 |
 | 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 / Sprint PCS / August 2005Sprint says laptop cable is 'stealing'.
I have had Verizon wireless for two years and my contract expired so I thought I'd take a look at Sprint. I went to the Sprint store in Webster, TX to look at what they had. I talked to a pretty young lady named Christine Garza who also gave me her business card. We discussed plans and looked at phones. I asked her about a cable to connect the phone to my laptop to use the phone as a wireless modem. I often check my email now by connecting my Verizon phone to my laptop and calling my ISP. Christine told me that the phone can access the Internet without my laptop but I told her I preferred to use it. She then told me that it is Sprint's view that using a cable to connect a laptop to the Internet was 'stealing'. I asked her by what leap of logic they figured that. I would be essentially using a wireless phone to call MY ISP. She told me that was their policy. 1. Either she is seriously misinformed and THAT tells me that if I have a question I won't be able to get an intelligent answer OR: 2. If Sprint feels that if I use their model phone, I MUST use THEIR Internet service, or it is STEALING, then I don't think I need to deal with them. I told her I'd get back to her. Is there someone who works for Sprint who might read this and clear this up? Thanks > I have had Verizon wireless for two years and my contract expired so I > thought I'd take a look at Sprint. I went to the Sprint store in Webster, TX [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Thanks I don't work for SPCS, but can offer a bit of advise. First off, that's the first time I've ever heard of an SPCS call tethering to a laptop as stealing. Methinks that she didn't want to fully explain their policy, and just simplified the explanation. SPCS does mention in their T & C, that tethering your phone to your laptop is not authorized. They don't want the user to replace their current ISP for what is offered through Vision, and taking all the bandwidth. Vision is not priced to act like another ISP @ $20/mo. In saying that, there are a number of users here who do tether our phones to our laptops, yours truly included. We use it on a very limited basis, checking email, sending email and some small surfing on the web. IOW, we don't use that much bandwidth and are keeping under SPCS's radar. You didn't mention which phone model you were interested in. Some models have been reported to have the capability disabled. If you wanted to use Vision as a full ISP, you can, by using one of their pcmcia cards, and signing up to one of their data plans. Bob >> I have had Verizon wireless for two years and my contract expired so I >> thought I'd take a look at Sprint. I went to the Sprint store in Webster, [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > > Bob Thanks for your help. I am sure Sprint is as good as anyone else so I do not mean to denigrate them in this criticism: That said, I guess I'll renew my contract with Verizon. I have never heard any complaint from them about me calling my ISP, in fact, THEY sold me the cable for the phone to do it. Also, I get free connection to their Express Network for "minutes only used". I usually use their network to check my email, but I have to call my ISP to be able to SEND email. Since Sprint is trying to steer their customers to some add-on service with add-on fees then I guess I don't need to go there. Thanks > I am sure Sprint is as good as anyone else so I do not mean to denigrate > them in this criticism: That said, I guess I'll renew my contract with [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Since Sprint is trying to steer their customers to some add-on service with > add-on fees then I guess I don't need to go there. James, Verizon is too, they have the same restrictions; they may not enforce them as heavily. I think "stealing" is an incredibly stupid way to characterize your desired usage. The issue is that excessive usage *can* cost a carrier big-time if a ton of people do it. Internet service providers and other connectivity providers pay *per byte* for traffic. At the level you're talking about, with big companies and ISPs and network backbones, there is generally no such thing as flat-rate access (most likely due to the large amounts of data involved). So Sprint won't let you pull large amounts of data, and they won't let you use a laptop at all unless you get a data card. I was under the impression that Verizon has the same restrictions, but perhaps you could share your experience with their policies. I haven't been a Verizon Wireless customer since June of last year.  SignatureSteve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED Company website: http://JustThe.net/ Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/ E: sjsobol@JustThe.net Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307 > James, Verizon is too, they have the same restrictions; they may not > enforce them as heavily. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > experience with their policies. I haven't been a Verizon Wireless customer > since June of last year. Steve, Part of my current plan, (which just expired, but is still valid ) is the use of Verizon's Express Network via my cellphone/laptop for "minutes only used" which means only the minutes used as in any call. On nights and weekends it is free like any call. Now, Verizon started this a couple of years ago. I only found out about it on Verizon's usenet group. Unfortunately, the reps at the sales places will only give you dumb looks when you mention it. I had to do my order by phone and get Express Network added on with some difficulty. However, I was successful as I have been using it for a couple of years and it is very useful for checking your email on the road. I am going to renew my contract and include the Express Network (MOU). If I am for whatever reason unsuccessful, I will let you know. I might do it this afternoon and I'll get back to you. > Part of my current plan, (which just expired, but is still valid ) is the > use of Verizon's Express Network via my cellphone/laptop for "minutes only [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > successful as I have been using it for a couple of years and it is very > useful for checking your email on the road. Been there, done that, used to use NationalAccess/ExpressNetwork in this way when I was a VZW customer. You do realize that if you make a lot of data calls, it ends up costing you money when you pay 25c/minute to 40c/minute for airtime overages, right? SignatureSteve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED Company website: http://JustThe.net/ Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/ E: sjsobol@JustThe.net Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307 >> Part of my current plan, (which just expired, but is still valid ) is the >> use of Verizon's Express Network via my cellphone/laptop for "minutes [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > data calls, it ends up costing you money when you pay 25c/minute to > 40c/minute for airtime overages, right? I only use it to check my email on the road. The point here I believe is that Verizon has no objection to you using a 'tethered laptop' to access the Internet whereas I have been informed that with Sprint this is 'unauthorized'. Verizon will cheerfully sell you their Mobile Office Kit for most of the cellphones they sell. With this kit you do not HAVE to use Verizon's Express Network (their Internet). The kit comes with a USB connector cable for the phone as well as a device driver so your laptop can recognize the wireless modem capability of the phone. It also comes with software that allows you to convert a regular dialup connection to your ISP into a Wireless connection. This essentially allows you to connect to your ISP for nothing more than the minutes you are online. The connection to a dialup ISP is only 14.4 (their Express Network is much faster.) but I find this adequate just to check or send email. Type your email off-line, connect, then send and you are on line for only a minute or so. You can do this without signing up for Verizon's regular wireless service (Express Network.) This was all I wanted to do with Sprint and that was what the young lady said according to Sprint was 'stealing'. >>>Part of my current plan, (which just expired, but is still valid ) is the >>>use of Verizon's Express Network via my cellphone/laptop for "minutes [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > I only use it to check my email on the road. The point here I believe is > that Verizon has no objection to you using a 'tethered laptop' Well, I checked http://myturl.com/001JY (links to VZW's publically available Customer Agreement) for my zip code, 92307, and it doesn't say anything either way. I could have sworn VZW had a similar restriction, but it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong about something. > Internet whereas I have been informed that with Sprint this is > 'unauthorized'. Verizon will cheerfully sell you their Mobile Office Kit for > most of the cellphones they sell. With this kit you do not HAVE to use > Verizon's Express Network (their Internet). The kit comes with a USB > connector cable for the phone as well as a device driver so your laptop can > recognize the wireless modem capability of the phone. I remember them stocking several in the stores when all they had was Quick2Net at 14.4K. I don't remember seeing them since then, but I wasn't looking. :) > Network.) This was all I wanted to do with Sprint and that was what the > young lady said according to Sprint was 'stealing'. There are other options, but they involve checking from the phone using a PCS Vision application, IIRC. Don't know if you want to type long emails with a phone keypad. ;) SignatureSteve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED Company website: http://JustThe.net/ Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/ E: sjsobol@JustThe.net Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307 <snipped> > Thanks for your help. