 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General General TopicsGSMBluetoothProviders AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizonManufacturers EricssonNokiaMotorolaCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics PocketPCPalmMore Topics ... |
Cellular Phone Forum / Providers / Cingular / March 2006tethered data connectivity troubles
I've had a Pocket PC configured to connect to the internet via Bluetooth on a Motorola V557. This has worked fine for a long time. This weekend, I noticed that it was not working and has not worked since. Nothing has changed on the phone or Pocket PC, but its like the network is refusing the connection. I'm dialing *99# . I've tried ISP@CINGULARGPRS.COM and WAP@CINGULARGPRS.COM for usernames (along with blank username, which I had been using). I'm using CINGULAR1 for the password. I've also noticed that data availability has been up and down in my area, Memphis, which is unusual. It has been showing up when I have tried to connect and I am able to connect to Media NET features on the phone when data is available. But, the Pocket PC Bluetooth connection fails after trying to dial *99#. Is anyone else started having trouble recently? I'd very much appreciate any suggestions. Thanks, Michael >I've had a Pocket PC configured to connect to the internet via Bluetooth on >a Motorola V557. This has worked fine for a long time. This weekend, I >noticed that it was not working and has not worked since. Nothing has >changed on the phone or Pocket PC, but its like the network is refusing the Obviously something has changed since you're mucking with your settings. >connection. I'm dialing *99# . I've tried ISP@CINGULARGPRS.COM and That's only for Data Connect. Won't work with MEdia Net. >WAP@CINGULARGPRS.COM for usernames That's for MEdia Net. >(along with blank username, which I had >been using). That doesn't make sense -- the correct username is required. >I'm using CINGULAR1 for the password. OK. >I've also noticed that data availability has been up and down in my area, >Memphis, which is unusual. Perhaps that's the problem. >It has been showing up when I have tried to >connect and I am able to connect to Media NET features on the phone when >data is available. Then you need to stick to MEdia Net settings on the Pocket PC. >But, the Pocket PC Bluetooth connection fails after >trying to dial *99#. How exactly? Have you tried dialing other profiles? >Is anyone else started having trouble recently? MEdia Net with a V551 tethered to a computer over Bluetooth is working fine for me here in Northern California.  SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> Hi John, Thanks for your response. >> Obviously something has changed since you're mucking with your settings. I've never changed the original connection settings, but created a new connections on the Pocket PC to try the methods described on the wiki. > > That doesn't make sense -- the correct username is required. Confirmed that the username is blank in my old connection that worked for many months. Not sure where I found those instructions, but I never had a problem with it working until the last few days. I can understand a suspicion that something has changed on my end, but my wife has identical equipment and settings. She doesn't know _how_ to change anything. Hers stopped working at the same time mine did. Which also coincided with GPRS being unavailable for short periods. My coworkers reported that their phones were not receiving text messages and showed incorrect time on the clock over the weekend. Makes me wonder if they were working on the network. > > Perhaps that's the problem. I would agree, except that when the phone indicator shows GPRS/EDGE available (most of the time), I am able to get data on the phone itself. However, the Pocket PC connection still fails. > How exactly? Have you tried dialing other profiles? The Pocket PC connects to the phone via BT and dials *99#. After several seconds of waiting, it says the connection failed. I have created other connections on the Pocket PC with settings described in the Wiki, but none of them are working. FWIW, my account has unlimited data. I believe it is true data, not Media .NET. Thanks again, Michael > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > fine > for me here in Northern California. >>> Obviously something has changed since you're mucking with your settings. > >I've never changed the original connection settings, but created a new >connections on the Pocket PC to try the methods described on the wiki. Unfortunately, your original settings don't make sense. >> > That doesn't make sense -- the correct username is required. > >Confirmed that the username is blank in my old connection that worked for >many months. Not sure where I found those instructions, but I never had a >problem with it working until the last few days. My guess is that you don't understand completely what's going on (no offense intended), because the correct username is almost certainly required, and there are other inconsistencies in what you've been saying. >I can understand a suspicion that something has changed on my end, but my >wife has identical equipment and settings. She doesn't know _how_ to change [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >incorrect time on the clock over the weekend. Makes me wonder if they were >working on the network. Sounds like serious network problems. >> > Perhaps that's the problem. > >I would agree, except that when the phone indicator shows GPRS/EDGE >available (most of the time), I am able to get data on the phone itself. Data Connect or MEdia Net? They are different! >However, the Pocket PC connection still fails. If you have DUN support, it should work the same way. Have you tried it with a regular (full Windows) computer? >> How exactly? Have you tried dialing other profiles? > >The