
Let my Wi-Fi go: FCC rules Verizon can't charge for Wi-Fi tethering - tanglesome
http://www.zdnet.com/let-my-wi-fi-go-fcc-rules-verizon-cant-charge-for-wi-fi-tethering-7000001916/
======
juiceandjuice
The most important reason why this is a no-brainer is because of the 700Mhz
spectrum auction. The open device restriction (or lack of restrictions really)
was a key provision that google pushed for.

I'm sure some people are going to say the government is overstepping their
authority, but in fact, they aren't. Verizon was overstepping their authority
in this case.

Everybody has google to thank for this.

~~~
paul9290
I guess this is nice to see, but with Verizon's new data plans they are eager
for you to use as much bandwidth as possible.

Thankfully and at the moment there are carriers that provide unlimited data
like Sprint. We need more of them!

~~~
Steko
Doesn't Sprint also throttle you over a certain GB limit?

I have a hard time deciding if I want unlimited or not. I certainly don't need
unlimited. I know there are people who use 50-100+ GB a month but I don't come
anywhere near that and don't want to subsidize those people. I'm perfectly
fine with a per GB charge or a decent sized base plan and a reasonable per GB
overage. OTOH those caps need to grow every year because in a few years 100 GB
a month will probably be today's 200 MB plan. So in that case "unlimited" has
some futureproofing to it.

~~~
tedunangst
I had a Sprint 4G hotspot with unlimited data. Until one month they decided to
change my plan to 5GB with big overage charges. They "announced" this change
by slipping a notice in the PDF ebills I never once downloaded. After $200 in
overage charges (which I disputed for hours, only to be repeatedly told I was
given "valid" notice) I cancelled the service. Fuck Sprint.

I should mention this occurred right at the same time they were making a big
advertising push about how their unlimited data plans were truly unlimited.
The fine print was that _only_ phones got unlimited data. Hotspots and other
data devices were pushed onto a limited plan even if you started out
unlimited. Fuck Sprint some more.

~~~
pooriaazimi
:) The sad part is they got a "free" $200 from you. I don't think they mind
losing you as a customer!

~~~
thoughtpalette
Oh they should. Word-of-mouth will cost more than $200 in potential customers
from Sprint because of this person and their experience.

------
thetabyte
While this is wondeful, ZDNet misses something _huge_ picked up on Ars.

"The FCC concedes that Verizon may charge $20 per month for customers who
retain grandfathered unlimited data plans."
[http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/07/tethering-apps-
must-b...](http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/07/tethering-apps-must-be-
allowed-fcc-tells-verizon/)

So I won't be benefitting from this. The most ridiculous, bullshit part of all
of this is that _unlimited plans aren't unlimited anyway_. They have "Fair
Access Policy" data caps (5GB for Verizon IIRC) that are just like the modern
plans with a tad higher caps. They just advertise differently. It's the _same
damn thing_. And I don't get free tethering. Ridiculous.

~~~
pasbesoin
Neither did they require Verizon to refund collected fees. Since this was
apparently a clear violation of the licensing agreement (i.e. it was never
"correct" or "permitted" under that agreement), I'd argue the FCC should have
made them make the affected consumers whole.

Now _that_ might have sent a significant message with respect to ending this
kind of bullshit, and to deliberately -- I'd argue, maliciously -- pushing the
limits of what they can get away with.

I don't know how many users actually knuckled under to these fees. But even it
it didn't represent an enormous amount of revenue, refunding it would have
been a nice exercise for their management and administration to undergo. (I
don't care how much of a "hassle" it might cause them.)

~~~
thetabyte
This is an excellent point, and a possible opportunity for class action
lawsuit?

~~~
ipsin
Sorry, class action lawsuits don't exist any more:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_Mobility_v._Concepcion>

(That is, if your contract includes an arbitration clause)

