Is Tethering Stealing Bandwidth?
from the hell-no dept
Broadband Reports points us to the latest in silly arguments over non-existent "theft." This time it's about whether or not tethering your smartphone and using it as a hotspot or as a broadband connection for your computer/laptop is "theft of service." Two ZDNet bloggers go at it, with James Kendrick insisting that it's "theft of service," and no arguments to the contrary will persuade him. Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols points out that this is complete "nonsense." In the interest of full disclosure, I'll point out that I do pay for the right to tether my mobile phone, even though I agree with Vaughan-Nichols and think Kendrick is wrong here.If a bandwidth provider is selling you bandwidth at a particular rate, it's none of that provider's business what you then do with the bandwidth. Claiming that only certain devices can use it is silly. We had this back in the early days of WiFi when some ISPs insisted it was a terms of service violation to use WiFi or (in some cases) any router that allowed more than one computer to use the bandwidth. However, as more and more people just started doing it anyway, the ISPs all realized they were fighting a silly battle (and moved on to the next silly battle: "net neutrality.")
But, really, the ridiculous claim is Kendrick's insistence on calling people who do this "thieves," even though they're paying customers who are paying for the bandwidth they use. Vaughan-Nichols properly points out that, at worst, it's a terms of service violation that has absolutely nothing to do with "theft." He also points out that he's paying for the bandwidth:
I don't see why it matters if I use gigabytes of data on my phone or on my phone and laptop. At the end of the day, I still pay for it.Kendrick's response appears to be to just keep repeating that it's "theft of service," but can't back that up by explaining what's missing. That's because nothing is missing. It's not theft of service in any way, shape or form, and it does Kendrick a disservice to his usually excellent analysis to beat this particularly misguided drum.
To me a data service is lot like my water line. I pay for what I use. Now I can drink that water, use it on my phone; wash clothes with it, use it on my PC; or shower with it, use it on my iPod Touch. Whatever. When all is said and done, I've still paid for the water or service and I've not stolen anything.
No, the real problem here isn't users. It's the carriers who charge us extra for the 'privilege' of deciding how we're going to use the data/water we receive from them.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
_SIGH_
This is akin to the water company discovering you're using the water you've been paying for to wash dishes and flush to toilet, when they were under the impression you'd only use it for drinking or bathing.
How stupid can this sh*t get?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: _SIGH_
Hey, that's a great analogy. I'm surprised someone didn't think of it first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: _SIGH_
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: _SIGH_
follow the money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: _SIGH_
It's akin to me signing a contract saying I will only use water for washing dishes and flushing the toilet and expecting to use water in other ways without updating your contract and paying more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: _SIGH_
Ya know what else this is like?
Back when AT&T was new, you could not own a phone--it was "illegal" according to your contract. You could only lease one from AT&T. If you wanted to have 2 (*gasp!) phones attached to your landline, you had to pay AT&T extra money. Same ol' stuff, different decade.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: _SIGH_
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: _SIGH_
You pay the water company to use water in the plumbing fixtures of your house, but some people buy a "tethering device" (also known as a hose) to use water outdoors as well. Clearly that is theft since you're only paying for indoor water.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: _SIGH_
Even worse, imagine if your kids sell some lemonade made with water from the water company.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: _SIGH_
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: _SIGH_
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: _SIGH_
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: _SIGH_
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: _SIGH_
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: _SIGH_
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: _SIGH_
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: _SIGH_
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: _SIGH_
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: _SIGH_
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: _SIGH_
see the difference?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: _SIGH_
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: _SIGH_
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: _SIGH_
Except that you are paying to be allowed to drive that semi, they are just hoping not everyone will have them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: _SIGH_
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bad arguement
And you do "use up" water like bandwidth. Space is just a different measure of usage, just like weight of the vehicle or number of axles would be.
