Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
AT&T removes unlimited plan data caps
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Robin Goodfellow
Jul 12, 2021, 7:32:45 PM7/12/21
to
AT&T removes unlimited plan data caps for iOS and Android owners
https://gizmodo.com/at-t-just-updated-its-top-tier-wireless-plan-with-truly-1847274890
"AT&T announced that its top tier Unlimited Elite plan is getting truly
unlimited data that won't get throttled regardless of how much you use...
with the plan's cost staying the same at $85 per month for a single line...
or $45 per month each for four lines..."
"The uncapped data will apply to both 4G LTE and 5G data"
"Previously, AT&T's Unlimited Elite plan featured a soft cap of 100GB of
data per month, after which a user's data speed was potentially subject to
being throttled depending on their usage and location. "
"mobile hotspot data on the Unlimited Elite plan remains capped, though AT&T
is raising that cap from 30GB to 40GB"
https://gizmodo.com/at-t-just-updated-its-top-tier-wireless-plan-with-truly-1847274890
"AT&T announced that its top tier Unlimited Elite plan is getting truly
unlimited data that won't get throttled regardless of how much you use...
with the plan's cost staying the same at $85 per month for a single line...
or $45 per month each for four lines..."
"The uncapped data will apply to both 4G LTE and 5G data"
"Previously, AT&T's Unlimited Elite plan featured a soft cap of 100GB of
data per month, after which a user's data speed was potentially subject to
being throttled depending on their usage and location. "
"mobile hotspot data on the Unlimited Elite plan remains capped, though AT&T
is raising that cap from 30GB to 40GB"
sms
Jul 12, 2021, 8:03:59 PM7/12/21
to
the hot spot limit of 30GB. The increase in the hot spot limit to 40GB
is nice, but not enough for home broadband.
Dex
Jul 13, 2021, 6:49:08 AM7/13/21
to
Cant remember the name but it worked when one contract I was on would
not allow tethering.
knuttle
Jul 13, 2021, 10:02:14 AM7/13/21
to
On 7/13/2021 3:49 AM, Dex wrote:
>>> "mobile hotspot data on the Unlimited Elite plan remains capped,
>>> though AT&T
>>> is raising that cap from 30GB to 40GB"
>>
>> The previous cap of 100GB is one that few people would ever reach given
>> the hot spot limit of 30GB. The increase in the hot spot limit to 40GB
>> is nice, but not enough for home broadband.
>>
>
> I remember using a app a long time ago that bypassed the tether limit.
> Cant remember the name but it worked when one contract I was on would
> not allow tethering.
Hotspots might be considered different than tethers by the carriers.
>>> "mobile hotspot data on the Unlimited Elite plan remains capped,
>>> though AT&T
>>> is raising that cap from 30GB to 40GB"
>>
>> The previous cap of 100GB is one that few people would ever reach given
>> the hot spot limit of 30GB. The increase in the hot spot limit to 40GB
>> is nice, but not enough for home broadband.
>>
>
> I remember using a app a long time ago that bypassed the tether limit.
> Cant remember the name but it worked when one contract I was on would
> not allow tethering.
nospam
Jul 13, 2021, 10:07:32 AM7/13/21
to
In article <sck6d4$bs2$1...@dont-email.me>, knuttle
<keith_...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Hotspots might be considered different than tethers by the carriers.
they're not
> Hotspots might be considered different than tethers by the carriers.
sms
Jul 13, 2021, 10:27:44 AM7/13/21
to
ways, some of them primitive, some advanced, of determining tethering.
But in those days, the data limits were pretty low so the only reason
they cared about tethering was because they wanted to charge an extra
fee just for being able to tether.
For a short time, AT&T offered a $30 unlimited data plan for cars, and
the MiFi (called "Spark") plugged into the vehicle's OBD-II port. But it
only got power from the OBD-II port, it didn't determine if the car was
running. It didn't take long for people to buy a female OBD-II connector
<https://www.aliexpress.com/item/33057320936.html> and supply 12 volts
to the "Spark" from an external power source and have unlimited data at
home for $30 per month. That $30 plan is no longer available of course
<https://www.rvmobileinternet.com/att-unlimited-connected-car-data-plan-no-longer-available-for-harman-spark/>.
In 2019, AT&T offered a $15 unlimited data plan for vehicles with a
built in LTE modem, figuring that it would be a lot more difficult for
people to abuse it. RVs were excluded from the deal
<https://www.rvmobileinternet.com/onstar-promotion-unlimited-att-data-for-15-month/>.
Dean Hoffman
Jul 13, 2021, 11:24:53 AM7/13/21
to
On 7/13/2021 2:49:05 AM, Dex wrote:
>> The previous cap of 100GB is one that few people would ever reach given
>> the hot spot limit of 30GB. The increase in the hot spot limit to 40GB
>> is nice, but not enough for home broadband.
>>
>
> I remember using a app a long time ago that bypassed the tether limit.
> Cant remember the name but it worked when one contract I was on would
> not allow tethering.
Isn't tethering essentially limited to a single computer over a wire?
>> The previous cap of 100GB is one that few people would ever reach given
>> the hot spot limit of 30GB. The increase in the hot spot limit to 40GB
>> is nice, but not enough for home broadband.
>>
>
> I remember using a app a long time ago that bypassed the tether limit.
> Cant remember the name but it worked when one contract I was on would
> not allow tethering.
How could you tether and get more than one computer like a hotspot can?
sms
Jul 13, 2021, 12:15:37 PM7/13/21
to
<https://www.4g.co.uk/news/tethering-explained/>: "Tethering is the term
used for broadcasting your phone's mobile signal as a Wi-Fi network,
then hooking a laptop or any other Wi-Fi-enabled device up to it to
connect to the internet. It's sometimes referred to as a mobile hotspot,
personal hotspot, portable hotspot or Wi-Fi hotspot."
Dean Hoffman
Jul 13, 2021, 12:34:02 PM7/13/21
to
On 7/13/2021 6:15:37 PM, sms wrote:
>> Isn't tethering essentially limited to a single computer over a wire?
>> How could you tether and get more than one computer like a hotspot can?
>
> I think that "tethering" includes connecting via Wi-Fi or a cable. From
> <https://www.4g.co.uk/news/tethering-explained/>: "Tethering is the term
> used for broadcasting your phone's mobile signal as a Wi-Fi network,
> then hooking a laptop or any other Wi-Fi-enabled device up to it to
> connect to the internet. It's sometimes referred to as a mobile hotspot,
> personal hotspot, portable hotspot or Wi-Fi hotspot."
On my phone are a lot of settings for "mobile hotspot" "usb tethering" and
>> Isn't tethering essentially limited to a single computer over a wire?
>> How could you tether and get more than one computer like a hotspot can?
>
> I think that "tethering" includes connecting via Wi-Fi or a cable. From
> <https://www.4g.co.uk/news/tethering-explained/>: "Tethering is the term
> used for broadcasting your phone's mobile signal as a Wi-Fi network,
> then hooking a laptop or any other Wi-Fi-enabled device up to it to
> connect to the internet. It's sometimes referred to as a mobile hotspot,
> personal hotspot, portable hotspot or Wi-Fi hotspot."
"Ethernet tethering" each of which may have different limits & conditions.
There is also "tether by bluetooth", "tether by wi-fi", and "tether by usb"
http://www.android.com/tether
My mobile hotspot defaults to "up to 10 other devices" which uses my phone's
mobile data or Wi-Fi connection to access the internet. The Wi-Fi is
automatically turned off when USB tethering or Mobile Hotspot is active.
There is also "Wi-Fi sharing" which can be turned on as a separate action.
That's a lot of terms and conditions all lumped together within one section.
nospam
Jul 13, 2021, 12:39:44 PM7/13/21
to
In article <sckb81$o8b$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Dean Hoffman
> How could you tether and get more than one computer like a hotspot can?
by using a hotspot.
<deanh...@clod.com> wrote:
>
> Isn't tethering essentially limited to a single computer over a wire?
no
>
> Isn't tethering essentially limited to a single computer over a wire?
> How could you tether and get more than one computer like a hotspot can?
nospam
Jul 13, 2021, 12:39:46 PM7/13/21
to
In article <sck7sv$v7c$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
correct.
> Even back in the days of those apps they had
> ways, some of them primitive, some advanced, of determining tethering.
the methods weren't primitive, however, there were ways to bypass the
check, and still are.
> But in those days, the data limits were pretty low so the only reason
> they cared about tethering was because they wanted to charge an extra
> fee just for being able to tether.
no, it's because tethering typically uses a *lot* more data than just a
phone, so they capped it to limit abuse.
what they don't want are people who buy an unlimited data plan and use
it as their main internet service provider.
> For a short time, AT&T offered a $30 unlimited data plan for cars,
for a long time, at&t offered unlimited plans for phones and tablets.
when the iphone was released in 2007, at&t offered an unlimited data
option.
when the ipad was released in 2010, at&t offered two plans, $15/month
for 200 mb and $30/month for unlimited.
within weeks after the ipad came out, they decided to end the unlimited
option, which *really* angered users, however, they grandfathered in
anyone who had already signed up. that lasted until 2017, when they
forced anyone with a grandfathered plan to choose a new plan.
from 2010:
<https://money.cnn.com/2010/06/02/technology/att_iphone_ipad/index.htm>
Previously, AT&T charged a $30-per-month flat fee for unlimited
data for both the iPhone and the iPad, as well as their other smart
phones. AT&T will continue to offer a $15-a-month 250 MB plan
for iPad users. The new pricing schemes will begin June 7.
correct.
> Even back in the days of those apps they had
> ways, some of them primitive, some advanced, of determining tethering.
check, and still are.
