowed in the network. They have contacts in place to ensure each device does not take up the allowable amount of data based on the data plan.
How do carriers justify their tethering policies? How does loading a webpage on an iPhone affect the network any differently from loading a webpage on an iPad that happens to be connected to the internet through the iPhone?
Here's the beauty of it, they don't have to justify it. It's their networks, they can do whatever they want with it.
If you're not happy, you can switch to a different carrier with a better tethering policy.
In the past, this is justified because of the unlimited data plans. Back then, you could practically use your cell phone as a primary internet access for all devices in your home. That eats up a lot of data and something that's not sustainable for the carriers given the finite resources available for the spectrum.
That's why they're enabling tethering more freely on the new data plans that are no longer unlimited.
I wish FCC and/or Congress can step in and tell all carriers that as long as there's a data cap, they have no rights to charge customers for using it in any way they want.
Until then, we're stuck with this usual business being greedy crap.
Note that if you're paying for an unlimited Internet plan at home, there are restrictions in place as well. They can still legally terminate your service if you use too much data in a given timeframe. Sad but it's true.
Hardly. Apple is fulfilling their contractual obligation.
Contract with whom? An unlocked phone is an unlocked phone, there're no contracts with every operator in the world (which would be tens of thousands).
Actually, yes it is up to Apple if they wish their devices to be usable on those networks. The carriers have strict requirements that Apple and any other manufacturers with cellular components must follow before they're allowed in the network. They have contacts in place to ensure each device does not take up the allowable amount of data based on the data plan.
Not true, there's no such thing as an obligation to have contracts with every operator on the planet. In fact if you buy a $20 cheaper phone from India or a $50 smartphone from the friendly chinaman around the corner you can pretty much expect that they haven't even talked to any major operator in their life and yet the phones do work just fine.
Do you find a parallel with carriers charging for txt/sms messages? It is my understanding that they are delivered within the unused space of the handshake packets which mobile phones must send and receive to maintain contact with cell towers. The handshakes are sent and received constantly and are a part of the phone's standby activity. The txt/sms message is a mere re-arrangement of the data already being transferred, and costs the carrier zero. In fact, it costs them to actively monitor whether there is an embedded message, solely in order to bill you for it.
Huh? Sorry but that's completely off (and -topic as well). Of course they can charge whatever they want for any service, how much it costs them to provide this service (and I completely disagree with your bill here, maintenance, support, interop testing, and things like lawful interception do cost money) does not matter at all.
I have Verizon and I pay an extra $30 a month for the unlimited 'Personal Hotspot' feature.
How? Is your phone rooted?
We all agreed to the rules, and just because we pay for something doesn't entitle us to use it however we want.
On the contrary, telecommunication firms' willing and ongoing complicity with the human rights violations committed by government agencies frees everyone to treat them with the same lack of moral or legal consideration.
Wrong. You willingly do business with them knowing all this. Nobody forced you to get service from them.
Some users whose carrier does allow tethering but does not have a current partner agreement with Apple may have been inadvertently affected by the changes. [/quote]
Just why does Apple by default assume personal hotspot must be off?
If a carrier wants Apple to enforce its contractual right, make them certify with Apple to get a carrier profile on the iphone. Apple can choose to charge for that or they can give it to carriers in return for other commitments.
If the carrier does not or cannot certify with Apple, give the end customer all freedom to make settings as necessary.
Except that this is what happens when the reigns are relaxed even just a little. We get abject greed trumping ethical policy. There is absolutely zero justification for a supplier imposing rules on how you consume what you buy from them, yet this goes on even WITH the spectre of government intervention. Imagine how egregious the customer boning would become if you removed that threat.
There's every justification—business.
So it's okay for JuiceCo to tell you you're allowed to drink the juice out of the bottle but are forbidden to drink it from a glass? That's justifiable because it's "business?"
More like going to a buffet with 4 people, paying for only one person but feeding all 4.
Depends on if you have unlimited data or not. In many cases the user has a fixed data cap. In that situation it should make no difference to the carrier, in fact they should probably encourage it because tethering is bound to put you over your data cap. In the case of unlimited data the throttling should discourage anyone from abusing the privilege of tethering. Best to play by the rules though especially since it is really quite affordable. But for grandfathered unlimited customers it is a no win situation when they throttle you. That is why I switched to family share. I almost never go over my cap and if I do it is just another $10 per GB and I continue to get full speed.
More like going to a buffet with 4 people, paying for only one person but feeding all 4.
That's not an accurate analogy because data plans are not served buffet style; unless you are one of the lucky few grandfathered into an unlimited plan, you pay for every GB you use. If I have four people tethering to my phone's data connection, I'll already have to pay for roughly four times as much data as I would normally use myself. At the end of the day, it's only total usage that matters to the operator. It makes no difference to the network whether I browse the internet on my iPhone, or on my iPad which is connected to the internet through the iPhone. All that changes in the latter case is that my iPhone is exchanging data with my iPad, but that's a purely local activity.
So it's okay for JuiceCo to tell you you're allowed to drink the juice out of the bottle but are forbidden to drink it from a glass? That's justifiable because it's "business?"
More like going to a buffet with 4 people, paying for only one person but feeding all 4.
No, not at all like that in any way, shape or form. There is one person using the data: me. I am paying based on the amount of bandwidth I consume. Whether I browse on my phone or my laptop via my phone, the outcome is EXACTLY THE SAME. It's as irrelevant to the supplier as whether I eat with a fork or a spoon. Making me pay more for one of them is a completely artificial and indefensible construct.