And I just took out a contract with Bell Mobility (Toronto). Tethering is included. Rogers wanted more money - calling it "adding a device."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: bad arguement
Here's another example: It's like a restroom. When you're using it, it's not available to anyone else, but when you leave, it's free to anyone else who wants to use it. There's no consumption, only occupancy. You're paying for space. Your "speed" determines how much space you get. The more space you're given, the faster you can get your data.
Water is a consumable resource. Once it's transported to you, it cannot be redistributed to others. You do not share your water, you pay only for what you use up. Bandwidth can be given out to others when you no longer make use of it. Bandwidth is a channel through which data can pass. You share the road just as you share the bandwidth amongst other motorists/users.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: bad arguement
Shaking a bent stick at your customers and blaming them for your own failure as a business is just bad business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: bad arguement
The fact is, the ISP charges you a flat fee simply to have access (access based) whereas the water utility charges by the amount of water you actually use (usage based) and bills you accordingly. Water is not like bandwidth. You're buying the pipe (bandwidth), not the water (data).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: bad arguement
However, in the end, you did still make the exact connection (succinctly!) I was going for. I may not have been fully clear as to the extent of what I was pointing out, but hopefully you can see the parallel between your last paragraph and my half-asleep-4am-nerd-rage to which you responded so kindly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now *that's* what I call a mixed metaphor
He uses water on his phone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Now *that's* what I call a mixed metaphor
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Now *that's* what I call a mixed metaphor
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Now *that's* what I call a mixed metaphor
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Now *that's* what I call a mixed metaphor
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Now *that's* what I call a mixed metaphor
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Now *that's* what I call a mixed metaphor
"To me a data service is lot like my water line. I pay for what water (bandwidth) I use. Now I can drink that water (use bandwidth on my phone); wash clothes with it (use bandwidth on my PC); or shower with it (use bandwidth on my iPod Touch)."
Still badly written, but maybe at least comprehensible that way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Now *that's* what I call a mixed metaphor
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This has happened in the past
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This has happened in the past
Hm, seems like someone mentioned that already. Oh yeah, Mike did, in this very blog post! ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Selling something that doesn't exist.
It's like the "bandwidth-hog"-arguments; if your system can't handle me using the 10 mbit I pay for, then don't effing sell me 10 mbit!
It's like if someone sold you a timeshare, but they conveniently "forgot" to mention that it's a timeshare, and you now think you own the house. Who's the bad guy in that scenario?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Selling something that doesn't exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Selling something that doesn't exist.
Either don't give me a contract to use that much bandwidth or build out your network to handle it.
The guilty party here is the issuer of the contract plain and simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Selling something that doesn't exist.
We sold you bandwidth based on the belief that your device could only use a small, tiny, miniscule really, fraction of what we promised, so that we could waaaaaayy overbook our actual capacity to deliver (just like the gym that you have a membership to, but rarely visit).
Then you want to use it at some larger fraction of what we promised????
That ... that... that's .... unfair!!! Stop! Thief!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Selling something that doesn't exist.
That is what I would tell them AND DO if they tried this bullplop with me! Actually, Comcast tried that once with me about 'using too much bandwidth'.... as soon as I threatened to cancel our TV, Internet, etc. service? They backed down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Selling something that doesn't exist.
It's like they're trying to build some sort of stockpile of unused bandwidth and then, I don't know, auction it to the highest bidder. I assume they'll be stashing this extra bandwidth somewhere in Nevada.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Selling something that doesn't exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Selling something that doesn't exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Selling something that doesn't exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Silly silly argument
1's and 0's dont really care about what device they end up on, and neither should an ISP. All that should be noted is how many you used. There is no theft, nothing went missing. Now, it may be a breach of contract, but calling people thieves for doing so is extreme, and just makes you look stupid. In the early days of the interwebs, how many ppl used routers although that was considered against ISP's policies? (for more than one machine to be connected at a time.) Thats why there were MAC address clones built into them. How bout this, build your infrastructure to handle the load? How bout this, upgrade you infrastructure to handle newer technologies? Nah, they will just find more ways to wrench every penny out of you, while providing poor service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I mean, how else will they rip off their customers and keep buying those expensive houses and cars?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike, really? This Guy's an ass. Ill prove it.
