
How everyone benefits from Verizon’s FCC-mandated free tethering - maxko87
http://www.extremetech.com/electronics/133810-how-everyone-benefits-from-verizons-fcc-mandated-free-tethering?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=how-everyone-benefits-from-verizons-fcc-mandated-free-tethering
======
Karunamon
FTA, which took the words right out of my mouth:

 _I have no compunction in getting tethering for free, either from wired Play
Store apps, or the root-only hotspot apps. You are simply circumventing a
system that charges you twice for the same service. It’s no different than
sending an IM instead of an expensive SMS._

Tethering charges are nothing more than a naked cash grab. And phone companies
wonder why they're hated...

5 gig is 5 gig, regardless of the device consuming it.

~~~
eli
I don't really get the outrage. Is there some moral or legal obligation that a
service's price must tie directly to its immediate costs?

Netflix charges me the same monthly fee whether I use it or not, is that fair?
After all, on their end they only pay license holders per-stream (AFAIK).

~~~
w1ntermute
> Is there some moral or legal obligation that a service's price must tie
> directly to its immediate costs?

Yes. Verizon and other wireless telecoms have built their businesses on the
back of a limited, public resource (namely, wireless spectrum) leased from the
government (and therefore the people) of the United States. Therefore, they
have a moral (should also be legal, but isn't at the moment) responsibility to
act in an ethical manner.

If this were a market without such barriers to entry, I would say that they're
free to do whatever they want, because competitors would enter the market and
force them to change their policies. But when it comes to wireless telecoms,
it's not possible for such competitors to materialize.

~~~
eli
What is unethical about segmenting customers based on the devices they use?
Would it be better to do away with all forms of "unlimited" plans and just
charge per MB?

~~~
w1ntermute
Unlimited plans have already been done away with by everyone except Sprint.
What's at issue here is them charging extra for data bought by the byte.

I believe that you should be able to purchase data and share it amongst as
many devices as you want (a small activation fee per cellular device may be
acceptable, but nothing of the sort should exist for tethering, since there is
no perceptible difference for the carriers) . This is how it works for wired
internet, and I don't see why wireless should be any different (with the
exception of any wireless specific network management, but that's not at issue
here).

------
gojomo
Note that Karl Bode of DSLReports.com speculates that the tethering decision
may mainly be cover for a less-watched pro-Verizon decision coming down the
road:

From: [http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Verizon-Wireless-
Settles-...](http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Verizon-Wireless-Settles-For-
Blocking-Tethering-Apps-120590)

 _In other words, the FCC took action and finally enforced 2008 rules when
they knew Verizon was already changing their ways -- without FCC involvement.
Meanwhile, the FCC is rumored to be ready to sign off on Verizon's marketing
relationship with the cable industry, despite the serious anti-competitive and
coverage issues that deal raises. This tethering ruling could be a way to
pretend to appear "pro consumery" before approving the Verizon cable deal._

The FCC: even when they do something superficially populist, on the big things
they're in the incumbents' pockets.

------
rrbrambley
I am one of the "lucky" customers who has been able to hold on to my unlimited
plan. So, I'm naturally annoyed that I don't get tethering now.

" _It is not clear that Verizon can differentiate between limited and
unlimited plans through this interface — it might just look for a tethering
plan flag. This could mean a free for all with unlimited users, tethering as
they please._ "

I'm not sure if they're being extremely optimistic here, or I simply don't
understand what the author is saying. Free for all with unlimited users? There
might be some sort of technical problem to solve to prevent unlimited users
from tethering, but my guess is that Verizon will do whatever it takes to
force us to pay, if they can.

~~~
jff
If you're on Android, install Cyanogenmod and get free tethering. I don't use
it a lot, but I've never had any trouble.

~~~
jlgreco
I used it fairly heavily for a while during a move and didn't have any
trouble. I'm pretty sure Verizon either can't/doesn't tell, or just doesn't
care because relatively few people do that.

------
bgramer
I use AT&T for my iPhone but have the unlimited plan in which tethering isn't
allowed. Would this FCC mandate force AT&T to remove the tethering plan as
Verizon did?

~~~
ben1040
Nope. AT&T's spectrum is not subject to the open access restrictions (and the
iPhone, not being LTE at present, would not be subject to it anyway).

------
seltzered_
T-mobile just started routing my tethered access to an upsell page today -
have been tethering with my phone for years. From what i was reading, the
ruling only applies to "c-block" spectrum - i.e tmobile, sprint, at&t aren't
affected by the ruling.

I'm more than annoyed, and will probably be either switching carriers or just
getting a separate wimax device soon.

My plan is arguably a grey area - it's "unlimited", but only the first 5 gigs
are at full speed.

------
brianjolney
wasn't the C spectrum as part of this fine from the FCC based on 4g networks?
IE how does this impact iPhone users?

------
biturd
There are a lot of good arguments for and against a telco's responsibility to
the customer — as well as if this may or may not create a more competitive
market.

What I fail to understand is why "data" has become the new golden ticket? In
the past, when voice was all anyone cared about, we had a relatively
competitive market. Features such as rollover minutes, family plans, and much
more were offered.

For example, I have a 300 minute plan, but have maxed out at 5000 minutes now
because I simply don't talk on the phone ( Rollover ). Maybe in the past, this
was different and cost them more to send data across the wire — but now it is
the same, voice data and "data" data moves across the same pipes as far as I
know.

If the telco's had to be competitive when it was voice only and data was a
luxury — and if data and voice are no different — why are the telco's having
such a hard time with this?

If a plan has 300 minutes of talk time, how about I get 300MB of data time. If
I don't use it all, then give me rollover data just like they do with voice.

These telco's basically have one competitor, that being the cable company.
From what I understand, DSL had new subscriber counts that were so low I was
shocked — something like a few thousand new accounts in total.

If they want to compete with cable, right now, they can't, but as soon as
their speeds come in-line with cable, they have the potential to be your phone
and internet. And unlike cable, who only sends out one bill, the telco gets to
send out a bill to every single person. Now, everyone has their own Internet
connection and is paying for it.

From what I understand, telco's are paying pennies per GB on this data from
their upstream. Places like Netflix drop the data as close to their doorstep
as possible, at which point, there is zero bandwidth cost for the ISP to
shuffle those bits around to users. If I use all of my 500GB a month, that
costs the cable co. well under a dollar in upstream fees. Yes, they have
overheads with their equipment and business operations, but that can't
possibly amount to the overage fee's they charge, let alone the fact it costs
me $70.00 a month or more for a decent Internet connection.

They are going to over-charge themselves out of the game. As soon as wifi is
ubiquitous and phones learn how to jump from one AP to another, things will
get interesting. If I were closer, there is an ISP called Sonic that is
bringing 1 Gbps symmetric Fiber to people's homes for a very reasonable fee,
around $50.00 a month I believe.

Look at AT&T and SMS messages. Apple releases iMessage, making there no need
for SMS for iPhone to iPhone users. But I still have to keep SMS running for
those people who don't have an iPhone. Apple could solve a lot of this by
opening up iMessage so others can use the protocol — which I believe Steve
Jobs said was supposed to happen. If Android could talk to iPhone over
iMessages, it would wake up the telco's very quick. The only remaining need
would be the tweekers and their pay as you go phones, and banks, credit cards,
and other pure txt services that send alerts. Though they could simply put in
an iMessage gateway — but I have a feeling that would take years for them to
implement.