------
RexRollman
Charging for tethering is stupid anyway, as people are just using the
bandwidth they are paying for. The only thing I detest more is that AT&T
forces me to pay for text messages that I didn't even want.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Agreed. So is Apple's charging for media feeds on an iPhone that I read over
my own bandwidth, on my own device, from a 3rd party I have a private
relationship with. Yet that stands somehow.

~~~
matwood
What stands? If the purchase doesn't originate within an app then Apple
doesn't get a cut. They have put rules in place basically saying that the
private relationship must have formed outside the app (no linking to buy
pages), but that is different than what you're complaining about.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
What difference does it make that the purchase originated in an app? That MY
app, using my bandwidth on my device etc. Same argument.

The reason they do it is, of course, that they can. I call it a shakedown, but
lawyers may have another name.

------
robomartin
One small step for man...

The next would be to somehow abolish the per-device data fee structure. We
have seven iOS devices. Only three are actively online. Even at that, when at
home, office or near wifi cellular data does not get used much if a all.
Still, we have to pay 3x the cellular data monthly fee, which is insanity. I
do understand the technical and business issues here, but this cuts both ways:
I know that we are not using these connections anywhere near capacity. And, I
also know that ATT is double charging us because our DSL services (office and
home) are with them...yet we don't get a discount when the iOS devices use the
network for data as opposed to cellular. In other words, they get to charge us
for something that we don't use or, seen another way, we pay twice for the
same data capacity.

Not sure what the solution might look like, but today's plans are starting to
smell bad.

~~~
vacri
Do you also complain that your cable TV isn't used to capacity because you're
not watching all channels 24 hours a day? It seems so peculiar that people
complain that they're not using their internet account to saturation when they
don't make the same complaint about other things.

~~~
robomartin
I am having trouble finding where in my post I said anything about using a
service to saturation. Not that the cable TV analogy holds up.

If you are using an iOS device to download a 100MB game app over WiFi via AT&T
DSL --that you pay for-- while, at the same time paying for a cellular data
plan, AT&T is making making more money on you because their cellular data
bandwidth is not being utilized by they still charge you.

I would venture to say that most iOS devices spend the bulk of their time
within WiFi zones (AT&T or not). This means that a portion of what AT&T
charges for cellular data is never actually used and that is pure profit for
them.

As I said in my post: I don't know what the right solution is, but the current
setup is starting to smell pretty bad.

If the above example doesn't do it for you, think about this. Twenty people
working at a company. The company pays (maybe through AT&T) for Internet
access and provides WiFi to all employees. Every single one of them has a
personal iPhone. Every single one of them pays for a cellular data plan. And,
while at work, every single one of them is using the WiFi access point for the
bulk of the data traffic on their devices. AT&T is making a nice profit on
data bandwidth they never have to deliver over the cellular network.

Later on, those same people go home and are likely to transfer data over their
own (paid) DSL connection rather than use cellular data. Again, double
charging by the telcos, if you will.

Once you do the math past a single iPhone the effect starts to become obvious
very quickly.

Maybe what I am saying is that if I am paying AT&T for cellular data as well
as DSL I should receive a credit on my cellular data plan for the data moved
over DSL as opposed to the cell network. Again, I don't know the first thing
about their business equation, so I'll be the first one to admit that this
proposal could be beyond ridiculous for a hundred and one reasons.

~~~
vacri
The actual cost of the data itself is trivial in comparison to the cost of
connectivity in the first place.

If you really hate it that much, and claim that you effectively never use it,
then get a phone plan without data and just use your wifi. Problem solved.

The thing is, you _do_ use your cellular data, and maintaining that service is
more than just pushing a few ones and zeros.

 _I am having trouble finding where in my post I said anything about using a
service to saturation._

Your post is complaining about paying for unused data, and why can't you just
pay for the data you're actually using - in short, you want a plan that you
saturate and just want to pay for that.

~~~
robomartin
> Your post is complaining about paying for unused data, and why can't you
> just pay for the data you're actually using - in short, you want a plan that
> you saturate and just want to pay for that.

Nope. Sorry. Didn't say that. This is your interpretation and nothing more.
And that's OK.

All I am saying is that I a starting to think that we are over-paying for
connectivity. I don't know exactly where or how, but something about it just
feels wrong. I can't point to it directly because in order to do that I'd have
to know more about the internal numbers of a telco. I don't have that data.
For all I know we are getting a deal. I am more than willing to concede that.
But I need data.

Right now, without said data it feels very much that paying $250 per month for
connectivity when most of the data is going over DSL is not quite a good fit.

Obviously we all (or most) have a need for cellular data outside WiFi zones.
The question is how much and whether or not pricing is fair. I don't have the
answers, just an overall feeling of rotten tomatoes somewhere.

Your suggestion that I personally drop cellular data has nothing whatsoever to
do with the idea that cellular data might not be priced correctly in the
context of multiple devices and the availability (and payment for) parallel
connectivity over DSL/WiFi.

In other words, whether I personally drop cellular data service or not has no
effect over whether or not cellular data is correctly priced.

So, I guess I am not getting your point. Does cellular data service become
fairly priced for everyone else if I -single handedly- drop my service?