This is no different than the cable theft of old, using unofficial means to get cable TV service without paying the cable company.
Proof positive that this tool is some kind of shill for telcos. Any one with a iota of sense can realize that the 2 are completely different, and I cant believe he, in good conscience, uploaded that crap and hit save. Im done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mike, really? This Guy's an ass. Ill prove it.
Now he may have had a point if he said something along the lines of this:
Cable providers charge you per tv when they set up cable service. If you were to pay for a single tv and then wired your home to support a second tv without the cable provider's authorization, you could theoretically be called a thief.
But if you are only ever watching tv on one tv at a time or had it set up so that both tvs showed the same channel and your could not have two channels on at the same time, you are functioning on the same principal of tethering.
On a note, I have met numerous people who have done what I describe above. One family did it so that their kids could watch tv in a second room when the parents had guests over. The cable box was in the main room and channels could only be changed there. It was quite convenient.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Went away with analog cable, coming back with digital
Combine the restriction against per television charges with 'cable ready' T.V. and VCR's and it's the same price for 1 or 100 televisions.
If you look carefully you'll see the digital cable television _isn't_ priced per television, but _per_set_top_box_. Of course you _need_ one set top box per television, so they are indirectly charging you per television.
Yet another reason, other than high per device rental fees, that the industry's fighting (rather successfully) against any plan to have 'cable ready' digital televisions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Went away with analog cable, coming back with digital
Hell, Comcast has CartoonNetwork encrypted for some reason, and I RAILED them for that on their website because of it.
I can understand channels that you are paying an additional fee for.... not ones that are part of basic cable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Mike, really? This Guy's an ass. Ill prove it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seeing past his bluster to see his (still flawed) point
While it may not be "fair" that the service providers put undue restrictions on how you use the bandwidth they provide (and you pay for), you agreed to the terms ahead of time, so you're breaking the terms of that agreement if you tether.
The problem with this of course is the implication that you can go elsewhere if you don't like terms of service. That would be great if there was actual competition in the marketplace. But there isn't. So, while unauthorized tethering may be a legal breach of terms of service, I personally think that, in the current environment, the unfairness of this term rises to the level of being unconstitutional. You can put anything you want in your TOS. It's doesn't mean that if it went to the supreme court, it would be upheld.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Seeing past his bluster to see his (still flawed) point
Exactly, I would completely agree with the ability of ISP's to put whatever they want in their contract provided the government allowed for competition in the marketplace, in which case I will simply switch to a competitor. Of course this will dissuade ISP's from putting ridiculous terms in their contracts in fear of losing customers and so they likely won't. The problem is that the government doesn't allow competition and so ISP's can do whatever the heck they want without as much fear of losing customers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Seeing past his bluster to see his (still flawed) point
I don't have links, but as I recall one of the common points that Mike makes is that if the government focused on creating a fair marketplace, then they wouldn't have to spend so much time addressing all of the little anti-competative issues that come up. Because they simply wouldn't happen in a truly fair marketplace. If I were a conspiracy theorist, I'd say that it was a conscious effort on the part of politicians to keep themselves looking busy to justify their existance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2382228,00.asp
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't use tethering often - my home connection is far faster and (usually) more reliable - but when I'm say in an airport and want internet access it's much easier and (at the airports I've unfortunately been flying out of lately) cheaper to pull out my phone than attempt to find a legitimate wifi service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> tries to scam you as a consumer are approximatly 3720 to 1.