Pocket PC connects to the phone via BT and dials *99#. After several >seconds of waiting, it says the connection failed. I have created other >connections on the Pocket PC with settings described in the Wiki, but none >of them are working. Is there some sort of logging you can turn on and check. That might be easier with a full Windows PC. >FWIW, my account has unlimited data. I believe it is true data, not Media >.NET. Then why did you previously say MEdia Net?! By "true data" do you mean Data Connect? Data Connect Unlimited is at least $60 month! And is entitled to support for tethering from Cingular. Look up the exact feature on your account on-line. MEdia Net is also "true data", just different. And that's what I'm betting you actually have. >>>I've had a Pocket PC configured to connect to the internet via Bluetooth >>>on [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] >> fine >> for me here in Northern California. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > I've had a Pocket PC configured to connect to the internet via Bluetooth on > a Motorola V557. This has worked fine for a long time. This weekend, I > noticed that it was not working and has not worked since. I agree with John, since data availability has been up and down in you area, that would be the first thing to suspect. Just because you have the E for Edge icon showing does not guarantee that other network components are working. On the other hand, if there have NOT been any network issues in your area, there is the possibility you are experience what three other users in my market have experienced. Their "virtual" password (for lack of a better term) was disabled for excessive data usage (for lack of a better term to describe using a tethered connection without using the appropriate data connection plan). Once they had the $59.95/mo unlimited data plan added to their account, they had to use the following user name/passwords for the tethered connection: ISPDA@CINGULARGPRS.COM - CINGUALR1 ISP@CINGULARGPRS.COM - CINGUALR1 WAP@CINGULARGPRS.COM - CINGULAR1 Will not work for them now. Call Customer Support to try to get to the bottom of your problem. >Call Customer Support to try to get to the bottom of your problem. Probably not a good idea, since the OP is probably on a MEdia package, and Cingular doesn't support tethering of MEdia. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> >> I've had a Pocket PC configured to connect to the internet via Bluetooth on >> a Motorola V557. This has worked fine for a long time. This weekend, I [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >term to describe using a tethered connection without using the >appropriate data connection plan). ... That's just your theory, and it's inconsistent with these facts. If the feature had been disabled by Cingular, then the phone browser wouldn't work. It does reportedly work, so your theory can't be the reason. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > That's just your theory, and it's inconsistent with these facts. If the > feature had been disabled by Cingular, then the phone browser wouldn't work. > It does reportedly work, so your theory can't be the reason. My v551, and presumably other devices, do track internal usage separately from external (tethered) usage. This could, potentially, be used to block tethering but allow phone-based MediaNet access. A test of some blocking, perhaps limiting one to a browser that starts at the MediaNet home page (as your phone is "required" to do, according to the user agreement), might be a step along this path. Maybe just in a test market, like, say, Atlanta. I would be perfectly happy with a 5MB per month data plan, maybe even a 1MB per month plan, if it had rollover. My usage fluctuates widely, depending on whether I am travelling or not, using google maps and such. Other times, I use very little MediaNet access. I pay for unlimited because the unused and wasted MB don't yet approach the cost of the one month I went into pay-per-use inadvertently. A more realistic pay-per-use rate might be a good alternative, similar to the old CSD voice-based rate, maybe voice*slots. Signature--- Clarence A Dold - Hidden Valley (Lake County) CA USA 38.8,-122.5 >> That's just your theory, and it's inconsistent with these facts. If the >> feature had been disabled by Cingular, then the phone browser wouldn't work. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >from external (tethered) usage. This could, potentially, be used to block >tethering but allow phone-based MediaNet access. How? The phone (mobile device) obviously knows the difference, but it's all the same to the network. Short of modified firmware (which could easily be defeated with flashing or by using an unbranded unlocked mobile device), Cingular could only be able to infer tethered use, and doing so would be difficult, since most tethered things can also be done with the mobile device alone (e.g., with a J2ME client like Opera Mini, Google Local, or Email Viewer). >A test of some blocking, perhaps limiting one to a browser that starts at >the MediaNet home page (as your phone is "required" to do, according to the >user agreement), might be a step along this path. Maybe just in a test >market, like, say, Atlanta. Cingular could indeed limit (cripple) MEdia to its own WAP site, and possibly a limited selection of additional WAP pages, but thus far I've seen no evidence that it's actually doing that, in any market. Have you? I would think that would probably result in a large outcry from untethered users. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> >[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >alone (e.g., with a J2ME client like Opera Mini, Google Local, or Email >Viewer). For example, when tethered to a mobile device, such things as email and newsgroups could (can) be accessed over SSL (e.g., using stunnel on a computer). In that case it's essentially impossible for Cingular to tell what's going on. Tracking the amount of data sent and received is pretty much it, short of blocking SSL altogether, which (as explained in my prior posting) might well cause more problems for Cingular than it would solve. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > Tracking the amount of data sent and received is pretty much it Under 100 MB per month(or pick any reasonable number a power user might browse from the handset) versus hundreds or even thousands of MB (or any number someone might pull using it for hours a day as their internet connection to a computer) would be good clue as to what the user is doing. >> Tracking the amount of data sent and received is pretty much it > >Under 100 MB per month(or pick any reasonable number a power user might >browse from the handset) versus hundreds or even thousands of MB (or any >number someone might pull using it for hours a day as their internet >connection to a computer) would be good clue as to what the user is doing. Not necessarily -- there are mobile device applications (e.g., Google Local) that pull a considerable amount of data. My own mobile device applications are well over your 100 MB per month. Then there's the fact that the package is "unlimited", which makes setting any sort of cap a problem for Cingular. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > Then there's the fact that the package > is "unlimited", which makes setting any sort of cap a problem for Cingular. How would that be a problem for Cingualr? i think that it would be a problem for cingular if it came down to someone in court and they had papers showing that the service is in fact "unlimited," I don't think that Cingular would have papers proving otherwise. btw, I have used, err I mean I know someone who has used almost 3 gigs of transfer every month for a while now and has have never been flagged as a tetherer, so none of this probably matters anyway > > Then there's the fact that the package > > is "unlimited", which makes setting any sort of cap a problem for Cingular. > > How would that be a problem for Cingualr? >i think that it would be a problem for cingular if it came down to someone > in court and they had papers showing that the service is in fact > "unlimited," Tell that to the broadband providers who also provide 'unlimited' service but do restrict or throttle customers who use more than the average amount of bandwidth. They've been doing it for years and NOBODY has been able to change it. This is no different. > Tell that to the broadband providers who also provide 'unlimited' service > but do restrict or throttle customers who use more than the average amount > of bandwidth. They've been doing it for years and NOBODY has been able to > change it. This is no different. Wireless ISPs do it all the time, *but they also have a FAP (Fair Access Policy) in place*. Say if you download more than 500 Meg in a 24 hour period, you get throttled back to like 24 Kbps for 24 hours. Hughes satellite aka DirectPC had a FAP in place, but did not publish the limits. It took a lawsuit to force them to disclose the point at which you would get "FAPed" >>i think that it would be a problem for cingular if it came down to someone >> in court and they had papers showing that the service is in fact [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >of bandwidth. They've been doing it for years and NOBODY has been able to >change it. This is no different. Not true. For example, DirecWay satellite has an explicit "Fair Use" policy. Without such an explicit policy, a provider cannot get away with that. In Cingular's case it would have to show some violation of its terms of service (e.g., tethering), which would be difficult at best, as I've shown in my prior posts. Other than that it could of course terminate service once the contract has been completed. Caveat: I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Not true. Very true, your single example (out of hundreds of compnies) not withstanding. > For example, DirecWay satellite has an explicit "Fair Use" policy. > Without such an explicit policy, a provider cannot get away with that. Talk to Comcast users > In > Cingular's case it would have to show some violation of its terms of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > contract > has been completed. > Caveat: I am not a lawyer, Ain't that the truth. Of course, you don't know what you truly are, so this type of statement would apply to most of your posts. >and this is not legal advice. Right again- it is nothing more than unsubstantiated and uneducated observations. You usually berate others that post like this. How hypocritical. > i think that it would be a problem for cingular if it came down to someone > in court and they had papers showing that the service is in fact [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > transfer every month for a while now and has have never been flagged as a > tetherer, so none of this probably matters anyway Assuming the person was using it as a tethered modem and someone took Cingular to court over it, all Cingular would have to do is point out that tethering is prohibited. A friend in San Antonio got flagged, but in an inadvertent billing foul up. He had the unlimited MediaNet that somehow got taken off his account and data charges started appearing. When he called about it, he was told tethering was prohibited and they had him sign up for the $59/mo unlimited Data Connect add-on. His data charges are still in dispute and up for review. He might get out of the charges as it was a billing screw up. >> i think that it would be a problem for cingular if it came down to someone >> in court and they had papers showing that the service is in fact [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Cingular