> But in those days, the data limits were pretty low so the only reason
> they cared about tethering was because they wanted to charge an extra
> fee just for being able to tether.
phone, so they capped it to limit abuse.
what they don't want are people who buy an unlimited data plan and use
it as their main internet service provider.
> For a short time, AT&T offered a $30 unlimited data plan for cars,
when the iphone was released in 2007, at&t offered an unlimited data
option.
when the ipad was released in 2010, at&t offered two plans, $15/month
for 200 mb and $30/month for unlimited.
within weeks after the ipad came out, they decided to end the unlimited
option, which *really* angered users, however, they grandfathered in
anyone who had already signed up. that lasted until 2017, when they
forced anyone with a grandfathered plan to choose a new plan.
from 2010:
<https://money.cnn.com/2010/06/02/technology/att_iphone_ipad/index.htm>
Previously, AT&T charged a $30-per-month flat fee for unlimited
data for both the iPhone and the iPad, as well as their other smart
phones. AT&T will continue to offer a $15-a-month 250 MB plan
for iPad users. The new pricing schemes will begin June 7.
Frank Slootweg
Jul 13, 2021, 2:07:47 PM7/13/21
to
Dean Hoffman <deanh...@clod.com> wrote:
> On 7/13/2021 2:49:05 AM, Dex wrote:
> >> The previous cap of 100GB is one that few people would ever reach given
> >> the hot spot limit of 30GB. The increase in the hot spot limit to 40GB
> >> is nice, but not enough for home broadband.
> >
> > I remember using a app a long time ago that bypassed the tether limit.
> > Cant remember the name but it worked when one contract I was on would
> > not allow tethering.
>
> Isn't tethering essentially limited to a single computer over a wire?
In normal parlance, it indeed is. The terms 'mobile hotspot'/personal
> On 7/13/2021 2:49:05 AM, Dex wrote:
> >> The previous cap of 100GB is one that few people would ever reach given
> >> the hot spot limit of 30GB. The increase in the hot spot limit to 40GB
> >> is nice, but not enough for home broadband.
> >
> > I remember using a app a long time ago that bypassed the tether limit.
> > Cant remember the name but it worked when one contract I was on would
> > not allow tethering.
>
> Isn't tethering essentially limited to a single computer over a wire?
hotspot' are normally used instead of 'Wi-Fi tethering' [1].
For example my phone lists:
Mobile Hotspot
Bluetooth tethering
USB tethering
Ethernet tethering
So the first choice is named 'Mobile Hotspot', not 'Wi-Fi tethering'.
> How could you tether and get more than one computer like a hotspot can?
[1] 'Tethering'
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tethering>
sms
Jul 13, 2021, 6:01:54 PM7/13/21
to
On 7/13/2021 11:07 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Dean Hoffman <deanh...@clod.com> wrote:
>> On 7/13/2021 2:49:05 AM, Dex wrote:
>>>> The previous cap of 100GB is one that few people would ever reach given
>>>> the hot spot limit of 30GB. The increase in the hot spot limit to 40GB
>>>> is nice, but not enough for home broadband.
>>>
>>> I remember using a app a long time ago that bypassed the tether limit.
>>> Cant remember the name but it worked when one contract I was on would
>>> not allow tethering.
>>
>> Isn't tethering essentially limited to a single computer over a wire?
>
> In normal parlance, it indeed is. The terms 'mobile hotspot'/personal
> hotspot' are normally used instead of 'Wi-Fi tethering' [1].
Whatever, the carrier considers connection by cable or by Wi-Fi as
> Dean Hoffman <deanh...@clod.com> wrote:
>> On 7/13/2021 2:49:05 AM, Dex wrote:
>>>> The previous cap of 100GB is one that few people would ever reach given
>>>> the hot spot limit of 30GB. The increase in the hot spot limit to 40GB
>>>> is nice, but not enough for home broadband.
>>>
>>> I remember using a app a long time ago that bypassed the tether limit.
>>> Cant remember the name but it worked when one contract I was on would
>>> not allow tethering.
>>
>> Isn't tethering essentially limited to a single computer over a wire?
>
> In normal parlance, it indeed is. The terms 'mobile hotspot'/personal
> hotspot' are normally used instead of 'Wi-Fi tethering' [1].
tethering and hotspot. Obviously they don't want someone on an unlimited
data plan setting things up as a replacement for broadband internet.
Except of course if they're selling it to you with an LTE or 5G modem,
<https://www.telecompetitor.com/verizon-to-take-on-att-cable-with-5g-home-internet-expansion/>.
Verizon has been running around my city putting up mmWave 5G cells, much
to the chagrin of some homeowners, to sell what they're calling
"wireless broadband" and compete against Comcast and AT&T, both of which
are selling gigabit internet over fiber.
Dean Hoffman
Jul 13, 2021, 9:42:28 PM7/13/21
to
On 7/13/2021 8:07:44 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Mobile Hotspot
> Bluetooth tethering
> USB tethering
> Ethernet tethering
I think some of the information in this discussion might be wrong because
> Mobile Hotspot
> Bluetooth tethering
> USB tethering
> Ethernet tethering
some of the sharing mechanisms are only for a single computer while others
are up to 10 on my phone.
My phone help says "Use USB tethering to share your device's mobile network
connection with a single computer via a USB cable" where it doesn't mention
that you can share the Wi-Fi network that way. Just the mobile network.
That phone help says "When you connect your device to a computer via as USB
cable, you can either share your mobile network connection by tethering or
you can share files. You can do both [at the same time]."
In addition to Mobile Hotspot, Bluetooth tethering, USB tethering
& Ethernet tethering there is a separate Wi-Fi sharing setting on my phone.
The phone help says USB tethering works with Windows & Linux but not others.
For "Mobile Hotspot" to work, the phone help says you must have the
"Smartphone Mobile Hotspot service" added to your payment plan. Mine has a
"Maximum Connections" of setting from 1 to 10.
The phone help also says "Wi-Fi is turned off when USB tethering or Mobile
Hotspot is active."
That indicates some of the information in this discussion is not correct.
Joerg Lorenz
Jul 17, 2021, 2:13:20 AM7/17/21
to
Am 13.07.21 um 17:25 schrieb Dean Hoffman:
Wikipedia:
Tethering, or phone-as-modem (PAM), is the sharing of a mobile device's
Internet connection with other connected computers. Connection of a
mobile device with other devices can be done over wireless LAN (Wi-Fi),
over Bluetooth or by physical connection using a cable, for example
through USB.
If tethering is done over WLAN, the feature may be branded as a personal
hotspot or mobile hotspot, which allows the device to serve as a
portable router. Mobile hotspots may be protected by a PIN or
password.[1] The Internet-connected mobile device can act as a portable
wireless access point and router for devices connected to it.
Tethering, or phone-as-modem (PAM), is the sharing of a mobile device's
Internet connection with other connected computers. Connection of a
mobile device with other devices can be done over wireless LAN (Wi-Fi),
over Bluetooth or by physical connection using a cable, for example
through USB.
If tethering is done over WLAN, the feature may be branded as a personal
hotspot or mobile hotspot, which allows the device to serve as a
portable router. Mobile hotspots may be protected by a PIN or
password.[1] The Internet-connected mobile device can act as a portable
wireless access point and router for devices connected to it.
Joerg Lorenz
Jul 17, 2021, 2:17:30 AM7/17/21
to
Am 14.07.21 um 03:42 schrieb Dean Hoffman:
Irrespective of the device and the technology used to offer this connection.
> On 7/13/2021 8:07:44 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>> Mobile Hotspot
>> Bluetooth tethering
>> USB tethering
>> Ethernet tethering
>
> I think some of the information in this discussion might be wrong because
> some of the sharing mechanisms are only for a single computer while others
> are up to 10 on my phone.
Simply said: Tethering is simply sharing an internet connection.
>> Mobile Hotspot
>> Bluetooth tethering
>> USB tethering
>> Ethernet tethering
>
> I think some of the information in this discussion might be wrong because
> some of the sharing mechanisms are only for a single computer while others
> are up to 10 on my phone.
Irrespective of the device and the technology used to offer this connection.
sms
Jul 17, 2021, 10:08:19 AM7/17/21
to
On 7/16/2021 11:13 PM, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
<snio>
> The Internet-connected mobile device can act as a portable
> wireless access point and router for devices connected to it.
This is why unlimited data is for the phone only, not for tethered
devices (whether wired or wireless). Someone could use a phone as a
broadband modem and easily use hundreds of gigabytes, or even multiple
terabytes of data per month.
Some carriers also detect when you're streaming video and limit the
resolution or lower the data rate. Using a VPN can bypass these limits
but there's no point in doing so unless you're tethering and watching on
a larger screen, in which case you'd reach your tethering data limit
pretty quickly.
If you want to stream video from the phone's data connection you're
better off connecting the phone's HDMI port directly to the television
since that isn't tethering. Some streaming services, like Netflix, use
HDCP to prevent this unless you have an HDCP compliant television or use
additional hardware.
<snio>
> The Internet-connected mobile device can act as a portable
> wireless access point and router for devices connected to it.
devices (whether wired or wireless). Someone could use a phone as a
broadband modem and easily use hundreds of gigabytes, or even multiple
terabytes of data per month.
Some carriers also detect when you're streaming video and limit the
resolution or lower the data rate. Using a VPN can bypass these limits
but there's no point in doing so unless you're tethering and watching on
a larger screen, in which case you'd reach your tethering data limit
pretty quickly.
If you want to stream video from the phone's data connection you're
better off connecting the phone's HDMI port directly to the television
since that isn't tethering. Some streaming services, like Netflix, use
HDCP to prevent this unless you have an HDCP compliant television or use
additional hardware.