~~~
vacri
You're hung up on the flow of data, rather than my point which is having the
connectivity in the first place. Pure data costs really are trivial - plans
with different caps are simply a way of segmenting customers.

I'm also not understanding the difference between "wanting to pay for a group
plan that's only big enough to avoid saturation" and "paying too much for data
we're not using over multiple devices". They seem to be two different ways of
referring to the same thing.

 _Does cellular data service become fairly priced for everyone else if I
-single handedly- drop my service?_ I wasn't saying that. I was saying that
since you were implying that you don't use cellular data, just drop the plan
and move wholly to wifi. It was a solution to your _stated_ problem.

I also said that of course that wasn't the case - which was why I then talked
about connectivity rather then simple ones and zeroes.

Is wireless data priced correctly? How long is a piece of string?

------
nathan_long
>> Telecom companies are government-granted monopolies. Why not acknowledge
that it's already not a free market situation and cap the profit margin

Why not remove the monopoly?

~~~
Steko
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_management>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_allocation>

~~~
jessriedel
My understanding is that the finite bandwidth of the spectrum puts a limit
(for a given level of technology) on the total data capacity of the network,
not on the number of service providers. Could we not have more providers for
the same number of users by divvying the spectrum into more chunks? Instead, I
think the number of providers is limited by the huge entry costs of building
towers. It's the low marginal cost of operating these towers (compared to
their build costs) which leads to monopolies.

I would love clarification.

~~~
russell
Entry is also limited by multi-billion dollar spectrum auctions. Evenid.
Google couldnt win with their $pi B bid.

------
delinka
I'm on the fence on this one because it doesn't prevent going up on all data
plans. Which will just increase Verizon's revenue and probably not cost them
much. However, I'm not advocating price controls.

But I know how to solve this. Someone needs to become the defacto wireless
network that focuses on the network (reliability, bandwidth) and doesn't deal
with consumers. Instead they resell to companies who deal with consumers.

Wonder if I could do a KS campaign...

~~~
SwellJoe
Has a Kickstarter campaign ever raised $4 billion? Because I suspect that's
what it would take to begin building a network from scratch.

There are resellers that focus on data, however...Clear is one. They aren't
great (they share the Sprint Network, which is very bad in some places, and
fair to middling in most), and they reportedly throttle some high usage
customers (I've not run into this, though the times when I've needed a lot of
data, Clear couldn't provide it anyway, even without throttling), but they
don't regulate what you run on the network. All my devices, including phone,
connect through it when I'm on the road.

~~~
bengl3rt
I've had pretty good experience with Clear everywhere except Manhattan, where
the service is horrible.

~~~
SwellJoe
It's pretty good/fast along highways, but not in cities. It's also got much
broader 2G and 3G, in middle of nowhere places, than T-mobile, which is my
cell provider. Since I can't work without some kind of connectivity, I'm
willing to pay for both. T-Mobile is really fast in bigger cities, but it's
easy to find places with not data at all. Clear in Austin is horrible, in
particular, but T-Mobile is crazy fast.

------
eridius
What about AT&T? Will the FCC force them to stop charging too, or is there
some reason why it's different?

~~~
jevinskie
It seems like the ruling was based off of particular regulations for the 4G
(LTE) spectrum. I have a feeling it would not apply to 3G spectrum.

~~~
e1ven
Right - Thank Google for this one. This was one of the conditions Google
received from the FCC in exchange for placing their bid.

[http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iMbsPSv2vatAVvbz_8n0xU3M...](http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iMbsPSv2vatAVvbz_8n0xU3Mfvnw)

------
unoti
When I try to activate tethering on my Verizon Android, it's still telling me
it wants the $30/month. I suppose it's a little soon for this change to
already be implemented, but I'm sure ready!

~~~
JangoSteve
I'm guessing they'd have to send out an OTA update to the OS to remove that
message. Depending on your device, as we've seen, that could take years.

Install the Foxfi app, it's free and gives you wifi tethering on Verizon
Android devices.

~~~
danellis
I expect so, because, IIRC, they had to send out an OTA update to enable the
restriction.

> Depending on your device, as we've seen, that could take years.