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Since Sprint is trying to steer their customers to some add-on service with > add-on fees then I guess I don't need to go there. Ahh, I misread your original statement, where you wanted to connect to your local ISP. SPCS had that on their old 2G phones. It was called Wireless Web and as you mentioned above, used minutes off the plan. You wouldn't be able to do that with SPCS now, unless you bought a two year old SPCS phone, as all current phones through SPCS now are 3 G phones. Bob > I am sure Sprint is as good as anyone else so I do not mean to denigrate > them in this criticism: That said, I guess I'll renew my contract with [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Since Sprint is trying to steer their customers to some add-on service with > add-on fees then I guess I don't need to go there. I think you are over-reacting. The fact is that many of us do tether our Sprint phone to a laptop, and as long as the usage is nominal, Sprint does nothing to prevent it. Connecting to your own ISP is not advised since it uses a much slower speed (9.6kbps) versus the 110kbps I get with Sprint's Vision. You don't need your ISP to send mail, you can do so with Sprint's SMTP server. SignatureJohn Richards On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 17:42:50 GMT, "Bob Smith" >If you wanted to use Vision as a full ISP, you can, by using one of their >pcmcia cards, and signing up to one of their data plans. I don't think you need to buy the PCMCIA card anymore. A few months ago, I got the following response from Sprint customer service: <quote ON> Yes, you can now use your vision device as a modem. You will be glad to hear that since December 20, 2004, we have started offering following data plans, so that our customers can use their vision phone as a modem: $40.00 MRC- 20 MB $60.00 MRC- 40 MB $55.00 MRC - 50 MB $80.00 MRC- 300 MB The above mentioned plans are free for first three months, so that our customers can enjoy the facility. That means you can purchase a vision device and can use it as a modem by adding the data plan of your choice. After activating your vision device, you can write to us to add the data plans. <quote OFF> I haven't tried to add one of these plans, so I don't know if it actually works. I could not find this add-on mentioned on the website, but that doesn't mean much. Unfortunately, as of late, it seems that Sprint is asking their phone vendors to disable the modem feature... Joe Huber huber.joseph@comcast.net > I have had Verizon wireless for two years and my contract expired so I > thought I'd take a look at Sprint. I went to the Sprint store in Webster, TX [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > 1. Either she is seriously misinformed and THAT tells me that if I have a > question I won't be able to get an intelligent answer OR: Actually, in this case, she was misinformed. You CAN use the phone to dial up an outisde ISP. However: 1. It will use the old circuit switched data network, at 14.4kbps, and 2. You'll get charged $.39 a minute for the privilege. You can also hook the cable up to your laptop and use Vision (#777, username and password are both "web"), and thus get internet at higher data speeds (typically about 50-70kbps, but this will hopefully ve faster on an EVDO equipped phone). However, Sprint's TOS does state that "tethering" - hooking up a phone to a laptop to use it as an internet connection - is not permitted with the standard $10-$15 Vision plans. There's a lapto-specific data plan, but it's $80 a month for unlimited access, and you have to have a business account. > 2. If Sprint feels that if I use their model phone, I MUST use THEIR > Internet service, or it is STEALING, then I don't think I need to deal with > them. No, Sprint feels that if you use THEIR internet service for your laptop without paying the $80/month, then it's stealing.0 SignatureE-mail fudged to thwart spammers. Transpose the c's and a's in my e-mail address to reply. <snip> I ran into this same problem with Sprint. I've seen vendors at computer shows using credit card authorization boxes that dialin via cellphone to their bank for processing. A simple application of using a cell phone as a modem if I've ever seen it. I wanted to do something similar with my Sprint Nokia phone and my laptop when I'm on-call and have to check on some servers. Since some of the locations I go to don't have land-line service available, (ie: visiting family who only use cell phones.) This should have been a simple dialup connection using the cell as a modem... NOPE... Sprint disabled that functionality for my phone, even though the Nokia model my phone is based on has that capability from the factory. Needless to say I was quite angry with Sprint as those Nokia data cables don't come cheap and the amount of data I would be sending would be trivial (2-3 minute connection at most.) And that's only once a month! Is it too much to ask for a little flexibility? Bruno Bruno <email spoofed; just remove the spam in the address> > I wanted to do something similar with my Sprint Nokia phone and my > laptop when I'm on-call and have to check on some servers. Since some > of the locations I go to don't have land-line service available, (ie: > visiting family who only use cell phones.) It used to be that you could only do this with analog cell phones (apparently, the boxes themselves did some kind of encryption). Don't know if it's still true. > NOPE... Sprint disabled that functionality for my phone, even though > the Nokia model my phone is based on has that capability from the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Is it too much to ask for a little flexibility? Did you check that the capability was enabled in the Sprint phone before you bought it, instead of assuming it was? SignatureSteve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED Company website: http://JustThe.net/ Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/ E: sjsobol@JustThe.net Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307 >> I wanted to do something similar with my Sprint Nokia phone and my >> laptop when I'm on-call and have to check on some servers. Since some [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >(apparently, the boxes themselves did some kind of encryption). Don't know >if it's still true. Not sure about this either. I mean what happens when you dial a land-line? The endpoint is analog (unless you use Vonage/VOIP) but what's the difference between that and an analog modem? >> NOPE... Sprint disabled that functionality for my phone, even though >> the Nokia model my phone is based on has that capability from the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Did you check that the capability was enabled in the Sprint phone before you >bought it, instead of assuming it was? This was after I had the phone for a while. SPRINT would give out no information about it when I was researching trying to use the phone as a modem. I went with NOKIA's information and only learned after trying to connect that it wasn't supported with SPRINT's model because of their firmware/customizations. I'm not excusing that I should have done more research, I'm complaining that it's simple functionality that should be enabled by default. I don't buy products to have functionality disabled, I want capability in the things I buy. What purpose does it serve to turn this functionality off? I mean I'm using airtime on their network that I paid for every month. Who gives a hoot if it's VOICE on a digital connection or (slow) DATA over said line. I'm still using the same bandwidth, the same airtime. Don't it seem like it's just a ploy to force me, the customer, to buy a more expensive service that I just won't use? Frankly, I think that's unethical. It does nothing but antagonize the customer. BTW: I read you're posts about you're WireFly experience and we decided to go with them for our new phones. They should arrive tomorrow. WireFly rocks! Thanks for sharing you're experience. B Bruno <email spoofed; just remove the spam in the address> > Not sure about this either. I mean what happens when you dial a > land-line? The endpoint is analog (unless you use Vonage/VOIP) but > what's the difference between that and an analog modem? Not sure of the technical details. It *used* to be that CDMA digital phones couldn't just be hooked up to a computer and used as a modem. OTOH, I did so with a data cable for a Kyocera 2325, a CDMA digital phone I used on Verizon. I'd have to defer to someone who knows more about CDMA than I do to give details... >>Did you check that the capability was enabled in the Sprint phone before you >>bought it, instead of assuming it was? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > trying to connect that it wasn't supported with SPRINT's model because > of their firmware/customizations. Exactly. For future reference, never rely on the manufacturer's specs because they *always* customize their firmware for each carrier. (The manufacturers really *ought* to put such a disclaimer on their websites, because this isn't necessarily common knowledge.) > I'm not excusing that I should have done more research, I'm > complaining that it's simple functionality that should be enabled by > default. Can't argue there. > What purpose does it serve to turn this functionality off? I mean I'm > using airtime on their network that I paid for every month. If you pay a flat rate for Vision and end up costing a lot more than the average user, you do cost them money (just stating a fact here, not trying to argue). > BTW: I read you're posts about you're WireFly experience and we > decided to go with them for our new phones. They should arrive > tomorrow. WireFly rocks! Thanks for sharing you're experience. K. Just so you know, they do have some pretty poor reviews on C|Net. I was a little distressed after reading them (talk about not doing your homework first!) But most of the problems were with rebates - so just make sure you get your paperwork in immediately. Our rebates aren't due for another 5 1/2 months. I did get pissed reading a flyer that directed us to FreeIpods.com, which is essentially a pyramid scheme. Our deal included a free MP3 player with each phone, and there was no way I'm going to deal with FreeIpods to get it. But then we found the actual paperwork that said we'd get the free MP3 forms to fill out after 45 days (ok, fine, fair enough). So I apparently had no reason to be irritated... (but why they included the FreeIpods flyer, I have no idea, it was rather confusing) Do make sure you read all of the details on whichever offer you decide to go with. I will say this much for them: quick credit approval, number port completed within 24 hours (on BOTH phones!), phones arrived on time. Three big items weighing in their favor. I'm a little concerned about whether we'll be able to get the rebates, but we'll just have to wait and see. You may want to see if you can pull up the Wirefly/inPhonic reviews on C|Net. SignatureSteve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED Company website: http://JustThe.net/ Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/ E: sjsobol@JustThe.net Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307 > Not sure about this either. I mean what happens when you dial a > land-line? The endpoint is analog (unless you use Vonage/VOIP) but [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > expensive service that I just won't use? Frankly, I think that's > unethical. It does nothing but antagonize the customer. Exacta-mundo, this is a nickel and dime attempt by Sprint to fool the technically un-savvy into a rip-off. Bits are Bits. JG > Exacta-mundo, this is a nickel and dime attempt by Sprint to fool the > technically un-savvy into a rip-off. Bits are Bits. That's not exactly true. But this conversation seems basically over. I'm willing to discuss it if you wish, though. SignatureRØß O/Siris -+- A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue, but moderation in principle is always a vice. +Thomas Paine, "The Rights of Man", 1792+ Just in case anyone is intersted I have learned a great deal in the las month or so. If you were not previously warned about data usage from a phon (tethering) and you have some persitance Sprint wil make adjustments t your bill. But this was a difficult task. However their willingness t work with me will keep me as a long term customer. Aslo since I have not seen it stated although Sprint does not sell th cables they have begun to offer data plans for the phone. Visit you nearest Sprint store and all the info is there. And on that note it also a good Idea if you sign up anywhere other than a sprint store it always a good idea to check your plan details with sprint > Just in case anyone is intersted I have learned a great deal in the last > month or so. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > also a good Idea if you sign up anywhere other than a sprint store its > always a good idea to check your plan details with sprint. This mirrors my previous experience. I had used a tethered connection sporadically for months without ever incurring extra charges. Then my wife apparently used too much. For several months in a row following I had charges for the use. Each time CSR's relented and reversed the charges. This happened three times because I had been under the impression (stupid sales guys) the process was supported and included in Vision service. After three months I stopped using the tether setup, except in extreme urgencies and paid the per kb price each time. Low and behold, last January, I switched plans, phone numbers, basically everything. I didn't even try tethering until last month, and again only used it a bit. So far two months or very little tethered usage and no extra charges. So I think as long as my used is low the account won't get flagged. While at the same time, it appears that once my other account WAS flagged it was a permanent state kind of thing. ymmv >> I wanted to do something similar with my Sprint Nokia phone and my >> laptop when I'm on-call and have to check on some servers. Since some [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Did you check that the capability was enabled in the Sprint phone before you > bought it, instead of assuming it was? I bet SPCS doesn't go out of their way to warn owners, much less prospective buyers, that they cripple the manufacturers' products that way. Any takers? You know: I have a laptop. I occasionally travel to places that have sub-standard dialup service or in which it would be exceedingly inconvenient to use a land-line, but where SPCS service is good. It would be nice if I could tether my laptop to my SPCS phone and get a decent/solid connection for minimal email work and maybe SSH'd console connections for server admin purposes. It would be nice if the time to do that just came off my minutes, with the traditional charge for going over. I wouldn't even mind if, if I had free nights and weekends, data connections came out of anytime minutes always. But from reading these threads, it looks to *me* like SPCS does everything they can to prevent using their service in a transparent manner. Shades of Microsoft! I've been a relatively long-time, relatively happy SPCS customer. But I'm not so excited about SPCS anymore--for a variety of reasons. I read stuff like this thread, and the customer service issues, and I think I see my days with SPCS soon coming to an end. SPCS has no idea how badly they're shooting themselves in the foot with this kind of behaviour. SignatureJim Seymour | "There is no expedient to which a man will not jseymour@LinxNet.com | go to avoid the labor of thinking." http://jimsun.LinxNet.com | - Thomas A. Edison Yes tapping into their service in such a manner as to avoid paying for it sounds like stealing to me. Sprint PCS does go out of their way to tell prospective buyers what they can do with Sprint PCS phones and service. They do not promote use connected to any other device. The tos does specifically state such use is not allowed. The manufacturers make different products. They make a Sprint PCS product, a verizon product, a product for each carrier that contracts for them to be made. They make them to include which features the carrier wants included. Features are assembled in or not as the carrier wants. They are not pre-built and then opened up to take stuff out. That would be too expensive. I do not work, have never