JF Mezei
Jul 17, 2021, 6:40:27 PM7/17/21
to
On 2021-07-17 02:13, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Tethering, or phone-as-modem (PAM), is the sharing of a mobile device's
> Internet connection with other connected computers.
Prior to AT&T getting the iPhone, carriers generally did not
> Tethering, or phone-as-modem (PAM), is the sharing of a mobile device's
> Internet connection with other connected computers.
differentiate between normal and "tethered" use. It was AT&T who
required Apple to introduce differentiation and its systems then started
to treat normal vs tethered differently. Other carriers followed suit.
AT&T initially have overwhelmed uplinks from its towers who had never
seen such data use, so it needed ways to dissuade use of data.
Tethering in the past ended up using far more data than a tiny phone
with a WAP browser. (though with the iPhone, the difference started to
diminish since iPhone started to use more and more data).
And once HSPA+ arrived with speeds that beat landline DSL, the carriers
have to add as many disincentives for the cellular service to be used as
a landline replacement for iNternet. (such as lower data speeds on the
tethered connection (which often uses different APN to differentiate the
service).
The USA is less familiar with this because it was late in adopting GSM
so there was less time between GPRS and tethering becoming available and
the time the iPhone arrived causing AT&T a lot of capacity problems.
In other countries, tethering was available unrestricted for quite a bit
fo time before iPhone arrived and carrers started to restrict it
"because they could".
nospam
Jul 17, 2021, 6:58:43 PM7/17/21
to
In article <u%III.16876$tL2....@fx43.iad>, JF Mezei
> It was AT&T who
> required Apple to introduce differentiation and its systems then started
> to treat normal vs tethered differently. Other carriers followed suit.
nope.
<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>
> Prior to AT&T getting the iPhone, carriers generally did not
> differentiate between normal and "tethered" use.
yes they did.
>
> Prior to AT&T getting the iPhone, carriers generally did not
> differentiate between normal and "tethered" use.
> It was AT&T who
> required Apple to introduce differentiation and its systems then started
> to treat normal vs tethered differently. Other carriers followed suit.
Lewis
Jul 17, 2021, 8:22:09 PM7/17/21
to
In message <u%III.16876$tL2....@fx43.iad> JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 2021-07-17 02:13, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>> Tethering, or phone-as-modem (PAM), is the sharing of a mobile device's
>> Internet connection with other connected computers.
> Prior to AT&T getting the iPhone, carriers generally did not
> differentiate between normal and "tethered" use. It was AT&T who
> required Apple to introduce differentiation and its systems then started
> to treat normal vs tethered differently. Other carriers followed suit.
This is not only totally wrong, but also totally idiotic. The mechanism
> On 2021-07-17 02:13, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>> Tethering, or phone-as-modem (PAM), is the sharing of a mobile device's
>> Internet connection with other connected computers.
> Prior to AT&T getting the iPhone, carriers generally did not
> differentiate between normal and "tethered" use. It was AT&T who
> required Apple to introduce differentiation and its systems then started
> to treat normal vs tethered differently. Other carriers followed suit.
for seeing if you are tethered is a root part of TCP/IP and uses the TTL
that shows the NATed devices with a TTL 1 greater than the device
itself.
--
It was sad music. But it waved its sadness like a battle flag. It
said the universe had done all it could, but you were still
alive.
nospam
Jul 17, 2021, 8:46:34 PM7/17/21
to
In article <slrnsf6t1g....@m1mini.local>, Lewis
recall, which could be changed on some phones if the msl was known.
<g.k...@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote:
>
> > Prior to AT&T getting the iPhone, carriers generally did not
> > differentiate between normal and "tethered" use. It was AT&T who
> > required Apple to introduce differentiation and its systems then started
> > to treat normal vs tethered differently. Other carriers followed suit.
>
> This is not only totally wrong, but also totally idiotic. The mechanism
> for seeing if you are tethered is a root part of TCP/IP and uses the TTL
> that shows the NATed devices with a TTL 1 greater than the device
> itself.
the usual method is a different apn or another flag whose name i can't
>
> > Prior to AT&T getting the iPhone, carriers generally did not
> > differentiate between normal and "tethered" use. It was AT&T who
> > required Apple to introduce differentiation and its systems then started
> > to treat normal vs tethered differently. Other carriers followed suit.
>
> This is not only totally wrong, but also totally idiotic. The mechanism
> for seeing if you are tethered is a root part of TCP/IP and uses the TTL
> that shows the NATed devices with a TTL 1 greater than the device
> itself.
recall, which could be changed on some phones if the msl was known.
Joerg Lorenz
Jul 18, 2021, 2:48:29 AM7/18/21
to
Am 17.07.21 um 16:08 schrieb sms:
forbidding tethering is worthless.
--
De gustibus non est disputandum
> On 7/16/2021 11:13 PM, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
>
> <snio>
>
>> The Internet-connected mobile device can act as a portable
>> wireless access point and router for devices connected to it.
>
> This is why unlimited data is for the phone only, not for tethered
> devices (whether wired or wireless). Someone could use a phone as a
> broadband modem and easily use hundreds of gigabytes, or even multiple
> terabytes of data per month.
That is a completely different issue and therefore OT. A contract
>
> <snio>
>
>> The Internet-connected mobile device can act as a portable
>> wireless access point and router for devices connected to it.
>
> This is why unlimited data is for the phone only, not for tethered
> devices (whether wired or wireless). Someone could use a phone as a
> broadband modem and easily use hundreds of gigabytes, or even multiple
> terabytes of data per month.
forbidding tethering is worthless.
--
De gustibus non est disputandum
Joerg Lorenz
Jul 18, 2021, 2:57:15 AM7/18/21
to
Am 18.07.21 um 00:40 schrieb JF Mezei:
public mobile networks is concerned.
> In other countries, tethering was available unrestricted for quite a bit
> fo time before iPhone arrived and carrers started to restrict it
> "because they could".
No carrier in Europe is limiting or forbidding the use of tethering.
This cannot be changed anymore. The loss of market share would be
economically lethal. After the use of a certain amount of data the speed
is throttled to prevent "unfair use".
> The USA is less familiar with this because it was late in adopting GSM
> so there was less time between GPRS and tethering becoming available and
> the time the iPhone arrived causing AT&T a lot of capacity problems.
The USA lags Europe still by years as far as the productive usage of
> so there was less time between GPRS and tethering becoming available and
> the time the iPhone arrived causing AT&T a lot of capacity problems.
public mobile networks is concerned.
> In other countries, tethering was available unrestricted for quite a bit
> fo time before iPhone arrived and carrers started to restrict it
> "because they could".
This cannot be changed anymore. The loss of market share would be
economically lethal. After the use of a certain amount of data the speed
is throttled to prevent "unfair use".
Lewis
Jul 18, 2021, 11:30:39 AM7/18/21
to
TTL.
In fact, you can hack certain cellular routers to set the TTL for all
connected devices to the same, thus getting unlimited data without the
cellular provide knowing you are tethering.
I have not doe this myself as I have no need for it, but I know someone
who does for their frequent road-trip vacations that last a few months
at a time.
--
"Are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
"Umm.. I think so Bigbrainy-fishface-stovepipe-wiggleroom-Arlene, but
if you get a long little doggy wouldn't you just call it a
Dachshund?"
nospam
Jul 18, 2021, 1:25:12 PM7/18/21
to
In article <slrnsf8i8t....@m1mini.local>, Lewis
> In fact, you can hack certain cellular routers to set the TTL for all
> connected devices to the same, thus getting unlimited data without the
> cellular provide knowing you are tethering.
not if they use a different method.
the link below lists several methods, including the mac address and
what the destination server is. for example, if someone connects to
windows update servers, it's probably a tethered windows pc, not a
phone.
<https://android.stackexchange.com/questions/47819/how-can-phone-compani
es-detect-tethering-incl-wifi-hotspot>
> I have not doe this myself as I have no need for it, but I know someone
> who does for their frequent road-trip vacations that last a few months
> at a time.
i used to use the other methods.
<g.k...@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote:
> >> > Prior to AT&T getting the iPhone, carriers generally did not
> >> > differentiate between normal and "tethered" use. It was AT&T who
> >> > required Apple to introduce differentiation and its systems then started
> >> > to treat normal vs tethered differently. Other carriers followed suit.
> >>
> >> This is not only totally wrong, but also totally idiotic. The mechanism
> >> for seeing if you are tethered is a root part of TCP/IP and uses the TTL
> >> that shows the NATed devices with a TTL 1 greater than the device
> >> itself.
>
> > the usual method is a different apn or another flag whose name i can't
> > recall, which could be changed on some phones if the msl was known.
>
> For data that was within the cell network, but for Internet use it's the
> TTL.
not always.
> >> > Prior to AT&T getting the iPhone, carriers generally did not
> >> > differentiate between normal and "tethered" use. It was AT&T who
> >> > required Apple to introduce differentiation and its systems then started
> >> > to treat normal vs tethered differently. Other carriers followed suit.
> >>
> >> This is not only totally wrong, but also totally idiotic. The mechanism
> >> for seeing if you are tethered is a root part of TCP/IP and uses the TTL
> >> that shows the NATed devices with a TTL 1 greater than the device
> >> itself.
>
> > the usual method is a different apn or another flag whose name i can't
> > recall, which could be changed on some phones if the msl was known.
>
> For data that was within the cell network, but for Internet use it's the
> TTL.
> In fact, you can hack certain cellular routers to set the TTL for all
> connected devices to the same, thus getting unlimited data without the
> cellular provide knowing you are tethering.
the link below lists several methods, including the mac address and
what the destination server is. for example, if someone connects to
windows update servers, it's probably a tethered windows pc, not a
phone.