NEVER TELL ME THE ODDS!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
After all, everyone knows that events with million-to-one odds occur approximately 90% of the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now is it justified to even charge extra for the service? Not really considering the most generous plan I have ever seen gives your 5 Gigs of download and then starts charging you an arm and a leg for more. It doesn't really matter how I reach that threshold. It should only matter that I pay for what I use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
rooted android = wifi tether
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On the one hand I see the argument that whatever bandwidth I pay for should be mine to use however I feel like.
But , you did sign a contract stating that tethering was not included with your data package so you are knowingly violating your contract.
Wireless data is different than wired in one major way, land line bandwidth is only limited by the provider's willingness to invest in their network infrastructure. Wireless bandwidth on the other hand is constrained by the amount of available RF spectrum. There is nothing providers can do (outside of the occasional spectrum auction) to increase the amount of bandwith available. This is why wireless networks are allowed much more freedom to manage the network than wired networks.
Restrictions; such as restricting tethering, are ways for the providers to limit strain on the network. Charging for the feature is simply a way for them to make money at the same time, they are for profit businesses after all.
The only alternative is pricing wireless data so that the cost of use is prohibitive for heavy users. Cellular networks have already started this move ($25 for 2 gb of data + $20 for tethering on ATT) is only the begining.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Artificial limits of RF spectrum
Plans have been proposed to significantly increase the number of "towers" (one on every home), but cell phone companies resist this because it would mean them losing their very lucrative market with a limited number of towers.
So next time someone tells you that the reason you can't have more data via a cell phone connection is because of limited RF spectrum, realize they are being quite naive. There are many different ways (more towers was just one example) of using the spectrum more efficiently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Devil's advocate
Yes, because you are depriving another party of a finite resource. If you steal someone's bike, that person doesn't have the ability to use that bike, so it legally qualifies as theft. But if you make an illegal digital copy of a song, it's copyright infringement, but not theft because the owner still has access to the song. Unauthorized tethering is more akin to taking someone's bike because while bandwidth may be near-infinite, it's not actually infinite, so you are in fact depriving the owner the use of that bandwidth (as described in your Terms of Service agreement.)
The counterargument would of course be that bandwidth is so close to being infinite, that in effect it is infinite and should be treated as such legally. But if I were a lawyer attempting to prove "theft", I'd definatelly focus on the hard distinction between finite and infinite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Devil's advocate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Devil's advocate
its more of, you bought a bike because you like to take bike rides, but the purchase of the bike was only part of the deal. if you use the bike in Boston, it will cost you $.75/mile to ride it. If Manchester, NH, its $1.34/mile. Also, you will need to pay a destination fee because its being transported to these places. Oh, you want AIR in those tires? That is a flat fee of $3.85 a day, but in that day you can use the air in those tires all you want as long as you leave it in the tires.
As a service to you, we offer free, with no charge, the ability to store it in your house 24/7 as long as you don't look at it or think about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Devil's advocate
For the simple reason that you agreed not to use it in specific ways. And if you do use it in those specific ways, you've breached the ToS.
if you use the bike in Boston, it will cost you $.75/mile to ride it. If Manchester, NH, its $1.34/mile.
The only reason that bike manufacturers don't apply onerus terms of service restrictions on bikes like you suggest is that there is actual competition in the bicycle market and people wouldn't stand for it.
As a service to you, we offer free, with no charge, the ability to store it in your house 24/7 as long as you don't look at it or think about it.
You don't have to convince me how silly charghing for tethering is. I know it's silly. The point of my post is to say that there is at least a logical argument for unauthorized tethering being theft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Devil's advocate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Devil's advocate
That is the technical difference with regard to multiple devices connected to a single line of service. It has little or no effect on a wired connection (assuming the ISP's network is adequate and if it is not it is their fault for not investing in it to support the service). On a wireless connection, even if the ISP (cellular carrier) is using the most cutting edge technology there is a real limit to available bandwidth and it is low enough that real world conditions are impacted by the limit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Devil's advocate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Devil's advocate
Regardless of the state of the resource you are already paying for it. The point of contention is the ISP wanting to charge you _again_ if you choose to use what you've _already_ paid for in another way.