worked, for any phone manufacturer, or carrier, especially the carrier's handset procurement department. But, this is how their relationship seems to me. It would be great if someone who does was at liberty to post to this news group. > I bet SPCS doesn't go out of their way to warn owners, much less > prospective buyers, that they cripple the manufacturers' products > that way. Any takers? [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > SPCS has no idea how badly they're shooting themselves in the foot > with this kind of behaviour. > Yes tapping into their service in such a manner as to avoid paying for >it sounds like stealing to me. I'm not avoiding payment for anything by tethering my laptop. I pay for a plan that has unlimited Vision. The only thing I'm doing by tethering my laptop is changing the Vision user interface from a difficult-to-use device with 24 small keys and a 2" LCD display to an easy-to-use device with a 17" LCD display and a 100 or so keys. I don't deny that tethering violates TOS, and Sprint has every right to terminate my service because of this, but I'm certainly not stealing anything. I'm paying for Vision, I'm just using an "unapproved" user interface. Joe Huber huber.joseph@comcast.net A laptop is capable of downloading a lot more data than a little cell phone. That is the reason for the restriction. >> Yes tapping into their service in such a manner as to avoid paying for >>it sounds like stealing to me. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Joe Huber > huber.joseph@comcast.net >A laptop is capable of downloading a lot more data than a little cell phone. >That is the reason for the restriction. That's basically correct, thank you. :) >>> Yes tapping into their service in such a manner as to avoid paying for >>>it sounds like stealing to me. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> Joe Huber >> huber.joseph@comcast.net SignaturePaul Miner > A laptop is capable of downloading a lot more data than a little cell phone. > That is the reason for the restriction. So what should be restricted is the amount of data downloaded, not the user interface. SignatureJohn Richards Mij Adyaw wrote: > A laptop is capable of downloading a lot more data than a little cell phone. This statement is of course totally false. >Mij Adyaw wrote: >> A laptop is capable of downloading a lot more data than a little cell phone. > >This statement is of course totally false. Why is it totally false? SignaturePaul Miner >>Mij Adyaw wrote: >>> A laptop is capable of downloading a lot more data than a little cell phone. >> >>This statement is of course totally false. > >Why is it totally false? Perhaps the "totally" is misleading or ambiguous. By saying that it is meant that the statement is clearly not true, i.e. that there are obvious examples that make it false and therefore the statement is not a "truth", which does not imply that it is never true for specific examples. There are several ways in which the statement is not true. First, it is not true on the face of it. There are plenty of laptops that are less capable in every relevant way than the most capable cell phones. Here it is not clear what is meant by "little" cell phone, but it is immaterial -- no cell phone that I am thinking of is "big". Then there is the matter of "downloading", which has no clear indication of the different issues of downloading per se (transfering bytes/data "down" from a server/host), and *storage*. There are plenty of circumstances involving lots of downloading without any storage at all. Even if by "downloading" one meant, including storage, the notion is not universally true, as we discussed before (e.g. handsets capable of accepting 1GB memory cards). And the trend is for ever increasing storage in handsets. Finally, in the case of laptop tethering, which was the premise of this thread, all data that is being downloaded into the laptop was first downloaded by the cell phone before it was transferred to the laptop via its USB/serial port. Thus the downloading done by the handset and the laptop is identical. If the author meant instead *all* methods of downloading, not just Vision or wireless (the topic of this thread), then perhaps the statement is more true since it is hard to argue that a 100BT Ethernet connection common on laptops isn't more capable of downloading (having much higher BANDWIDTH, storage being irrelevant) than a cell phone. But the thread is about Sprint wireless data services. Perhaps what the author of the statement really meant was something like: The average laptop currently produced and sold today comes with more storage capacity than the average current handset and is thus capable of storing more downloaded data at one time. Note that the issue here is data *storage* which is completely orthogonal to the issue of bandwidth comsumption. It is silly for Sprint to price Vision according to a guess about the target device's presumed storage capacity since many, even most uses of Vision do not rely upon storage capacity at all -- common uses of Vision/Internet access such as email and web browsing depend on very little storage capacity and are equally well performed by a handset or a laptop, except perhaps for the issue of display size. And the trend towards streaming media make the storage issue even less relevant. Indeed it makes as much sense or more to price Vision according to the target device's screen size than storage capacity. That is, the statement below is more of a truth: A laptop is more capable of displaying a greater amount of data, and with better viewing ease than a little cell phone. >>>Mij Adyaw wrote: >>>> A laptop is capable of downloading a lot more data than a little cell phone. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >examples that make it false and therefore the statement is not a "truth", >which does not imply that it is never true for specific examples. Agreed, but I'd say it's probably true in at least a 95:5 ratio. At least. >Finally, in the case of laptop tethering, which was the premise of this >thread, all data that is being downloaded into the laptop was first >downloaded by the cell phone before it was transferred to the laptop >via its USB/serial port. Thus the downloading done by the handset and >the laptop is identical. Not true. When a handset is tethered to a laptop, NONE of the data is downloaded by the handset. The handset is only a wireless modem at that point. Bytes come in one interface, get assembled and sanity checked and buffered, then are sent out the other interface. No bytes are downloaded to the handset itself, or by the handset, for that matter. >Perhaps what the author of the statement really meant was something like: >The average laptop currently produced and sold today comes with more [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Note that the issue here is data *storage* which is completely orthogonal >to the issue of bandwidth comsumption. Not really, at least IMO. I think the increased storage, the faster CPU's, the larger display and the larger keypad all directly contribute (or translate) to higher data usage as a general rule. The exceptions are just that: exceptions. >It is silly for Sprint to price Vision >according to a guess about the target device's presumed storage capacity [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >display size. And the trend towards streaming media make the storage >issue even less relevant. Again, I don't agree. More storage means I can keep more emails stored locally, and they can include attachments that a handset wouldn't have room for. For web browsing, the user experience is generally improved by having a browser cache, something that most handsets don't have, and again is a direct function of storage. PictureMail, same thing. Ready Link and some streaming protocols don't rely as heavily on storage, but I think most data apps expect it to be there. From my personal experience, there is precious little that can be done equally well on a handset as on a laptop. Your experience may vary there. >Indeed it makes as much sense or more to price Vision according to the >target device's screen size than storage capacity. That is, the statement >below is more of a truth: > >A laptop is more capable of displaying a greater amount of data, and with >better viewing ease than a little cell phone. Before long, we would be tethering large displays to our handsets to get around the display size restrictions. <G> SignaturePaul Miner >>A laptop is more capable of displaying a greater amount of data, and with >>better viewing ease than a little cell phone. > >Before long, we would be tethering large displays to our handsets to >get around the display size restrictions. <G> To pursue this line a bit further to show just how little separates a current handset from a laptop as far as "online experience"... Take the current