<https://android.stackexchange.com/questions/47819/how-can-phone-compani
es-detect-tethering-incl-wifi-hotspot>
> I have not doe this myself as I have no need for it, but I know someone
> who does for their frequent road-trip vacations that last a few months
> at a time.
sms
Jul 18, 2021, 4:10:16 PM7/18/21
to
On 7/17/2021 3:40 PM, JF Mezei wrote:
<snip>
> In other countries, tethering was available unrestricted for quite a bit
> fo time before iPhone arrived and carrers started to restrict it
> "because they could".
It really wasn't "because they could," it was really because they had
to. Any loophole that enabled users to use more data, at higher speed,
at lower cost, would quickly be taken advantage of, overwhelming the
network without providing sufficient revenue to increase network capacity.
<snip>
> In other countries, tethering was available unrestricted for quite a bit
> fo time before iPhone arrived and carrers started to restrict it
> "because they could".
to. Any loophole that enabled users to use more data, at higher speed,
at lower cost, would quickly be taken advantage of, overwhelming the
network without providing sufficient revenue to increase network capacity.
JF Mezei
Jul 18, 2021, 7:42:09 PM7/18/21
to
On 2021-07-17 18:58, nospam wrote:
>> Prior to AT&T getting the iPhone, carriers generally did not
>> differentiate between normal and "tethered" use.
>
> yes they did.
Handsets before the iPhone did not support different APNs for tethering
>> Prior to AT&T getting the iPhone, carriers generally did not
>> differentiate between normal and "tethered" use.
>
> yes they did.
so there was no differentiation between the two types of traffic. And
remember that prior to iPhone, carriers had far lower usage limits so
you would reach limit very quckly when tethering on laptop so it wasn't
a big issue for network capacity.
Apple succeeded in getting carriers to provide much mroe generous gig
limits. (In Canada, Rogers was *forced" by Apple to provide 6GB for $30
(on top of voice service) where in the past it provided GPRS in megabytes.
nospam
Jul 18, 2021, 7:50:48 PM7/18/21
to
In article <k%2JI.47583$dp5....@fx48.iad>, JF Mezei
there are also other methods to determine tether versus non-tether.
> And
> remember that prior to iPhone, carriers had far lower usage limits so
> you would reach limit very quckly when tethering on laptop so it wasn't
> a big issue for network capacity.
false.
> Apple succeeded in getting carriers to provide much mroe generous gig
> limits. (In Canada, Rogers was *forced" by Apple to provide 6GB for $30
> (on top of voice service) where in the past it provided GPRS in megabytes.
when the iphone launched in 2007, at&t offered unlimited data (as well
as lower priced capped plans).
at&t grossly underestimated how much data people would use, and that's
*without* tethering.
their network was very quickly overloaded, resulting in numerous
complaints about shitty service, mostly in dense urban areas such as
new york city and san francisco.
that was a significant reason why at&t delayed offering the ability to
tether despite iphoneos (as it was called at the time) fully supporting
it.
<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>
> >> Prior to AT&T getting the iPhone, carriers generally did not
> >> differentiate between normal and "tethered" use.
> >
> > yes they did.
>
>
> Handsets before the iPhone did not support different APNs for tethering
> so there was no differentiation between the two types of traffic.
they most certainly did. i had several of them.
>
> >> Prior to AT&T getting the iPhone, carriers generally did not
> >> differentiate between normal and "tethered" use.
> >
> > yes they did.
>
>
> Handsets before the iPhone did not support different APNs for tethering
> so there was no differentiation between the two types of traffic.
there are also other methods to determine tether versus non-tether.
> And
> remember that prior to iPhone, carriers had far lower usage limits so
> you would reach limit very quckly when tethering on laptop so it wasn't
> a big issue for network capacity.
> Apple succeeded in getting carriers to provide much mroe generous gig
> limits. (In Canada, Rogers was *forced" by Apple to provide 6GB for $30
> (on top of voice service) where in the past it provided GPRS in megabytes.
as lower priced capped plans).
at&t grossly underestimated how much data people would use, and that's
*without* tethering.
their network was very quickly overloaded, resulting in numerous
complaints about shitty service, mostly in dense urban areas such as
new york city and san francisco.
that was a significant reason why at&t delayed offering the ability to
tether despite iphoneos (as it was called at the time) fully supporting
it.
sms
Jul 18, 2021, 8:38:23 PM7/18/21
to
Once the carriers began providing more data that's when they started
worrying about tethering. Some of them imposed extra fees if you used
your data allocation while tethering. So you then had apps that let you
tether without paying that fee but the carriers were often able to
figure out when a user was tethering.
nospam
Jul 18, 2021, 9:11:49 PM7/18/21
to
In article <sd2hhu$cl4$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
ftfy
> Once the carriers began providing more data that's when they started
> worrying about tethering. Some of them imposed extra fees if you used
> your data allocation while tethering. So you then had apps that let you
> tether without paying that fee but the carriers were often able to
> figure out when a user was tethering.
that was long before the iphone was even an idea, let alone an actual
shipping product.
i had phones at least as far back as 2000 that could detect tethering
versus non-tethering via apn or other methods. the speeds available at
the time from the carriers were the limiting factor, but were fine for
things such as ssh.
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> >>> Prior to AT&T getting the iPhone, carriers generally did not
> >>> differentiate between normal and "tethered" use.
> >>
> >> yes they did.
> >
> >
> > Handsets before the iPhone did not support different APNs for tethering
> > so there was no differentiation between the two types of traffic. And
> > remember that prior to iPhone, carriers had far lower usage limits so
> > you would reach limit very quckly when tethering on laptop so it wasn't
> > a big issue for network capacity.
> >
> > Apple succeeded in getting carriers to provide much mroe generous gig
> > limits. (In Canada, Rogers was *forced" by Apple to provide 6GB for $30
> > (on top of voice service) where in the past it provided GPRS in megabytes.
>
> sms & jf mezei are wrong of course .
> >>> Prior to AT&T getting the iPhone, carriers generally did not
> >>> differentiate between normal and "tethered" use.
> >>
> >> yes they did.
> >
> >
> > Handsets before the iPhone did not support different APNs for tethering
> > so there was no differentiation between the two types of traffic. And
> > remember that prior to iPhone, carriers had far lower usage limits so
> > you would reach limit very quckly when tethering on laptop so it wasn't
> > a big issue for network capacity.
> >
> > Apple succeeded in getting carriers to provide much mroe generous gig
> > limits. (In Canada, Rogers was *forced" by Apple to provide 6GB for $30
> > (on top of voice service) where in the past it provided GPRS in megabytes.
>
ftfy
> Once the carriers began providing more data that's when they started
> worrying about tethering. Some of them imposed extra fees if you used
> your data allocation while tethering. So you then had apps that let you
> tether without paying that fee but the carriers were often able to
> figure out when a user was tethering.
shipping product.
i had phones at least as far back as 2000 that could detect tethering
versus non-tethering via apn or other methods. the speeds available at
the time from the carriers were the limiting factor, but were fine for
things such as ssh.
JF Mezei
Jul 20, 2021, 2:09:06 AM7/20/21
to
On 2021-07-18 21:11, nospam wrote:
> i had phones at least as far back as 2000 that could detect tethering
As one who has defended Verizon so much, I have to ask: Which carrier
> i had phones at least as far back as 2000 that could detect tethering
were you with in 2000?
nospam
Jul 20, 2021, 9:26:19 AM7/20/21
to
In article <5MtJI.63119$VU3....@fx46.iad>, JF Mezei
> I have to ask: Which carrier
> were you with in 2000?
sprint at that time, and very familiar with tethering on all carriers
since that was something i did on a regular basis.
<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>
> > i had phones at least as far back as 2000 that could detect tethering
>
> As one who has defended Verizon so much,
i have never defended verizon.
>
> > i had phones at least as far back as 2000 that could detect tethering
>
> As one who has defended Verizon so much,
> I have to ask: Which carrier
> were you with in 2000?
since that was something i did on a regular basis.
Savageduck
Jul 20, 2021, 10:17:25 AM7/20/21
to
On Jul 19, 2021, JF Mezei wrote
(in article <5MtJI.63119$VU3....@fx46.iad>):
Forget about 2000. In 1987 I had a Nokia brick on GTE MobileNet which eventually became Verizon.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
(in article <5MtJI.63119$VU3....@fx46.iad>):
--
Regards,
Savageduck
nospam
Jul 20, 2021, 10:32:44 AM7/20/21
to
In article <0001HW.26A7126F06...@news.giganews.com>,
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> >
> > > i had phones at least as far back as 2000 that could detect tethering
> >
> > As one who has defended Verizon so much, I have to ask: Which carrier
> > were you with in 2000?
>
> Forget about 2000. In 1987 I had a Nokia brick on GTE MobileNet which eventually became Verizon.
were you tethering it to your mac se ?
> >
> > > i had phones at least as far back as 2000 that could detect tethering
> >
> > As one who has defended Verizon so much, I have to ask: Which carrier
> > were you with in 2000?
>
> Forget about 2000. In 1987 I had a Nokia brick on GTE MobileNet which eventually became Verizon.
sms
Jul 20, 2021, 12:48:20 PM7/20/21
to
Valley until they took over the Cellular One network. I recall people
buying AT&T service up in Sacramento then using it in the Bay Area
because AT&T was offering nationwide roaming, and AT&T being upset about
it because Bay Area users were roaming most of the time.
JF Mezei
Jul 20, 2021, 4:56:20 PM7/20/21
to
On 2021-07-20 09:26, nospam wrote:
>> were you with in 2000?
>
> sprint at that time, and very familiar with tethering on all carriers
> since that was something i did on a regular basis.
The only carriers with whom you could have had experience with GSM
>> were you with in 2000?