To use your bike analogy;
If you ride your bike around your block that's O.K., but it you use it to go to and from school/work/the library that's theft because you're depriving the owner (yourself) of access to your bike. Since you're bike's a finite resource that's stealing.
Ummm... no that doesn't make any sense. Especially when in the bike analogy, if you paid the bike manufacturer an additional "riding outside my neighborhood" fee, then it wouldn't be 'stealing' anymore.
Yep, that whole finite vs. infinite dimension really clears things up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Devil's advocate
What you're either ignoring or simply failing to take into account is that the agreement was known before hand. It's not like the phone company is coming along after the fact and making up rules as they go. If you sign a contract that says you are not allowed to tether without paying extra and you tether without paying extra, then you've breached the ToS. If you rent a bike and agree not to leave the neighborhood and then proceed to leave the neighborhood, then you've breached the ToS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Devil's advocate
But I think that is exactly what some people are saying here. When I signed my contract years ago with AT&T, my contract made no mention of tethering, since that wasn't an option at the time. I have not signed another contract, and yet I am told now that I have to spend an additional $50 to tether a computer to my phone, even though the option within the phone is already available.
The contract changed after I signed it. Now of course, AT&T said on the contract that they could change the terms and conditions at any time, which they have, but is the change onerous or not? I'd say yes, because they are taking away capabilities for no logical/technical reasons, but to just support their monopoly and squeeze a few more bucks out of me because they are greedy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Devil's advocate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Devil's advocate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So Silly
I could see a dimmer individual countering that argument with "yeah, you bought unleaded and really needed super", but once again, that makes no sense because when you pay for tethering you are not getting faster service, or more data limits. Just simply the ability to utilize code already in the phone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So Silly
I'm not sure if you're being intentionally deceptive or really don't understand the difference between an agreement made before receiving service and an ex post facto restriction. Your analogy if flawed. It is not like a gas station calling you up after you purchased gas and telling you about their restrictions. To fix your analogy, it would be like a gas station that made you sign a contract before you bought gas that you were not allowed to leave the state, etc. If this were to actually happen, you'd just go across the street and buy your gas there. But the obvious problem is that there isn't the kind of competition with data carriers as there are with gas stations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So Silly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its about licensing
If it is "american" to earn a profit, isn't even more so to earn it twice for the same product?
We let the airlines do it, why not the telcos too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In this case, the fact that the telcos want to charge you extra for tethering means, as far as they and their apologists are concerned, that not paying for tethering is theft.
If they offered a service of allowing you to look at your device for an extra charge, looking at your device without paying the charge would suddenly become theft too. Doing anything that doesn't make them extra money is theft. Making your own ringtones is probably theft in their eyes also.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kendrick's argument it beyond unsubstantiated. Every time he used the word "theft," I kept thinking, "You keep using that word... I do not think it means what you think it means."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shortcuts in terminology
When a provider enters into a contract with a consumer, they are offering more than the "sale of X amount of data", they are really offering the "sale of X amount of data, with a delivery profile that looks like Y". Someone made the analogy of the water utility offering water for sale, and charging differently depending on whether the customer is showering or flushing the toilet. It is actually a good analogy. The water utilities typically do charge differently based on various factors other than the aggregate amount of water delivered. If a customer is using a few gallons here and there, and occasionally surges to a hundred gallons per minute now and then, they put different demand on the system than if they consumed a thousand gallons per minute for a burst of several minutes. Even if both consumers used the same total in a month, the utility needs to plan for them differently, and so will charge for them differently.
Someone using a smart phone is likely going to use very small amounts of data almost constantly, and then have some moderate bursts of higher utilization. People using a PC are more likely to have sustained utilization of higher bandwidth. Even simple things like the OS downloading updates in the background are going to soak up bandwidth for 20 minutes to several hours at a time. The smart phone users is far less likely to soak up the same amount of bandwidth for more than a minute or two.