top Samsung CDMA handset, the i730, currently offered by VZW and rumored for Sprint (I beleive). Now it would be a trivial matter for Samsung to add a SVGA or XGA video port to that unit, and make a few firmware mods to allow a USB keyboard and mouse to work with its USB port (or even slicker, with its IR port). Once you have the i730 with a decent display, keyboard and mouse, I'm quite sure that many will find it a quite comparable device for online usage, no worse than a laptop. It would have 1GB storage, even WiFi. I think it would be a killer platform that could greatly propel and increase wireless data usage. One problem with it of course is that 1xrtt is still too slow: EVDO addresses that. But the real BIG problem that CDMA carriers are going to face: data and voice cannot be simultaneous. Thus there is a HUGE barrier for CDMA customers to use data more regularly: it disables the handset for voice! It will have to wait for EVDV or a later rev of EVDO to fix this problem, a problem that I believe is going to be a major upcoming issue in CDMA's battle against GSM carriers for data customers. Otherwise, the only real thing that separates handsets from laptops in terms of wireless data usage is display/user interface, and those items can easily be addressed by Samsung, Palm et al. >> Yes tapping into their service in such a manner as to avoid paying for >>it sounds like stealing to me. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >stealing anything. I'm paying for Vision, I'm just using an >"unapproved" user interface. It actually has nothing at all to do with your choice of user interface and everything to do with the amount of bytes transferred. Like I said before, Sprint doesn't even know what kind of device you use to access the network.** **Technically, they DO know, but the information is not correlated with the rating engine for billing purposes, so the net result is that they don't know. SignaturePaul Miner You are paying for a plan that has unlimited Vision on the handset. Not for unlimited Vision connected to any other device. If you want service on your laptop, then you have to get and pay for a "PCS Vision for PCS Connection Cards - Laptop & PDA" plan, and a pcmcia connection card. Demis da ruls. If you soicomvent the ruls, dats cheeting. "The only thing I'm doing" is stealing from Sprint PCS. That is why Sprint PCS has every right to terminate your service. >> Yes tapping into their service in such a manner as to avoid paying for >>it sounds like stealing to me. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Joe Huber > huber.joseph@comcast.net > You are paying for a plan that has unlimited Vision on the handset. > Not for unlimited Vision connected to any other device. If you want [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > only thing I'm doing" is stealing from Sprint PCS. That is why Sprint > PCS has every right to terminate your service. Take the blinders off and realize that the TOS rules are stated that way only because Sprint's current billing engine has no way to distinguish between the various data devices. The overriding logic is that Sprint needs to protect its network from excessive data usage, so they made a hard & fast rule only because of the limitations of their billing system. Light data usage via a tethered laptop does not harm Sprint's network, nor does it use any more resources than equivalent Vision use on a standard Sprint phone. The fact is that *unofficially* Sprint knows this, and in fact, Sprint does not punish or prevent light data usage via a tethered laptop. So, if Sprint does not enforce that particular TOS rule, why are *you* getting so high & mighty about it? SignatureJohn Richards >You know: I have a laptop. I occasionally travel to places that have >sub-standard dialup service or in which it would be exceedingly [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >everything they can to prevent using their service in a transparent >manner. Shades of Microsoft! When Sprint decided to use KB usage as the basic building block for data billing, rather than minutes, they inadvertently put themselves in a bad position, especially since they were marketing data cables as accessories for their handsets. They accidentally created a situation where users could either buy a PC card and a higher-priced data plan, or buy a handset and a lower-priced data plan. Gee, which would many people choose? So Sprint rushed to pull their data cables from the market, but of course they are available from several other sources so the TOS/AUP was amended to prohibit tethered usage in an attempt to protect Sprint from users who would take advantage of the situation. To the people who ask for data usage to come out of their minutes, that's easier said than done. While the raw network billing records do timestamp everything, the back end billing systems only look at usage, so an MOU billing model isn't easy, (if you know how glacially slow changes to a billing system occur.) Having said all that, there are several ideas being kicked around to try to fix the current situation, since the last thing Sprint wants is to limit network usage. They only want to limit usage for which they can't bill, and when someone has a handset Vision package with unlimited data, (unlimited because the assumption is that handsets can't pull much data per month), and they tether it and go wild, then Sprint loses the unrecognized revenue. As for staying under the radar, it's really simple. There are usage models that assume a certain amount of monthly data usage (in KB's, not minutes, remember), per the 3 device types: handset, PDA, and PC card. If you purchase a handset data plan and your usage is typically up around the average usage level associated with a PC card, you call attention to yourself. There are no flags being looked at right now that indicate which device type you've used to access the data network; it's all about (currently, anyway) the amount of usage. I'm told this will change in the future. And no, I don't know what the current usage models look like. >SPCS has no idea how badly they're shooting themselves in the foot >with this kind of behaviour. Actually, they do, and they're working on ways to fix it. As customers, we should read that to mean they're working on ways to be able to charge for usage rather than just giving it away. They are a for-profit business, after all. Please don't take any of this as a defense of Sprint's policies. I don't necessarily agree with much of it myself. SignaturePaul Miner [snip] >>SPCS has no idea how badly they're shooting themselves in the foot >>with this kind of behaviour. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > able to charge for usage rather than just giving it away. They are a > for-profit business, after all. Of course. No profit, no business. I understand how it works. But I abhor "hidden"... er... "features." Esp. when said "features" just *happen* to be advantageous to the vendor to the disadvantage of the customer. Let me draw an analogy. Some people in the mass email marketing business say that if one registers for some product or service on-line, and fails to un-check the pre-checked "spam me" boxes at the bottom of the page, in a very small font, light-gray-on-white- background ;), it's the spamee's fault. My position is that if a concern like that purposefully goes out of its way to make it unlikely I'd even *notice* the "spam me" option, much-less de-select it, it's *their* fault I get spammed. IOW: Do *not* try to fox me, no matter how subtly, then blame it on *me* if you succeed. Selling phones, or any other equipment, with features disabled, without *prominently* making a note of it, *on* the product (advertisement) page, is sneaky and under-handed, IMO. It sounds like SPCS is doing that. SPCS just lost another "point" in my book. > Please don't take any of this as a defense of Sprint's policies. I > don't necessarily agree with much of it myself. Understood. Even if you were defending Sprint, there's room in my world for honest disagreement. SignatureJim Seymour | "There is no expedient to which a man will not jseymour@LinxNet.com | go to avoid the labor of thinking." http://jimsun.LinxNet.com | - Thomas A. Edison Sprint is correct and you are stealing from them. SprintPCS is in the business to make money. You should not steal data service from them. It is no different than stealing cable TV service. If you want to use data services on your laptop, then do the right thing and get a Sprint Laptop Data Card. They different plans and if you need unlimited use, you can sign-up as a business user and get unlimited data service for $80.00. -mij > [snip] >>> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Understood. Even if you were defending Sprint, there's room in my > world for honest disagreement. > Sprint is correct and you are stealing from them. I'm not stealing anything from anybody. > SprintPCS is in the > business to make money. Ya think? > You should not steal data service from them. Since I'm not using any data services on SPCS, I think it highly unlikely I'm stealing any. > It is > no different than stealing cable TV service. If you want to use data > services on your laptop, then do the right thing and get a Sprint Laptop > Data Card. They different plans and if you need unlimited use, you can > sign-up as a business user and get unlimited data service for $80.00. [snip] Fine. Now how 'bout arguing the point I've been making? To wit: It would appear SprintPCS makes no effort, up front, or even after the sale, to inform the customer that the phone they're selling them has been purposefully crippled. SignatureJim Seymour | "There is no expedient to which a man will not jseymour@LinxNet.com | go to avoid the labor of thinking." http://jimsun.LinxNet.com | - Thomas A. Edison > Sprint is correct and you are stealing from them. SprintPCS is in the > business to make money. You should not steal data service from them. It's *not* *stealing.