The FCC should decide on a reasonable timeframe, and fine them for every day
over that that they still charge for it. Verizon can argue that the updates
come from the handset manufacturers, but the restriction was put there at
Verizon's behest, so they can really only blame themselves.

------
DannyBee
I read the order and press release
([http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012...](http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0731/DOC-315501A1.pdf)
and
[http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012...](http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0731/DA-12-1228A1.pdf))
, and I don't see how it says what zdnet claims. What it really says is:

1\. They can't block devices that offer free tethering

2\. They can't block free tethering applications

This doesn't say "they can't charge for wi-fi tethering".

Just that they can't stop others from offering it for free.

In fact, it specifically allows them to continue to charge folks on unlimited
usage plans for tethering (though folks can terminate that plan without a
termination fee)

The zdnet quote that says verizon no longer charges is just a note in the
order.

------
seanmccann
Don't all of the new Verizon "Share Everything" plans include tethering? I
suppose this is only relevant for archaic data plans (pre June 2012)?

~~~
girasquid
Does being older than 2 months really make something archaic?

------
gojomo
This is the sort of price/service regulation that superficially appears
beneficial to consumers... but might not be pro-consumer in its total effects.

In particular, it could mean customers who would never use tethering wind up
paying incrementally more, because all plans now include that capability, and
Verizon still has sufficient pricing power make up the loss from tethering
fees with other incremental fee increases.

~~~
drewcrawford
This analysis holds up to "unlimited" plans where "tethering" is really a
(poor) proxy for "using a lot of data."

But if you have usage-based pricing (which Verizon does), it doesn't matter
whether that 4GB originates from an iPhone or a MBP. A packet is a packet and
it costs the same to route.

I suppose you could argue that Verizon incurs some additional support burden
for tethering. I question whether or not this support burden outweighs the
costs of supporting people who call in expecting to be able to tether now.

~~~
gojomo
Almost no business charges strictly by commodity packet, because it would be
disastrous for their long-term future: their margins, their ability to learn
from their customers, and their ability to dynamically improve over time.

So any criticism of differentiated pricing based solely on the idea that "a
packet is a packet and it costs the same to route" may be astute in the
static, technical dimension -- but naive in the ultimately more-important
dynamic economic and business dimensions.

~~~
drewcrawford
It may very well be disastrous to Verizon's margins. I do not understand why
protecting those margins are my responsibility, or anyone's responsibility
other than Verizon's.

We're not talking about some cable in the ground upon which Verizon exerts a
legal property interest. We're talking about the airwaves that are the
permanent heritage of the taxpayer (or arguably land owner), which we as a
landlord collectively and temporarily rent out for our sole benefit, in an
adversarial negotiation. The _whole point_ of a negotiation is to increase
your own margins, often at the expense of the other party's. To say our
analysis does this is to say it represents our interests.

------
panthera
Thank god the government is here to tell private companies what they can and
cannot do. The FCC spent $336M of your money last year on such activities.

> During the last two decades, the FCC has manufactured the idea that the
> electromagnetic spectrum used by wireless devices is scarce. Spectrum
> auctions became another way to restrain trade. Deep pocket operators, like
> AT&T and Verizon Wireless, overbid for spectrum and then pass along high
> costs to the consumer in the form of $40 monthly fees and cryptic calling
> plans. It's a longer conversation, but with the right network architecture,
> smart devices can be programmed to share huge swaths of spectrum without
> interfering with other users. If we do it with Wi-Fi for data, we can
> certainly do it for phone calls.

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704594804575649141727853232.html

------
martingordon
I was unaware that Verizon couldn't charge for tethering over LTE, but I did
find it strange that the Verizon iPad has tethering included in any data plan
and the AT&T version does not. I ended up canceling my AT&T order and ordering
a Verizon iPad once I discovered that fact.

That said, it's been almost six months since the new iPad came out and AT&T
has yet to include tethering, so I don't think they see tethering to iPad that
huge a selling point. (in fact, I don't think they even have a way of letting
you pay for tethering if you're on an iPad's prepaid data).

------
runjake
I've just noticed on my iPhone 4S on Verizon I can enable personal hotspot and
not get some warning about being charged anymore. But I very much doubt any
changes have gone into effect this quickly.

Some questions:

Has anyone contacted Verizon Wireless to get official word if the free
tethering has gone into effect?

Has anyone gotten official word from Verizon Wireless if CDMA tethering will
be free, also?