>
> sprint at that time, and very familiar with tethering on all carriers
> since that was something i did on a regular basis.
Thetering and APNs were Voicestream and Omnipoint (not sure if they had
already merged and not sure if they had deployed GPRS by then) and I
think Pac Bell was also GSM at that point but not sure.
By 2000's Sprint's GSM network in Washington DC had long been sold to
Omnipoint/Voicestream (now called T-Mobile).
If you were with Sprint, you could not have any knowledge of how
thethering worked on GSM networks and wouldn't have known that it was
still needed to manually enter the APN for GPRS service because that
part of proviosioning wasn't yet part of OTA provisioning standards.
CDMA didn't get the equivalent of GPRS (1XRTT) actually deployed until
2002, so you coudln't have had experience with tethering on a CDMA
network in 2000.
AT&T started its conversion from TDMA (IS-136) to GSM 2G in 2001.
(along with its then partly owned partner Cantel AT&T in Canada (now
Rogers Wireless). The migration was done because IS-136 was a dead end
and its channels were too narrow to offer decent speeds. The GSM
channels were much wider (GSM 2G also used time division but as each
time-divided channel was wider, each time slot within a channel allowed
far more data to be transmitted).
There is similar difference in 3G where both GSM and CDMA used code
division multiple access, but the GSM implememntation used wider
channels so have far greater capacity which is why HSPA managed to get
speeds up to 42mbps while CDMA2000 was stuck at 3mbps.
nospam
Jul 20, 2021, 5:30:26 PM7/20/21
to
In article <SLGJI.48840$h8....@fx47.iad>, JF Mezei
note the copyright date of 2000:
<https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/cYMAAOSwCdVe65uH/s-l1600.jpg>
<https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/wHUAAOSwFjZe65uS/s-l1600.jpg>
<https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/5fEAAOSwEfJe65uN/s-l1600.jpg>
<https://www.altaba.com/news-releases/news-release-details/sprint-brings-
power-wireless-internet-palm-your-hand>
Aug 11, 1999
Sprint Brings The Power Of The Wireless Internet To The Palm Of
Your Hand With The Introduction Of The Sprint PCS Wireless Web
...
SPRINT PCS WIRELESS WEB CONNECTION: Sprint PCS customers will
be able to do virtually anything they do today while tethered to a
wireline modem - "on the go," and wirelessly. Sprint PCS Wireless
Web Connection will allow users with laptops, palmtops or other
personal digital assistants (PDAs) to connect to the nation's largest
all-digital, all-PCS nationwide wireless network. Designed with the
mobile workforce in mind, connectivity is the latest offering within
The Sprint PCS Clear Wireless Workplace - a suite of simple, flexible
wireless business solutions. Connection allows Sprint PCS customers
to use their Sprint PCS Phones in place of a modem to connect to
their important, personal information tools and corporate networking
content, such as email, schedules, task lists, contacts/address
books, order forms and key documents.
...
The Sprint PCS Wireless Web Connection Kit enables a customer to
access information simply by connecting one end of the cable to the
serial port on most popular portable computing devices (such as a
laptop, Palm Pilot, Windows CE device or other PDA) and the other end
to the port on the Sprint PCS Phone. No special changes are needed
on the corporate network or "back end" for the customer to use
connectivity to access information "real time."...
<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>
> CDMA didn't get the equivalent of GPRS (1XRTT) actually deployed until
> 2002, so you coudln't have had experience with tethering on a CDMA
> network in 2000.
not only could i, but i did.
>
> CDMA didn't get the equivalent of GPRS (1XRTT) actually deployed until
> 2002, so you coudln't have had experience with tethering on a CDMA
> network in 2000.
note the copyright date of 2000:
<https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/cYMAAOSwCdVe65uH/s-l1600.jpg>
<https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/wHUAAOSwFjZe65uS/s-l1600.jpg>
<https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/5fEAAOSwEfJe65uN/s-l1600.jpg>
<https://www.altaba.com/news-releases/news-release-details/sprint-brings-
power-wireless-internet-palm-your-hand>
Aug 11, 1999
Sprint Brings The Power Of The Wireless Internet To The Palm Of
Your Hand With The Introduction Of The Sprint PCS Wireless Web
...
SPRINT PCS WIRELESS WEB CONNECTION: Sprint PCS customers will
be able to do virtually anything they do today while tethered to a
wireline modem - "on the go," and wirelessly. Sprint PCS Wireless
Web Connection will allow users with laptops, palmtops or other
personal digital assistants (PDAs) to connect to the nation's largest
all-digital, all-PCS nationwide wireless network. Designed with the
mobile workforce in mind, connectivity is the latest offering within
The Sprint PCS Clear Wireless Workplace - a suite of simple, flexible
wireless business solutions. Connection allows Sprint PCS customers
to use their Sprint PCS Phones in place of a modem to connect to
their important, personal information tools and corporate networking
content, such as email, schedules, task lists, contacts/address
books, order forms and key documents.
...
The Sprint PCS Wireless Web Connection Kit enables a customer to
access information simply by connecting one end of the cable to the
serial port on most popular portable computing devices (such as a
laptop, Palm Pilot, Windows CE device or other PDA) and the other end
to the port on the Sprint PCS Phone. No special changes are needed
on the corporate network or "back end" for the customer to use
connectivity to access information "real time."...
JF Mezei
Jul 20, 2021, 5:43:08 PM7/20/21
to
On 2021-07-20 10:32, nospam wrote:
>> Forget about 2000. In 1987 I had a Nokia brick on GTE MobileNet which eventually became Verizon.
>
> were you tethering it to your mac se ?
Starting in about 1992, the Motorola AMPS flip phones allowed a dialup
>> Forget about 2000. In 1987 I had a Nokia brick on GTE MobileNet which eventually became Verizon.
>
> were you tethering it to your mac se ?
modem to be plugged in the phone with a special adaptor. You would dial
on the handset, and do dummy ATDT of any number on modem, and you could
then connect to a remote modem. (But this was dependant on good sound
quality of the air link - all analogue).
With GSM 2G before GPRS, they had circuit switched data where the phone
acted as a RS232 extension cord to a dialup modem located in carrier's
premises.
A call was made to one such modem (so billed by minute as a voice call),
but being digital, the link acted as an RS232 extension cord between
your laptop and the modem at the carrier's premises. When you typed in
the ATDT command, it would be sent to the modem at remote end whoch
would dial the number and connect you. As a "phone call", this was
limited to your allocated 1 time slot in one channel.
GPRS changed things by replacing dialup modems with IP routers (and
expecting the handset to talk IP), and most importantly, did away with
circuit switched approach and data was transmitted via one or more time
slots that were not used for voice. (Voice calls had priority to a time
slot, so when voice call was connected, it would take a time slot away
from the pool availble to GPRS).
I don't recall whether time slots were dynamically assigned to
individual GPRS users or whether each user had permanently assigned time
slots during the session.
moving from 2G to 3G kept the same service principles (APN etc), but the
air interface was completely changed from the old time division time
slot approach.
Interestingly, for LTE, while the air interface doesn't have time slots,
the interface "manager" hands out transmission tokens. Those tokens can
be prioritized and this is why VoLTE gets prioirity and better voice
quality than Skype because Skype is "data" and VoLTE has priority access
to the capacity at a tower. (carriers requested this design to
purposefully get around net neutrality rules so their voice service
would be better quality).
5G is even worse as it extends the carrier's ability to define different
"service" each with its own priority in getting transmission slots.
(Telus in Canada has been discussing its own health services needing
ability to have priority to transmit medical images, while competing
health services would just be regular data without that priority).
So with 5G, one can theortically have many many APNs each for different
types of applciations and I have no idea how handsets manage that.
nospam
Jul 20, 2021, 5:56:43 PM7/20/21
to
In article <JrHJI.5272$gE....@fx21.iad>, JF Mezei
Here's how it works: During transmission across cellular telephone
channels, there are moments when the channel is idle. In fact,
industry research indicates that over 30 percent of air time, even
during heavy traffic, is unused. CDPD technology is able to detect
and use these otherwise wasted moments by packaging data in small
packets and sending it in short "bursts" during the idle time. As a
result, the cellular channel operates more efficiently, and voice and
data transmissions are unaffected. CDPD is based on the same
communications protocol as the Internet, so mobile users have
access to the broadest range of information.
> ... and I have no idea how handsets manage that.
yep.
<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> Starting in about 1992, the Motorola AMPS flip phones allowed a dialup
> modem to be plugged in the phone with a special adaptor. You would dial
> on the handset, and do dummy ATDT of any number on modem, and you could
> then connect to a remote modem. (But this was dependant on good sound
> quality of the air link - all analogue).
<https://www.arcelect.com/Cellular_Digita_Packet_Data-CDPD.htm>
> Starting in about 1992, the Motorola AMPS flip phones allowed a dialup
> modem to be plugged in the phone with a special adaptor. You would dial
> on the handset, and do dummy ATDT of any number on modem, and you could
> then connect to a remote modem. (But this was dependant on good sound
> quality of the air link - all analogue).
Here's how it works: During transmission across cellular telephone
channels, there are moments when the channel is idle. In fact,
industry research indicates that over 30 percent of air time, even
during heavy traffic, is unused. CDPD technology is able to detect
and use these otherwise wasted moments by packaging data in small
packets and sending it in short "bursts" during the idle time. As a
result, the cellular channel operates more efficiently, and voice and
data transmissions are unaffected. CDPD is based on the same
communications protocol as the Internet, so mobile users have
access to the broadest range of information.