* It's using the service in a way other than intended, but you're still paying for it. SignatureSteve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED Company website: http://JustThe.net/ Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/ E: sjsobol@JustThe.net Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307 [ It's *not* *stealing.* It's using the service in a way other tha intended, but you're still paying for it. -- I agree if nights and weekends are free whats the difference? I used i at night. Also for anyone who dosent already know. I went to sprin today. Turns out any of us who were using 2G phones we were only bille on minutes used. So if used off peak on unlimited minutes you did no inccur any additional charges. But like any business Sprint closed tha loophole when they introduced the 3g network. So ignorance is no excuse but that is how I came to be in the situatio I am in. I did not make my post to Boo Hoo my problems. I simply poste to make others aware. My ponit is nobody pays atttention the th neighborhood dog until someone get bit!! Also the reason I dont have an unlimited plan. Well turns out that pla is only for Data cards not phone as modem > Sprint is correct and you are stealing from them. SprintPCS is in the > business to make money. You should not steal data service from them. It is > no different than stealing cable TV service. If you want to use data > services on your laptop, then do the right thing and get a Sprint Laptop > Data Card. They different plans and if you need unlimited use, you can > sign-up as a business user and get unlimited data service for $80.00. I don't agree. A laptop data card is meant for heavy data usage, but is not cost effective for light usage. What practical difference does it make to Sprint's network whether I download email on a Treo 650 with a Vision plan, or download that same email on a standard Sprint Vision phone tethered to a laptop? Since it makes no difference, why do you consider it stealing? If a typical Vision user downloads, say, 10MB of data per month (legally), why shouldn't a tethered laptop be allowed to download 10MB per month? SignatureJohn Richards >> Sprint is correct and you are stealing from them. SprintPCS is in the >> business to make money. You should not steal data service from them. It is [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >a Vision plan, or download that same email on a standard Sprint Vision >phone tethered to a laptop? You're absolutely correct, it makes almost no practical difference. In fact, an (albeit weak) argument could be made that using a tethered laptop is easier on the network because you're bypassing the WAP gateway in that scenario, which is not the case with a straight handset. >Since it makes no difference, why do you consider it stealing? That question was for Mij, so I'll let him/her take it. :) >If a typical Vision user downloads, say, 10MB of data per month >(legally), why shouldn't a tethered laptop be allowed to download >10MB per month? To be honest, not only does it not make a significant difference which device you download that 10MB of data to, but as you correctly pointed out in another post, Sprint's rating/billing engine isn't even aware of what type of device you used. The only 'solid' evidence of prohibited tethering is usage that far exceeds what a handset and its user are known to be capable of. Even in that case, it's only an assumption, although a fairly solid one, that the user has been tethering. SignaturePaul Miner >You know: I have a laptop. I occasionally travel to places that have >sub-standard dialup service or in which it would be exceedingly [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >charge for going over. I wouldn't even mind if, if I had free nights >and weekends, data connections came out of anytime minutes always. This paragraph very closely describes my situation, and the situation of other business users I know. I'd bet there are a fair number of users in this situation. Yet, Sprint just seems to not want to address this issue of occasional use direclty (i.e. disable #777 altogether or come up with some economical plans that permit it); for some reason they would rather operate with the present "under the radar" policy. I'm sure Sprint knows that many folks tether laptops now and then; it's talked about openly here, on sprintusers.com, and probably many other places. If Sprint wanted to deduct 1.5 minutes or even 2 minutes from my monthly allotment for every minute of laptop data access to cover costs, I could live with that. Many of us were happy campers with this type of "minute" billing plan for Wireless Web. It's frustrating to have PCS phones available with modem capability, to have a need to legitimately use that capabilitiy, and then to have Sprint not allow the use of that capability via TOS or disabling the feature in the hardware itself. My MM7400 has modem capability, and I need to use it occasionally. Should a firmware or software update come out for my phone, do I dare get the update, knowing that Sprint could very well disable the modem feature? >SPCS has no idea how badly they're shooting themselves in the foot >with this kind of behaviour. You'd think this would be bad behavior, and Sprint would be seeing some adverse effects. However, FON stock is doing well, and according to MSNBC, FON presently has an "8" rating (significantly outperform over next six months). Things are going well, so there probably is no incentive for Sprint to address this issue. Joe Huber huber.joseph@comcast.net They should just disable #777 altogether so that folks cannot steal service from them that they are not rightfully paying for. I wish they would do it so that all of these threads on this newsgroup and other Sprint forums would disappear once and for-all! >>You know: I have a laptop. I occasionally travel to places that have >>sub-standard dialup service or in which it would be exceedingly [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > Joe Huber > huber.joseph@comcast.net > They should just disable #777 altogether so that folks cannot steal service > from them that they are not rightfully paying for. I wish they would do it > so that all of these threads on this newsgroup and other Sprint forums would > disappear once and for-all! > > <snip> Nose? Face? Spite? Personally, I'd prefer to ignore the complaint threads and tether my laptop on those rare occasions. Notan I have a Legal Novatel Wireless card in my laptop and pay for the unlimited data service. It works very well. I do not or never did result to illegal tethers. >> They should just disable #777 altogether so that folks cannot steal >> service [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Notan > I have a Legal Novatel Wireless card in my laptop and pay for the unlimited > data service. It works very well. I do not or never did result to illegal > tethers. If this were illegal ("Sprint illegal"), Sprint would be sending warnings out to every user that logged on, for even a minute. When I'm on the road, I log on long enough to check my e-mail and, if necessary, send a few e-mails. We're talking a few minutes, at most. If Sprint said they're gonna charge me minutes and/or $5.00/month for this luxury, I'd go for it. But, for me to spend money on a data card and a monthly data plan, for this pittance of use, forget it... I'd seriously start looking elsewhere for another carrier. In my opinion, Sprint knows this. It's one of the reasons I stay with Sprint. Notan You are the exception to the rule! Other folks will abuse this privilege. >> I have a Legal Novatel Wireless card in my laptop and pay for the >> unlimited [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Notan > You are the exception to the rule! Other folks