Basically, there is a fundamental difference between smart phone and tethering data, but one that is not easy to describe to a customer.
If I were in a position that I could suggest solutions, I would not recommend charging for tethering, but instead invest in the ability to govern data traffic in reasonable ways, and then sell tiers. At the basic tier, a user can have their traffic throttled if they have transfers that use more than X bandwidth for Y period of time. If a customer is using 2Mb/s of data for more than 3 minutes, they get throttled down to 512kb/s. If the user pays for the middle tier, they can get that 2MB/s for 20 minutes before they are throttled, and if they pay for the premium tier, they get no throttling at all. This type of plan would allow the providers to be agnostic to your data, and focus simply on how it is being provided.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Shortcuts in terminology
"Burst" or peak capacity planning is a science and I have seen some service companies fail miserably at it. I think the problem the telcos face in public perception is that (here in Canada at least) they essentially charge almost a thousand times the cost per Gigabyte (transferred over and above their caps). So any argument related to data consumption profiles can be countered with: "But don't your data plans have the cost recovery for this kind of burst capacity built into them across the board?"
The suggestion for tiered pricing that takes into account sustained usage is interesting -- and it may or may not be a tougher sell than caps and overage charges.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you don't like the contract, don't sign it. If there isn't an alternative that is acceptable to you, start one. Government regulation making your life hard? Sucks to be you. Get on with some lobbying or innovate your way out of the problem. Or just convince an existing telco to change their policy. Maybe join up and become part of the solution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So... done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The idea of charging extra for "services" was a good marketing idea in the past (charge what people are willing to pay), but I think as more and more people get a standard connection you will see a shift from viewing each service separately (voice, TV, internet) to instead viewing it only as a connection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
but... but... then cable and TV companies will have to compete!
and mobile carriers will be able to provide services in markets where they are not the incumbent local carrier!
competition leads to price wars, price wars lead to consumer savings, consumer savings leads to... THE DARK SIDE!
no thank you, i'll stick with the current monopoly system where we get nothing and pay dearly for the privilege.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Selling software unlocks to built-in hardware is a tried and tested revenue stream for a lot of companies. Intel wants to sell you a crippled processor and charge you $50 to unlock hyperthreading and extra cache. Avaya will sell you a PBX and charge you extra licensing fees to connect a SIP-based phone system like OCS to it. In this case, a tethering fee is nothing more than a software unlock for already-present hardware functionality.
Now what's the difference between the three examples I mention? The difference is that tethering is the first example I can think of off the top of my head where the software unlock for already-present hardware functionality is a re-occuring monthly fee. That is the scam in and of itself. That is what you people really need to be upset about. Would there really be this much of an uproar over tethering if it was a $50 one-time unlock and you could tether for the life of the phone?
And for the record, I absolutely hate this software unlock scheme that hardware manufacturers use to milk extra money from the consumer. Do not provide me a piece of hardware that is capable of doing something and then charge me extra to "unlock" that functionality. If you do not want people cracking your software unlock, then do not provide the underlying software-crippled hardware functionality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They is simply a cash grab to try to double the amount of money they can charge for mobile data usage. As much as the data caps suck anyways, average joe consumer probably doesnt go anywhere near the cap. But if AT&T can make average joe user pay for 2 5GB data plans, tada twice the profit. I'm sure AT&T would be pleased as pudding if every user started going over their bandwidth limit and paying the extra bandwidth fees. Their profit margins would skyrocket.
I'm sure the wifi apps will find a way to conceal that the data is from a tethered device. If it isn't out already, I'm sure it's right around the corner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well
"You're not buying bandwidth, you're buying a phone that comes with two years of access to our network. You can't use anything else on our network because the access is only for the phone you bought."