> ... and I have no idea how handsets manage that.
yep.
sms
Jul 20, 2021, 7:23:36 PM7/20/21
to
On 7/20/2021 1:56 PM, JF Mezei wrote:
<snip>
<snip>
> The only carriers with whom you could have had experience with GSM
> Thetering and APNs were Voicestream and Omnipoint (not sure if they had
> already merged and not sure if they had deployed GPRS by then) and I
> think Pac Bell was also GSM at that point but not sure.
Pac Bell was GSM from the start. When Cingular bought SBC, which owned
> Thetering and APNs were Voicestream and Omnipoint (not sure if they had
> already merged and not sure if they had deployed GPRS by then) and I
> think Pac Bell was also GSM at that point but not sure.
Pacific Bell, they got the Pac Bell 1900 MHz GSM network. When Cingular
bought AT&T they sold off the 1900 MHz GSM network to T-Mobile, and
later changed their name to AT&T.
I foolishly signed up for Pac Bell Wireless when it was launched because
they had the lowest cost service. Struggled with them for the one year
of the contract. Coverage was abysmal and the network was very congested.
Did you ever watch Stephen Colbert's bit on AT&T?
<https://techstaffer.blog/2020/02/18/colbert-report-explaining-atts-history-3/>.
JF Mezei
Jul 21, 2021, 2:20:55 AM7/21/21
to
On 2021-07-20 17:30, nospam wrote:
> In article <SLGJI.48840$h8....@fx47.iad>, JF Mezei
> <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>
>>
>> CDMA didn't get the equivalent of GPRS (1XRTT) actually deployed until
>> 2002, so you coudln't have had experience with tethering on a CDMA
>> network in 2000.
>
> not only could i, but i did.
>
> note the copyright date of 2000:
> <https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/cYMAAOSwCdVe65uH/s-l1600.jpg>
> <https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/wHUAAOSwFjZe65uS/s-l1600.jpg>
> <https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/5fEAAOSwEfJe65uN/s-l1600.jpg>
>
> <https://www.altaba.com/news-releases/news-release-details/sprint-brings-
> power-wireless-internet-palm-your-hand>
Suggest you get the .pdf of the instructions for this service. This was
> In article <SLGJI.48840$h8....@fx47.iad>, JF Mezei
> <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>
>>
>> CDMA didn't get the equivalent of GPRS (1XRTT) actually deployed until
>> 2002, so you coudln't have had experience with tethering on a CDMA
>> network in 2000.
>
> not only could i, but i did.
>
> note the copyright date of 2000:
> <https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/cYMAAOSwCdVe65uH/s-l1600.jpg>
> <https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/wHUAAOSwFjZe65uS/s-l1600.jpg>
> <https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/5fEAAOSwEfJe65uN/s-l1600.jpg>
>
> <https://www.altaba.com/news-releases/news-release-details/sprint-brings-
> power-wireless-internet-palm-your-hand>
equivalent to the original dial up service in GSM where you connected to
a model at Sprint facility to make outbound call from there with thec
computer connected to phone with serial cable and phone acting as RS232
extension to your serial cable.
No APNs, no TCPIP in the service. Just raw 8 bit transfers on a serial
link. (over which you could use PPP and encapsulate TCP packets if you
connected to an ISP).
JF Mezei
Jul 21, 2021, 2:24:05 AM7/21/21
to
On 2021-07-20 17:56, nospam wrote:
> <https://www.arcelect.com/Cellular_Digita_Packet_Data-CDPD.htm>
That is totally different. This is a totally separate radio that makes
the equivalent of using white space between TV channels. Not that is was
in use in USA in early 1990s when the USA had NO digital mobile and was
all AMPS.
> <https://www.arcelect.com/Cellular_Digita_Packet_Data-CDPD.htm>
That is totally different. This is a totally separate radio that makes
the equivalent of using white space between TV channels. Not that is was
in use in USA in early 1990s when the USA had NO digital mobile and was
all AMPS.
Joerg Lorenz
Jul 21, 2021, 2:50:54 AM7/21/21
to
Am 19.07.21 um 03:11 schrieb nospam:
The iPhone is a line of smartphones designed and marketed by Apple Inc.
that use Apple's iOS mobile operating system. The first-generation
iPhone was announced by former Apple CEO Steve Jobs on *January 9*, *2007*.
> i had phones at least as far back as 2000 that could detect tethering
> versus non-tethering via apn or other methods.
Wikipedia:
> versus non-tethering via apn or other methods.
The iPhone is a line of smartphones designed and marketed by Apple Inc.
that use Apple's iOS mobile operating system. The first-generation
iPhone was announced by former Apple CEO Steve Jobs on *January 9*, *2007*.
Savageduck
Jul 21, 2021, 9:07:38 AM7/21/21
to
On Jul 20, 2021, nospam wrote
(in article<200720211032423903%nos...@nospam.invalid>):
Of course not. I had yet to buy my first Mac, I was still running my Apple ][e with DuoDrives and a bunch of expansion cards. That and a steam drive modem.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
(in article<200720211032423903%nos...@nospam.invalid>):
--
Regards,
Savageduck
nospam
Jul 21, 2021, 9:22:30 AM7/21/21
to
In article <91PJI.11612$7k7....@fx11.iad>, JF Mezei
the fact is that i was tethering back then, and the phone could detect
it versus a normal voice call.
<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> >> CDMA didn't get the equivalent of GPRS (1XRTT) actually deployed until
> >> 2002, so you coudln't have had experience with tethering on a CDMA
> >> network in 2000.
> >
> > not only could i, but i did.
> >
> > note the copyright date of 2000:
> > <https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/cYMAAOSwCdVe65uH/s-l1600.jpg>
> > <https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/wHUAAOSwFjZe65uS/s-l1600.jpg>
> > <https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/5fEAAOSwEfJe65uN/s-l1600.jpg>
> >
> > <https://www.altaba.com/news-releases/news-release-details/sprint-brings-
> > power-wireless-internet-palm-your-hand>
>
>
> Suggest you get the .pdf of the instructions for this service. This was
> equivalent to the original dial up service in GSM where you connected to
> a model at Sprint facility to make outbound call from there with thec
> computer connected to phone with serial cable and phone acting as RS232
> extension to your serial cable.
i suggest you stop trying to tell me what i did and didn't do.
> >> CDMA didn't get the equivalent of GPRS (1XRTT) actually deployed until
> >> 2002, so you coudln't have had experience with tethering on a CDMA
> >> network in 2000.
> >
> > not only could i, but i did.
> >
> > note the copyright date of 2000:
> > <https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/cYMAAOSwCdVe65uH/s-l1600.jpg>
> > <https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/wHUAAOSwFjZe65uS/s-l1600.jpg>
> > <https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/5fEAAOSwEfJe65uN/s-l1600.jpg>
> >
> > <https://www.altaba.com/news-releases/news-release-details/sprint-brings-
> > power-wireless-internet-palm-your-hand>
>
>
> Suggest you get the .pdf of the instructions for this service. This was
> equivalent to the original dial up service in GSM where you connected to
> a model at Sprint facility to make outbound call from there with thec
> computer connected to phone with serial cable and phone acting as RS232
> extension to your serial cable.
the fact is that i was tethering back then, and the phone could detect
it versus a normal voice call.
nospam
Jul 21, 2021, 9:22:31 AM7/21/21
to
In article <sd8g4d$8th$1...@dont-email.me>, Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch>
wrote:
read what i wrote again. hint: it's not about the iphone.
wrote:
nospam
Jul 21, 2021, 9:22:32 AM7/21/21
to
In article <74PJI.49486$h8.1...@fx47.iad>, JF Mezei
cdpd is what was used in amps days. it did not work well.
nospam
Jul 21, 2021, 9:22:33 AM7/21/21
to
In article <0001HW.26A8539406...@news.giganews.com>,
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> > > > > i had phones at least as far back as 2000 that could detect tethering
> > > >
> > > > As one who has defended Verizon so much, I have to ask: Which carrier
> > > > were you with in 2000?
> > >
> > > Forget about 2000. In 1987 I had a Nokia brick on GTE MobileNet which
> > > eventually became Verizon.
> >
> > were you tethering it to your mac se ?
>
> Of course not. I had yet to buy my first Mac, I was still running my Apple
> ][e with DuoDrives and a bunch of expansion cards. That and a steam drive modem.
the thread is about tethering.
> > > > > i had phones at least as far back as 2000 that could detect tethering
> > > >
> > > > As one who has defended Verizon so much, I have to ask: Which carrier
> > > > were you with in 2000?
> > >
> > > Forget about 2000. In 1987 I had a Nokia brick on GTE MobileNet which
> > > eventually became Verizon.
> >
> > were you tethering it to your mac se ?
>
> Of course not. I had yet to buy my first Mac, I was still running my Apple
> ][e with DuoDrives and a bunch of expansion cards. That and a steam drive modem.
JF Mezei
Jul 21, 2021, 2:24:48 PM7/21/21
to
On 2021-07-21 09:22, nospam wrote:
> the fact is that i was tethering back then, and the phone could detect
> it versus a normal voice call.
Dial-up over switched voice call in AMPS days isn't tethering because
> the fact is that i was tethering back then, and the phone could detect
> it versus a normal voice call.
the modem was on your side and the phone handled a normal voice call
tramsmitting sounds that happened to be modem sounds instead of voice.
The carrier wouldn't know. The phone would only know that you had an
"extention phone" attached to its plug.
You or your ilk had argued that therering always used separate APN from
normal data. And you now point to analogue AMPS that had no concept of
an APN. Similarly, both the GSM circuit switced data and the Sprint dial
up networking you said you used on 2000 did not use APNs. They moved the
modem to the central office from your laptop and provided the quivalent
of a long RS232 cabvle to connect your laptop to the modem at central
office. The "voice" call now handled bits of data instead of modem
sounds. No routing involved, no APN involved.