to court over it, all Cingular would have to do is point out >that tethering is prohibited. Cingular would also have to prove that it had been tethered, which would be difficult at best (as I've shown previously), and show that such a restriction is legally enforceable. >A friend in San Antonio got flagged, but in an inadvertent billing foul >up. He had the unlimited MediaNet that somehow got taken off his account >and data charges started appearing. When he called about it, he was told > tethering was prohibited and they had him sign up for the $59/mo >unlimited Data Connect add-on. In other words, he was dumb enough to admit he was tethering. >His data charges are still in dispute and >up for review. He might get out of the charges as it was a billing screw up. He should definitely be able to get out of all charges over the $60/month ($59.99/month, not $59/month) rate, as per the terms of service (and can probably get out of anything over $20/month if he is persistent). <https://onlinecare.cingular.com/my-account/legal/service-agreement.jsp>: If you misrepresent your eligibility for any Rate Plan, you agree to pay us the additional amount you would have been charged under the most favorable Rate Plan for which you are eligible. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > Cingular would also have to prove that it had been tethered, which would > be > difficult at best (as I've shown previously), Sorry- your amateur experiments don't qualify as proof. > and show that such a restriction > is legally enforceable. More conjecture. >>A friend in San Antonio got flagged, but in an inadvertent billing foul >>up. He had the unlimited MediaNet that somehow got taken off his account [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > In other words, he was dumb enough to admit he was tethering. See how easy it is, John? Try it sometime. Well, after a few mostly useless sessions with Cingular Data Support, I happened across the answer on the web. If you dial *99***1# you will need to enter an APN. In Extra string dialup commands on your PDA you need to add +cgdcont=1,"IP","isp.cingular" This works with the ISP@CINGULARGPRS.COM / CINGULAR1 credentials. I also found that WAP@CINGULARGPRS.COM / CINGULAR1 credentials will work on *99# if I use this extra dialing string, but substitute wap.cingular for isp.cingular . This took up several hours of my time. I hope this info is helpful to others. Michael > I've had a Pocket PC configured to connect to the internet via Bluetooth > on a Motorola V557. This has worked fine for a long time. This weekend, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Thanks, > Michael >Well, after a few mostly useless sessions with Cingular Data Support, I >happened across the answer on the web. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >This took up several hours of my time. I hope this info is helpful to >others. If you check, I think you'll find that the needed configuration is the same for *99***1# as it is for *99# IF profile 1 is set as the default profile -- the ***1 just selects Profile 1. *99# alone selects the default profile (which may or may not be 1). In my Motorola V551, Profile 1 is configured with the proper APN (wap.cingular for MEdia), and is set as the default Profile, so dialing *99# works with just the proper username (WAP@CINGULARGPRS.COM) and password (CINGULAR1). SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> > If you check, I think you'll find that the needed configuration is the > same > for *99***1# as it is for *99# IF profile 1 is set as the default > profile -- > the ***1 just selects Profile 1. *99# alone selects the default profile > (which may or may not be 1). I would guess that *99***1# does not make any difference from *99#. I haven't tried it though. Since it is working as-is and I have both WAP and ISP connections set up now, it is useful for me to see it dialing a different number for each. I noticed that when I set up a USB connection from a laptop using the Motorola software, it seems to be using profile 3. Any idea why the difference there? > In my Motorola V551, Profile 1 is configured with the proper APN > (wap.cingular > for MEdia), and is set as the default Profile, so dialing *99# works with > just > the proper username (WAP@CINGULARGPRS.COM) and password (CINGULAR1). Are you saying there is a place to configure the profiles on the phone? Or is this a network / account setting? Clearly, I was not able to get things working with just the username and password. The extra dialing string is required. I also confirmed this with a coworker who is using a Bluetooth Pocket PC and a V551. His connection fails without the extra dialing string, but succeeds with it. -Michael >> If you check, I think you'll find that the needed configuration is the >> same [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Motorola software, it seems to be using profile 3. Any idea why the >difference there? Check the profiles (and the default setting) for differences. >> In my Motorola V551, Profile 1 is configured with the proper APN >> (wap.cingular [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Are you saying there is a place to configure the profiles on the phone? Settings -> Web Sessions -> Web Sessions >Or >is this a network / account setting? Clearly, I was not able to get things >working with just the username and password. The extra dialing string is >required. Not with my V551. The modem log verifies that Windows XP DUN isn't sending any extra commands to the phone. >I also confirmed this with a coworker who is using a Bluetooth >Pocket PC and a V551. His connection fails without the extra dialing >string, but succeeds with it. He may have the same configuration issues. SignatureBest regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ> |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.