Sadly, this is primarily the result of a lack of competition. In a true free market, a new competitor would be able to make their own nondiscriminatory network and start driving the phone sellers out of business. *sigh*
And I should point out that this is a much more fair plan if you're paying for unlimited service. If you're paying by the decimal gigibit (GB is GB, right?), then it shouldn't matter at all, but if a company gives you unlimited data on a feature phone that can only browse a few specified sites, then you only paid for those sites and not the entire Internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well
b=bit
GB=gigabyte
Gb=gigabit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is the same thing; the word "steal" no longer means "to take something which doesn't belong to you". It means "to not let a corporate overload milk as much money as humanly possible from you". You're "stealing" from a company by refusing to pay what they want you to pay or to consume what they want you to consume. Because it's their DIVINE RIGHT for you to hand them all your money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Remember cable used to charge for extra outlets?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is war
When this is the way things work then the consumer is essentially at war with the provider. Those who do tether without permission are fighting for a better future, a future where we may be able to spend our money on ourselves and not on big fat bonuses for fat executives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My thoughts...
1. You should be able to use your bandwidth however you want. The endpoint is still the phone, who cares what happens after that? Same analogy as above with the water company, etc. But these are metered services...
2. The cell phone companies need to stop overselling and start upgrading their service instead of complaining when people want to use what they paid for. Imagine what would happen if they just spent this money on tracking people who tether, attorney fees, etc and upgraded the network?
3. You are in breach of contract if you tether in most cases. The ToS forbid it, and that's that. Just because it isn't fair doesn't mean you aren't violating a contract. Don't agree to the contact if you don't like it. Unfortunately, we don't have a lot of options usually. But this is really a separate issue.
4. Competition would help. Some companies charge less for tethering, or allow it in unofficial ways, but there are other issues that are larger than tethering (coverage) that will prevent people from switching just because of this in most cases.
5. If you tether in most unofficial ways and don't abuse the system, the companies usually won't care. Unlimited should mean unlimited, but it never will. Let's move on.
6. When "unlimited" means 1GB or 5GB, that's bit excessive. Fair use should apply, but its easy to use it legitimately and go over that limit.
7. Tethering and using the tethered connection as something that is basically a home internet connection are two different things. Just tethering to check you email occasionally is basically the same as checking your email on the phone itself.
8. Many other countries (not USA) sell a finite bandwidth and don't care how you use it. But the cell companies complicated things when they ever offered "unlimited" services.
In regard to the cable analogy above: First off, they don't charge per outlet anymore (as far as I know). They DO charge per cable box, and we are getting closer and closer to requiring that, but in more cases, you CAN hook up another TV and use analog cable. The set top box fee should just reflect the cost of the box, but I think we all know that isn't exactly true anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They want to squeeze out every penny possible
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Metered or All You Can Eat?
- the license, and
- the pricing plan
Others have already made the point that, if the license says you can't tether, then it's wrong to tether. I wouldn't call it "stealing", but you're still violating a contract you agreed to (whether you chose to read it or not). In a sense, it's like buying software, agreeing to a license that says you can only use the software on one computer, and then installing it on multiple computers (and even using it concurrently on multiple). Is that stealing? I don't know...
The stronger argument goes to the pricing plan. If you are paying for an "all you can eat" plan (I know... Techdirt has done a great job of calling out the lies within most carrier's "all you can eat" - but at least one carrier (Sprint) truly does have unlimited on their handset plans...), the price on that plan is based on how much the carrier reasonable expects you to eat.
It's like an all you can eat buffet. If you go to an all you can eat buffet, they typically will have at least four prices: children under 2, children under 10, adults, and seniors. Why do they have different prices? Because they know adults eat the most, children under 10 and seniors eat less, and children under 2 eat almost nothing.
If you walk in, as an 18 year old young man (that's probably the age where I had the greatest capacity to eat) and claim to be 9 years old, demanding the children's price, but then eat like a 21 year old, are you stealing? I think it's a fair argument to say you are...