GSM got GPRS formally in 1998 (standard) but it didn't instantly become
available. It was late to deploy in Canada and USA (in USA, became
available in 2002, roughly at same time as CDMA's equivalent).
So you couldn't have been using APNs in 2000 because the tech hadn't
been deployed in the USA (or Canada) yet.
And whatever CDMA did is moot because it is a totally different system
and we're discussing GSM services and whether tethering required 2 APNs
from the start or not.
Since you weren't using a GSM service in 2002 (and certaintly not 2000),
you have no way to know how the few GSM phones available in North
America (due to 1900 frequency not used elsewhere in world, we only had
a small subset of phone models availabel in North America).
I happened to have such a phone and can tell you that tethering was
undifferentiated by the carrier, and that you would manually input the
APN when you first started to use it, and you entered only one APN (in
my case, internet.fido.ca) My first GPRS phone was Siemens M55.
Carriers continued to keep tethering undifferentiated until the arrival
of iPhone in Canada (by which time, AT&T allowed Apple to add thetering
on condition of separate APN so AT&T could monetize). Fron that point,
carriers around the world started to monetize tethering on smartphones.
(The iPhone also pushed carriers to raise usabel limits because we could
not access full Internet and not just email and a WAP browser and higher
usage limits also made tethering mroe problematic if people abused it).
nospam
Jul 21, 2021, 3:21:39 PM7/21/21
to
In article <NDZJI.5$W7...@fx05.iad>, JF Mezei
by definition.
> because
> the modem was on your side and the phone handled a normal voice call
> tramsmitting sounds that happened to be modem sounds instead of voice.
it definitely did *not* do that.
> The carrier wouldn't know. The phone would only know that you had an
> "extention phone" attached to its plug.
the carrier *did* know, although there were ways around it, which i
mentioned several times.
as usual, you have no clue how it worked.
>
> You or your ilk had argued that therering always used separate APN from
> normal data.
i didn't say always. stop lying.
what i said was the carriers could detect tethering long before the
iphone was even a thought, let alone work in progress or a shipping
product.
your claim that detection was only possible after the iphone was
released is laughably wrong, as is everything else you say.
> And you now point to analogue AMPS that had no concept of
> an APN.
*you* mentioned amps. i did not.
cdpd on amps was garbage and amps service was too expensive for cdpd to
be even a consideration outside of *extremely* limited scenarios.
<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> > the fact is that i was tethering back then, and the phone could detect
> > it versus a normal voice call.
>
> Dial-up over switched voice call in AMPS days isn't tethering
i didn't say amps, and it's tethering any time a computer is connected,
> > the fact is that i was tethering back then, and the phone could detect
> > it versus a normal voice call.
>
> Dial-up over switched voice call in AMPS days isn't tethering
by definition.
> because
> the modem was on your side and the phone handled a normal voice call
> tramsmitting sounds that happened to be modem sounds instead of voice.
> The carrier wouldn't know. The phone would only know that you had an
> "extention phone" attached to its plug.
mentioned several times.
as usual, you have no clue how it worked.
>
> You or your ilk had argued that therering always used separate APN from
> normal data.
what i said was the carriers could detect tethering long before the
iphone was even a thought, let alone work in progress or a shipping
product.
your claim that detection was only possible after the iphone was
released is laughably wrong, as is everything else you say.
> And you now point to analogue AMPS that had no concept of
> an APN.
cdpd on amps was garbage and amps service was too expensive for cdpd to
be even a consideration outside of *extremely* limited scenarios.
Joerg Lorenz
Jul 24, 2021, 1:13:23 AM7/24/21
to
Am 21.07.21 um 15:22 schrieb nospam:
;-) sorry! Read to fast ...
Joerg Lorenz
Jul 24, 2021, 1:34:40 AM7/24/21
to
Am 21.07.21 um 20:24 schrieb JF Mezei:
> GSM got GPRS formally in 1998 (standard) but it didn't instantly become
> available. It was late to deploy in Canada and USA (in USA, became
> available in 2002, roughly at same time as CDMA's equivalent).
As I say the Northamerica is still at least 5 years behind Europe in
mobile communication. That never changed since the beginning of the new
millenium. One reason for this lag is the use of CDMA-Technolgy by
Verizon. Only with the Rollout of LTE and 5G the US has a chance to
close the technolgy gap. But that is a different story.
> On 2021-07-21 09:22, nospam wrote:
>
>> the fact is that i was tethering back then, and the phone could detect
>> it versus a normal voice call.
>
> Dial-up over switched voice call in AMPS days isn't tethering because
> the modem was on your side and the phone handled a normal voice call
> tramsmitting sounds that happened to be modem sounds instead of voice.
> The carrier wouldn't know. The phone would only know that you had an
> "extention phone" attached to its plug.
Sigh! I have done tethering as fas back as 1999 on GSM-networks.
>
>> the fact is that i was tethering back then, and the phone could detect
>> it versus a normal voice call.
>
> Dial-up over switched voice call in AMPS days isn't tethering because
> the modem was on your side and the phone handled a normal voice call
> tramsmitting sounds that happened to be modem sounds instead of voice.
> The carrier wouldn't know. The phone would only know that you had an
> "extention phone" attached to its plug.
> GSM got GPRS formally in 1998 (standard) but it didn't instantly become
> available. It was late to deploy in Canada and USA (in USA, became
> available in 2002, roughly at same time as CDMA's equivalent).
mobile communication. That never changed since the beginning of the new
millenium. One reason for this lag is the use of CDMA-Technolgy by
Verizon. Only with the Rollout of LTE and 5G the US has a chance to
close the technolgy gap. But that is a different story.
JF Mezei
Jul 24, 2021, 4:39:30 AM7/24/21
to
On 2021-07-24 01:34, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> As I say the Northamerica is still at least 5 years behind Europe in
> mobile communication. That never changed since the beginning of the new
> millenium.
For LTE it was different. The spectrum auctions for bands that were
> As I say the Northamerica is still at least 5 years behind Europe in
> mobile communication. That never changed since the beginning of the new
> millenium.
planned to be used for "4"G happened a few years later in Europe, so
Europe was generally late in deploying LTE. (but it had HSPA+ which is
already fairly suffucient for download, though slowler for upload
compared to LTE.
Europ]e being late for LTE was raised at regulatory hearings in Canada
because incumbents pointed to reduced investents in Europe compared to
Canada (and then claiming it was due to regulations in Europe that
Canada should not adopt). The real reason for that resudec investment
was one of timing because spectrm became available later, so there was a
period where investment in canada was higher).
Canadian rich moniopoly carriers just competed for spectrum aon 3500
(we,re late on USA), and will be "investing" CAD $8b (aka: donating
$8b to politicians to play with).
When you include spectrum in "investment", and the government structures
the auctions to raise as much money as possible, of course you will be
showing higher investment than in a country where the goverbnment wants
to make wireless affordable and structures spectrum
auctions/distribution to be as affordable as possible.
sms
Jul 24, 2021, 5:56:21 AM7/24/21
to
On 7/24/2021 1:39 AM, JF Mezei wrote:
<snip>
> For LTE it was different. The spectrum auctions for bands that were
> planned to be used for "4"G happened a few years later in Europe, so
> Europe was generally late in deploying LTE. (but it had HSPA+ which is
> already fairly suffucient for download, though slowler for upload
> compared to LTE.
<snip>
Most of Europe is far behind the U.S. in 5G.
"5G in Europe lags behind all other regions, according to research
carried out on behalf of the European Telecommunications Network
Operators’ Association (ETNO)."
<https://techmonitor.ai/5g/5g-in-europe-c-band-us>
The Economist had a good article about why Europe lagged behind the U.S.
in mobile communications, beginning with 3G
<https://www.economist.com/leaders/2004/09/02/the-lessons-of-3g>.
<snip>
> For LTE it was different. The spectrum auctions for bands that were
> planned to be used for "4"G happened a few years later in Europe, so
> Europe was generally late in deploying LTE. (but it had HSPA+ which is
> already fairly suffucient for download, though slowler for upload
> compared to LTE.
Most of Europe is far behind the U.S. in 5G.
"5G in Europe lags behind all other regions, according to research
carried out on behalf of the European Telecommunications Network
Operators’ Association (ETNO)."
<https://techmonitor.ai/5g/5g-in-europe-c-band-us>
The Economist had a good article about why Europe lagged behind the U.S.
in mobile communications, beginning with 3G
<https://www.economist.com/leaders/2004/09/02/the-lessons-of-3g>.
nospam
Jul 24, 2021, 6:44:55 AM7/24/21
to
In article <sdg8pf$93m$1...@dont-email.me>, Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch>
wrote:
> > GSM got GPRS formally in 1998 (standard) but it didn't instantly become
> > available. It was late to deploy in Canada and USA (in USA, became
> > available in 2002, roughly at same time as CDMA's equivalent).
>
> As I say the Northamerica is still at least 5 years behind Europe in
> mobile communication. That never changed since the beginning of the new
> millenium. One reason for this lag is the use of CDMA-Technolgy by
> Verizon. Only with the Rollout of LTE and 5G the US has a chance to
> close the technolgy gap. But that is a different story.
cdma was well ahead of gsm.
wrote:
> > GSM got GPRS formally in 1998 (standard) but it didn't instantly become
> > available. It was late to deploy in Canada and USA (in USA, became
> > available in 2002, roughly at same time as CDMA's equivalent).
>
> As I say the Northamerica is still at least 5 years behind Europe in
> mobile communication. That never changed since the beginning of the new
> millenium. One reason for this lag is the use of CDMA-Technolgy by
> Verizon. Only with the Rollout of LTE and 5G the US has a chance to
> close the technolgy gap. But that is a different story.