Note: I am aware these are 700mhz restrictions. Note my use of "official word"
above.

------
javert
First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a
Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me and there was no one
left to speak out for me.

------
degenerate
This is so funny. I just moved into my new place today; downloaded a tethering
android application and got online by tethering through my Verizon phone.
First website I open? HN. First article I see (on top)? This one. The point is
that I wasn't quite sure if I would be charged for this or not -- guess not!

------
ComputerGuru
I genuinely do wonder whether or not this will change anything for (current)
Apple customers.

As the iPhone/iPad are non-LTE, CDMA-only devices; I don't foresee this ruling
impacting the current restrictions that bar the entry-level 2GB data plans
from having tethering support.

~~~
AngryParsley
For the most part, you're right. There is one exception: The Verizon 3rd-gen
iPads have LTE. The cheapest prepaid plan is $20/month for 1GB of data, and it
comes with tethering.

~~~
ComputerGuru
Thanks for the correction.

------
sodafountan
So why are they still allowed to do this:
[https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-
ash3/620389_397825864...](https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-
ash3/620389_3978258648735_1903704690_o.jpg)

------
awolf
Great. So now they'll just raise their data prices. Woohoo!

------
faded_giant
What about the other carriers like Spring and AT&T?

------
beedogs
The amount of utter bullshit US phone companies get away with is staggering.
How and why did they think this would fly?

------
sahaskatta
Does this mean that they can simply charge more for the base fee instead?

~~~
abruzzi
Probably, but since tethering is probably a feature 10% of their data
subscribers are interested in, they would also raise the data price on the 90%
that don't need it (who are also be more likely to walk away if prices go up.)

------
thekevan
So will Verizon just disallow tethering instead of allowing it for free?

------
jcromartie
Thank goodness for some sense around telecom companies. Finally!

------
RedwoodCity
Woot!

------
agrover
but do we geta refund??? Doesn't look likely.

------
tkahn6
This is a no-brainer. As others have pointed out, this is a wholly artificial
fee. You still have to pay for the data. They're just charging you for how you
access the data.

Basically it's extortion.

Here's something that congress should do. Telecom companies are government-
granted monopolies. Why not acknowledge that it's already not a free market
situation and cap the profit margin that these companies are allowed to
operate at (like they're doing with health insurance now)?

It's insane that 5GB bandwidth/month is $50. It's insane that text messages
are so expensive. It's insane that the fee to enter into a new 2-year
discounted phone contract isn't proportional to the amount of money the
company has recouped on the original phone.

~~~
nilsbunger
They do it to segment their customers. A lot of us startups do it too when we
offer one plan for $9 per month, another for $19 per month. The delta isn't
necessarily because our _costs_ are different, but rather because the value to
the consumer is different.

You could argue that cellular networks should only be allowed to be dumb pipes
because they are a government-granted monopoly (of spectrum). That would put
them in a similar place as a utility like your electric company, sort of
quasi-private but heavily regulated.

That makes sense, but OTOH utilities are notorious for stupid bureaucracy and
being slow to evolve... So would they still deploy new stuff like LTE quickly?
Would they still subsidize phones?

I'm not sure of the answer, but I think that's what the real debate should be
if you don't want them creating "artificial fees", ie segmenting customers by
value.

~~~
fpgeek
> Would they still subsidize phones?

Is subsidizing phones actually a good idea?

To me, it is one features of the US mobile phone market that looks
particularly unhealthy. For instance, the subsidy is biggest reason cellular
networks can start messing around with what you can and can't run on your
phone in the first place. Otherwise, if you didn't like how your carrier
crippled your phone, you'd wouldn't buy your phone from them (at least for
AT&T and T-Mobile, though I suspect competitive pressure would drag Verizon,
Sprint and the rest along, for the most part).

~~~
nilsbunger
I agree it's probably not a good thing to have subsidies "baked in" by the
carriers.

------
lucian303
In 2006, one Verizon store tried to charge me for tethering. Another confirmed
that at that time, there was no extra ($19.99) charge for tethering.

I've been sent to credit agencies for bills I had paid on more than one
occasion for the same paid bills and my accounts have been switched with other
family members by Verizon on purpose taking over 20 calls and hours to
resolve.

tl;dr: Verizon's service has always been shit. The FCC and our government need
to step it up. Hard to do when you're in Verizon's pockets.