The old feature phones of old on 2G networks ate about like a 3 year old. Newer feature phones on 3G networks eat like a 9 year old. Smartphones eat like a 40 year old. Laptops eat like a horde of teenagers. If you sign up for a feature phone, or even a smartphone (and get the unlimited price that goes with it), and then connect a laptop, you are driving real costs onto the carrier that greatly exceed what you're paying. Why are you surprised when they don't want you to keep doing that?
Now, if you're on a metered plan, like the water analogy that's been so popular in this discussion, then it's a different story...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vaughan-Nichols is using a dangerous argument.
"In his comments at the Industry Committee hearing, Chairman von Finckenstein likens Internet access to utilities such as gas and electricity. This argument fails on at least two counts. Firstly, gas and electricity are consumables - once they're used, they no longer exist. Internet capacity, on the other hand, is not consumed; the same capacity is used over and over and over again. Secondly, gas and electricity prices are heavily regulated, in order to ensure that operators don't gouge consumers; there is no such regulation for Internet service providers, whose above-the-cap per-gigabyte pricing works out to about a hundred times the actual cost."
Although water isn't 'consumed' in the same sense as gas and electricity, the chemicals and energy used to treat and obtain it ARE consumed. But the energy consumption of the Internet doesn't change much between idle and full-capacity use, so metered billing doesn't make any sense beyond its tenuous justification as a massive cash grab.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Quick Quiz
1. A 1 kilobyte packet transmitted from my phone to the nearby cell tower.
2. A 1 kilobyte packet transmitted from my phone to the nearby cell tower.
(Please note that in the case of (1) the packet is from my mobile phone's built in browser and in the case of (2) the packet is from my laptop's browser connected through the phone.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Other analogies
http://androidforums.com/t/300228-t-begin-charging-iphone-users-who-tether.html
Othe r analogies I've used in the past:
Your electricity company has a special "TV viewing" plan for only $20 / month if you use electricity for watching TV, even though the electricity is delivered over the same wires and infrastructure as electricity used for cooking.
Your water company has a special rate for water used for cooking and drinking vs water (delivered by the same pipes!) used for washing dishes.
Your natural gas company . . .
The fuel pump charges a different rate per gallon of 87 octane gasoline pumped into four door cars vs two door cars. (Even though it comes from the same holding tank and delivered by the same pump and hose.) After all, you're getting more use out of each gallon for a four door car!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rebuttal to argument about bandwidth used for tethering
However, once you no longer offer unlimited data, you've lost ground to argue about bandwidth consumed. I'm paying for 2 GB per month, and using 2 GB per month. It shouldn't matter how I enjoy using it.
If there is an argument about being able to use bandwidth faster, then I would point out that the network can, does and should control the maximum download / upload rates in order to keep their network operational for all users. Therefore, my use of a laptop should not impact their network at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
May be missing the point
If (which may not be the case here) you have a flat rate plan, then your supplier of internet bandwidth may have created a business plan that is based on a reasonable amount of data being used, based on average user consumption.
If (for example) I bought unlimited cable net access, they would have every right to be peeved if I was allowing the whole neighbourhood access to my wireless network and hence using a vast amount more then a single reasonable user would.
Now, if I do the same with my iPhone, say, and create a wireless access point so that a load of other people can share my connection, that is a similar thing. It could be seen as an abuse of a flat rate plan that was based on a business model taking into account average use of a single user.
Like offering an all you can eat buffet in a restaurant and then having a large family come and share a plate.
But hey, if the user is on a "pay per gigabyte" plan, why the hell should they care ?
Answer - because they'd rather have two customers paying for a gig than 1 paying for 2 gig because there are fixed charges too, and other upselling opportunities.
I suspect the "tethering" that is objected to is not "using my phone as a modem for me" but "using my phone as open access for the whole coffee shop".
Often this seems to be enabled on people's devices by default. For a while I found on UK trains I could find a net connection simply by hunting with my bluetooth. Not that I ever use it - that might be illegal...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: May be missing the point
Then they should not act surprised.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]