will abuse this privilege. No Mij, Notan is not the exception. He's with the majority of folks who might tether up. It's those folks who do abuse the system that are the exception, and it's those folks that get the bad news from SPCS on their monthly bill. Bob > You are the exception to the rule! Other folks will abuse this privilege. Fine, let Sprint punish the abusers. Oh, but that's the current policy, isn't it? So why are you complaining then? SignatureJohn Richards notan, i use my Sprint phone almost exactly as you describe. only for very occasional use. i don't think i would ever try to download music, or anything big, using my cellphone. but it comes in handy when i'm away from home. Mij Adyaw wrote: > I have a Legal Novatel Wireless card in my laptop and pay for the > unlimited > data service. It works very well. I do not or never did result to illegal > tethers. If this were illegal ("Sprint illegal"), Sprint would be sending warnings out to every user that logged on, for even a minute. When I'm on the road, I log on long enough to check my e-mail and, if necessary, send a few e-mails. We're talking a few minutes, at most. If Sprint said they're gonna charge me minutes and/or $5.00/month for this luxury, I'd go for it. But, for me to spend money on a data card and a monthly data plan, for this pittance of use, forget it... I'd seriously start looking elsewhere for another carrier. In my opinion, Sprint knows this. It's one of the reasons I stay with Sprint. Notan > I have a Legal Novatel Wireless card in my laptop and pay for the unlimited > data service. It works very well. I do not or never did result to illegal > tethers. [snip] Fine. Wonderful. Good for you. But you appear to be purposefully missing the point: Why would somebody pay for unlimited wireless data access just to *occasionally* collect a bit of email or log into a server at work (perhaps for some emergency maintenance), all of which they could as well do, albeit far less conveniently, from the handset? I'm not talking about rampant web surfing, constant bittorrent data transfers, etc., etc. I'm talking maybe a few hundred K now and then. Hell, I wouldn't use the phone that way but once in a blue moon--if that. For those odd, infrequent occasions where I *might* *need* the phone for a data connection, I'm supposed to pay for unlimited data access? Not bloody likely! I gotta tell you, Mij, you're not doing SPCS' case any favours. The more you proselytize for SPCS on this issue, the more I think about it, the more put off I am by what they're doing. SignatureJim Seymour | "There is no expedient to which a man will not jseymour@LinxNet.com | go to avoid the labor of thinking." http://jimsun.LinxNet.com | - Thomas A. Edison If you do not want to pay for Sprint PCS laptop data service, fine. Either use just the handset or switch to a carrier that meets your needs at a price you want to pay. >>I have a Legal Novatel Wireless card in my laptop and pay for the unlimited >>data service. It works very well. I do not or never did result to illegal [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > more you proselytize for SPCS on this issue, the more I think about > it, the more put off I am by what they're doing. > If you do not want to pay for Sprint PCS laptop data service, fine. > Either use just the handset or switch to a carrier that meets your needs > at a price you want to pay. [snip] No argument with that, Jerome. My point is not whether connecting a laptop to a phone w/o buying the data service is a T&C violation or not--clearly it is. My points are that: 1. IMO it's an unsatisfactory restriction. 2. SPCS is now apparently *quietly* crippling (some?) phones to prevent this "abuse." SignatureJim Seymour | "There is no expedient to which a man will not jseymour@LinxNet.com | go to avoid the labor of thinking." http://jimsun.LinxNet.com | - Thomas A. Edison > I have a Legal Novatel Wireless card in my laptop and pay for the unlimited > data service. It works very well. I do not or never did result to illegal > tethers. You need to research what "illegal" means. Hint: it has to do with a violation of a law, not a violation of a TOS. I have yet to hear of anyone going to jail for tethering a laptop to a Sprint phone. SignatureJohn Richards >They should just disable #777 altogether so that folks cannot steal service >from them that they are not rightfully paying for. So, if I use only my MM7400 to check my PCS email or place a bid on ebay, it's not stealing. But if I tether my laptop to my MM7400 to access my PCS email or place a bid on ebay, it's stealing. Why? Either way, I'm accessing the unlimited Vision I pay for every month. What exactly am I stealing from Sprint? A laptop is simply an unapproved method of accessing Vision and a violation of TOS. It is not stealing. Joe Huber huber.joseph@comcast.net Because you can download many megabytes of data to your laptop. One single PDF file or a music download can be greater than one megabyte. Your cell phone cannot store that much data. A laptop is like drinking from a fire hose. >>They should just disable #777 altogether so that folks cannot steal >>service [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Joe Huber > huber.joseph@comcast.net >Because you can download many megabytes of data to your laptop. One single >PDF file or a music download can be greater than one megabyte. Your cell >phone cannot store that much data. A laptop is like drinking from a fire >hose. What does 1 MB have to do with anything? Yes, the laptop connection can certainly be abused, but so can your phone. Again, my Vision plan is unlimited. I can go to text.dslreports.com/mspeed with my phone and run the 600 kb test for several hours straight, and in the process doing nothing but tying up Sprint's bandwidth. Would you consider that to be stealing as well? You still haven't shown how I've stolen anything by tethering my laptop. Tethering *might* be considered unethical, because when you do it, you knowingly violate a contract to which you are a party. Sprint's remedy is to terminate your account. Of course, one *might* also consider it unethical for Sprint, by their TOS, to attempt to coerce me into buying a data card and additional data plan to access Vision with my laptop, when I have already bought a phone from them capable of connecting my laptop to the unlimited Vision plan that I am already paying for. Not that one should justify the other... Joe Huber huber.joseph@comcast.net > What does 1 MB have to do with anything? Yes, the laptop connection > can certainly be abused, but so can your phone. ...But you pay extra for overages on your phone. > Tethering *might* be considered unethical, because when you do it, you > knowingly violate a contract to which you are a party. I agree. And I can see why Sprint would want to prevent excessive use. I agree with those in this newsgroup who say that Sprint needs to fix its policies and practices and maybe offer more data plans. I disagree that excessive use equals stealing. SignatureSteve Sobol, Professional Geek 888-480-4638 PGP: 0xE3AE35ED Company website: http://JustThe.net/ Personal blog, resume, portfolio: http://SteveSobol.com/ E: sjsobol@JustThe.net Snail: 22674 Motnocab Road, Apple Valley, CA 92307 >>Because you can download many megabytes of data to your laptop. One single >>PDF file or a music download can be greater than one megabyte. Your cell [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >What does 1 MB have to do with anything? Yes, the laptop connection >can certainly be abused, but so can your phone. Granted, both can be abused, so how about this? Take a handset and abuse the crap out of it for 24 hours straight. Now tether it to a laptop and abuse the crap out of it for 24 hours straight. The laptop will have pulled FAR more data than the handset, something on the order of 10-20 times more. When Sprint came up with an unlimited data plan for handsets, they took into account the fact that you can't pull a whole lot of data with a handset and priced it accordingly. When you tether the handset to a laptop, you create the capability to FAR exceed the usage model envisioned by Sprint when they came up with the plan. In effect, you're taking it upon yourself to apply a handset data plan to a laptop, which isn't even close to being the same in terms of user experience, data usage, and yes, pricing. >Again, my Vision plan is unlimited. It's only unlimited to the extent that you use it the way it was intended to be used. You can't take it upon yourself to change the entire basis for the usage & pricing model and expect Sprint to be ok with that. SignaturePaul Miner > >>Because you can download many megabytes of data to your laptop. One single > >>PDF file or a music download can be greater than one megabyte. Your cell [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > <snip> So, take data minutes out of peak minutes... That ought to slow down people's (ab)usage. Notan >> >>Because you can download many megabytes of data to your laptop. One single >> >>PDF file or a music download can be greater than one megabyte. Your cell [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >Notan I agree, but alas, it's not currently possible. The billing system isn't currently set up to do that, and a friend in Marketing tells me Sprint would take a beating in the competitive marketplace if they suddenly put a usage limit on the currently-unlimited handset plan or tried to change it from KB usage to MOU usage. Until the new tethered plans are ready, it looks like some of us just have to remain frustrated. SignaturePaul Miner >> So, take data minutes out of peak minutes... That ought to slow >> down people's (ab)usage. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > suddenly put a usage limit on the currently-unlimited handset plan or > tried to change it from KB usage to MOU usage. It shouldn't hurt competition if Sprint stresses that Vision usage on a phone will remain unlimited, and only tethered usage will be subject to metering. SignatureJohn Richards >>> So, take data minutes out of peak minutes... That ought to slow >>> down people's (ab)usage. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >on a phone will remain unlimited, and only tethered usage will >be subject to metering. The capability for the network, and thus the rating/billing engine, to differentiate between a directly-connected handset and a tethered laptop is coming, but it's not there yet. Therefore, it seems premature to create data plans where handset usage is truly unlimited while tethered usage is subject to metering. SignaturePaul Miner >The capability for the network, and thus the rating/billing engine, to >differentiate between a directly-connected handset and a tethered >laptop is coming, but it's not there yet. Therefore, it seems >premature to create data plans where handset usage is truly unlimited >while tethered usage is subject to metering. As has been pointed out eloquently in several previous posts, differentiating plans based on what device is using the data, rather than basing the plans on data usage, doesn't make much sense. I sure hope Sprint is taking this into account as they are developing this new billing/plan methodology that Paul has mentioned. Joe Huber huber.joseph@comcast.net >Granted, both can be abused, so how about this? Take a handset and >abuse the crap out of it for 24 hours straight. Now tether it to a >laptop and abuse the crap out of it for 24 hours straight. The laptop >will have pulled FAR more data than the handset, something on the >order of 10-20 times more. Quite true, but as Jim Seymour pointed out in a previous post, this really shouldn't be an issue. I don't abuse Vision on my phone, and I don't abuse Vision when I tether. I understand that there will be those that do. Can't Sprint set up some limits, like xx kB or MB per day, and if the user goes over, bill him extra?? Joe Huber huber.joseph@comcast.net >>Granted, both can be abused, so how about this? Take a handset and >>abuse the crap out of it for 24 hours straight. Now tether it to a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Quite true, but as Jim Seymour pointed out in a previous post, this >really shouldn't be an issue. It shouldn't be, but it is because all Vision plans were created using an "estimated average usage" model that applies to that device category; i.e., 1) handset, 2) PDA/Smartphone, and 3) laptop. Where I think Sprint screwed up is when they called the handset plan an unlimited plan, when it isn't unlimited and never was intended to be unlimited. I blame Sprint for causing that confusion, but my sources there say they had little choice as the competitive landscape pretty much forced them into that corner. The competition was offering an unlimited plan so Sprint had to, too. Still, that isn't any of our faults, although hopefully it helps us understand why they're a little upset when folks do something, tethering in this case, to go WAY over the estimated average usage for that device category. >I don't abuse Vision on my phone, and I >don't abuse Vision when I tether. I understand that there will be >those that do. Can't Sprint set up some limits, like xx kB or MB per >day, and if the user goes over, bill him extra?? Theoretically, I suppose they could, but they haven't chosen to move in that direction. Instead, they're working on a solution that will expressly allow tethering. And, you guessed it, they'll announce it when they get the billing part finished. <g> Notan and others in this group have from time to time mentioned "staying under the radar" when doing limited tethering. Here's some background on how that works. The usage model for each of the data plans includes a fairly standard bell curve, ranging from zero usage on up to the maximum theoretical amount that could be pulled across the network by that device category. In the case of the handset model, many things are taken into account when determining the upper end of the curve, such as the very limited amount of memory, the user think time, the time needed to access the various device/server menus and the small navigation buttons, etc. When you purchase the handset plan, you get that usage model applied automatically. Since Sprint's rating engine has no idea what device type you use to access the network, it blindly applies the usage model associated with the plan you purchased. When your usage falls way outside the upper bounds of your usage model, you get flagged. The only remaining question, then, is what are the limits?? All I know is that they are somewhat relative and are not carved in stone. I know that doesn't help much but if anyone who knows wants to chime in, be my guest. SignaturePaul Miner >>>Granted, both can be abused, so how about this? Take a handset and >>>abuse the crap out of it for 24 hours straight. Now tether it to a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>Quite true, but as Jim Seymour pointed out in a previous post, this >>really shouldn't be an issue. no its not true. It might become more true with EVDO, but remember that Vision/1xrtt is only 144kbs max, or about 5-10KB/s. It doesn't take much of a CPU to swallow that slow a data rate, well within the capabilities of the CPU in most cell phones and certainly the PDAphones and multimedia phones can handle it with plenty of CPU cycles to spare. So a suitable streaming app on a suitable cell phone will suck up the entire available Vision bandwidth just as well as a suitable laptop with a similiar app. The difference between handset and laptop usage isn't and shouldn't be viewed in terms of data-consuming *capabilities*, as these are broadly overlapping between the two, and both are constantly scaling upwards, with handsets scaling up more rapidly than laptops. Its irrelevant anyways since both capabilities already far exceed the ability of Vision/1rxtt to deliver data No, the differences lie in terms of *average* user behavior. It has more to do with what the *average* user expects of the handset, what he/she is in the habit of doing, etc. And as I stated elsewhere, at this point, the barriers that divide the two is more tied to the display size and user interface (mouse, keyboard) than any inherent capability to handle data or even store it. Even the code base on higher end handsets (Windows CE and PIE) is identical to some laptops. But at the moment you won't generally see an average user sit in front of his handset for hours surfing the web, etc, as he might on his laptop. If the screens were larger he might. OTOH, there is a growing tendency to start up streaming audio or video apps on handsets and stream data into the handset for hours at a time, and that practice uses at least as much network bandwidth, or more, than typical laptop usage. >It shouldn't be, but it is because all Vision plans were created using >an "estimated average usage" model that applies to that device [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >much forced them into that corner. The competition was offering an >unlimited plan so Sprint had to, too I agree that this "unlimited" notion is one of the key problems to the current situation. I don't know what competition is being referred to that also offered unlimited data, unless you are taking about dialup ISPs, which of course Sprint does not want to be lumped in with. CDMA (Sprint and VZW) were the first on the market to offer dialup-like wireless data (as opposed to the older, much slower 2G data, CDPD, etc). And VZW wasn't offering unlimited data, at least not for under $50/mo. So who was the competition that had cheap unlimited data plans ? Now of course, there are more players, like Tmobile. But not then. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message