Joerg Lorenz
Jul 25, 2021, 3:15:56 AM7/25/21
to
Am 24.07.21 um 11:56 schrieb sms:
Good joke!
In Europe currently even LTE is faster than 5G in the US ...
In many countries in Europe 5G-rollout is slower than LTE was, simpy
because the quality and coverage of LTE is so high.
The US are developping country as fas as mobile communication is
concerned. That is easily visisble in the contract models for consumers.
BTW: Switzerland was more than a year ahead of the US with 5G and full
coverage of the whole country including the Alpine region was reached
long time ago. Claiming "Europe" shows how litte the Economist which
certainly not the source of choice for this technical area understands
how mobile communication is organised in Europe.
In Europe currently even LTE is faster than 5G in the US ...
In many countries in Europe 5G-rollout is slower than LTE was, simpy
because the quality and coverage of LTE is so high.
The US are developping country as fas as mobile communication is
concerned. That is easily visisble in the contract models for consumers.
BTW: Switzerland was more than a year ahead of the US with 5G and full
coverage of the whole country including the Alpine region was reached
long time ago. Claiming "Europe" shows how litte the Economist which
certainly not the source of choice for this technical area understands
how mobile communication is organised in Europe.
Joerg Lorenz
Jul 25, 2021, 3:18:56 AM7/25/21
to
Am 24.07.21 um 12:44 schrieb nospam:
That was not the issue. The limitations of the CDMA-networks was a huge
brake on the development of mobile telecommunication and was a dead end.
brake on the development of mobile telecommunication and was a dead end.
RonTheGuy
Jul 25, 2021, 8:49:53 AM7/25/21
to
On Jul 25, 2021, Joerg Lorenz wrote
(in article<news:sdj33b$ipv$1...@dont-email.me>):
Ron, the humblest guy in town.
(in article<news:sdj33b$ipv$1...@dont-email.me>):
> The US are developping country as fas as mobile communication is
> concerned. That is easily visisble in the contract models for consumers.
How is the European contract model better than the no contract USA model?
> concerned. That is easily visisble in the contract models for consumers.
Ron, the humblest guy in town.
nospam
Jul 25, 2021, 11:39:30 AM7/25/21
to
In article <sdj38v$ipv$2...@dont-email.me>, Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch>
gsm. it had higher capacity per cell and was not affected by distance.
the issue with cdma was licensing because qualcomm is an incredibly
sleazy company, who unfortunately has control over lte and 5g.
wrote:
> >> As I say the Northamerica is still at least 5 years behind Europe in
> >> mobile communication. That never changed since the beginning of the new
> >> millenium. One reason for this lag is the use of CDMA-Technolgy by
> >> Verizon. Only with the Rollout of LTE and 5G the US has a chance to
> >> close the technolgy gap. But that is a different story.
> >
> > cdma was well ahead of gsm.
>
> That was not the issue. The limitations of the CDMA-networks was a huge
> brake on the development of mobile telecommunication and was a dead end.
nope. cdma was not as limited as tdma, which was the air interface of
> >> As I say the Northamerica is still at least 5 years behind Europe in
> >> mobile communication. That never changed since the beginning of the new
> >> millenium. One reason for this lag is the use of CDMA-Technolgy by
> >> Verizon. Only with the Rollout of LTE and 5G the US has a chance to
> >> close the technolgy gap. But that is a different story.
> >
> > cdma was well ahead of gsm.
>
> That was not the issue. The limitations of the CDMA-networks was a huge
> brake on the development of mobile telecommunication and was a dead end.
gsm. it had higher capacity per cell and was not affected by distance.
the issue with cdma was licensing because qualcomm is an incredibly
sleazy company, who unfortunately has control over lte and 5g.
sms
Jul 25, 2021, 2:59:08 PM7/25/21
to
couple of other Asian and some European countries lead the way, but much
of Europe lags behind. Here are two references:
"Ericsson says fears about Europe's 5G lag have come true"
<https://www.lightreading.com/5g/ericsson-says-fears-about-europes-5g-lag-have-come-true/d/d-id/770228>
"Europe’s 5G lags behind the US and Asia – and the gap could be growing"
<https://techmonitor.ai/5g/5g-in-europe-c-band-us>
It is extremely naive to judge the state of mobile communications in a
country by contract versus no-contract cell phone plans. It's an absurd
metric. It's even more absurd because U.S. carriers no longer require
contracts!
Previously, U.S. carriers required contracts in exchange for free or
subsidized phones, with hefty penalties, that far exceeded the value of
the "free" phone, for breaking the contract. That isn't the case anymore.
Currently, for postpaid services, there is no contract but phones can be
subsidized via monthly bill credits and if you leave the carrier prior
to the phone being paid off by those credits then you owe the balance
due on the phone; fair enough as long as the carrier unlocks the
paid-off phone (Verizon unlocks all phones after 60 days, paid off or not).
Phone manufacturers like this system because there's a big incentive for
consumers get a new phone after 24 months since there's no discount on
service for not taking the phone subsidy, so if you're planning to stay
with your postpaid carrier anyway then you should take the subsidy.
Some people insist that the 24 month phone subsidies amount to the same
thing as a contract, but they really don't--you can leave anytime and
just pay off the balance due. And of course you're always free to buy a
phone at retail price and bring it to the carrier of your choice, even
though that isn't usually a smart thing to do.
The fastest growing segment of the U.S. wireless industry is prepaid,
which has no contracts, both carrier-offered services like Cricket
(AT&T), Metro (T-Mobile), Visible (Verizon), plus a plethora of MVNOs
reselling service from the nationwide carriers. These entities also
offer payment plans for phones. Visible doesn't have discounted phones
but they don't lock any of the phones they sell, payment plan or no
payment plan.
The upside of the prepaid services is that they are usually much less
expensive per month because there are no phone subsidies that have to be
absorbed by the carrier.
Here is a comparison I did for some subreddits that compares 4 line
family plans on Verizon postpaid, Verizon prepaid, Visible by Verizon,
Total Wireless, and US Mobile:
<https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tIi8rzwJf8SAPPW15RrG84Jv3z8aY9kuLc_lwzxm9As/>.
You can pay between $98 and $268 for the same base service; paying more
gets you things like extra-cost international roaming, unlimited
high-speed data, available Apple Watch support, included international
data roaming (eSIM phones only), and various other perks. And of course
you get hefty phone subsidies on Verizon postpaid.
sms
Jul 25, 2021, 4:08:22 PM7/25/21
to
On 7/25/2021 11:59 AM, sms wrote:
<snip>
> Visible doesn't have discounted phones
> but they don't lock any of the phones they sell, payment plan or no
> payment plan.
Actually Visible does offer a prepaid Mastercard after two paid months
of service, with the amount varying on the desirability of the phone, up
to $150 off. The iPhone SE2020 is sold for $384 plus you get a $50
credit after two months of service. The iPhone 11 is $600 with a $150
credit after two months of service. These aren't huge subsidies but the
phones are unlocked and someone could leave after two months with an
unlocked phone.
<snip>
> Visible doesn't have discounted phones
> but they don't lock any of the phones they sell, payment plan or no
> payment plan.
of service, with the amount varying on the desirability of the phone, up
to $150 off. The iPhone SE2020 is sold for $384 plus you get a $50
credit after two months of service. The iPhone 11 is $600 with a $150
credit after two months of service. These aren't huge subsidies but the
phones are unlocked and someone could leave after two months with an
unlocked phone.
AJL
Jul 25, 2021, 6:50:19 PM7/25/21
to
sms wrote:
> Some people insist that the 24 month phone subsidies amount to the
> same thing as a contract, but they really don't--you can leave
> anytime and just pay off the balance due.
Not exactly with Verizon. I bought my $999 list price phone for $699. A
> Some people insist that the 24 month phone subsidies amount to the
> same thing as a contract, but they really don't--you can leave
> anytime and just pay off the balance due.
$300 discount. Problem is that Verizon applies the discount over a 24
month period at $12.50 a month. So if I leave early I lose the remaining
discount, thus making my phone a bit more expensive than planned...
sms
Jul 25, 2021, 7:43:30 PM7/25/21
to
The whole idea is to make it unattractive to leave prior to all of the
subsidy being applied, and then repeat the whole thing. At only $300 off
that is not so attractive though. Verizon is offering the $600 iPhone 11
for free ($25/month subsidy for 24 months). My brother and his wife
took this offer last year.
Assuming a $25 per month per line value of a subsidy, postpaid Verizon
is attractive. Without a veteran's or corporate discount, 24 months of
Verizon postpaid, for four lines, would cost $5253-$2400=$2853.36 (this
is in my ZIP code with taxes and fees). With the veteran's discount it
would be $4669-$2400=$2270. 24 months oF Verizon Visible or Total
Wireless would be around $2400. So as long as you're taking full
advantage of the phone subsidies, by upgrading every 24 months, Verizon
postpaid makes sense.
RonTheGuy
Jul 25, 2021, 8:53:15 PM7/25/21
to
On Jul 25, 2021, sms wrote
(in article<news:sdksv1$ge$1...@dont-email.me>):
Why?
(in article<news:sdksv1$ge$1...@dont-email.me>):
> The whole idea is to make it unattractive to leave prior to all of the
> subsidy being applied, and then repeat the whole thing.
How often are people switching carriers?
> subsidy being applied, and then repeat the whole thing.
Why?
sms
Jul 25, 2021, 10:06:37 PM7/25/21
to
On 7/25/2021 5:53 PM, RonTheGuy wrote:
> On Jul 25, 2021, sms wrote
> (in article<news:sdksv1$ge$1...@dont-email.me>):
>> The whole idea is to make it unattractive to leave prior to all of the
>> subsidy being applied, and then repeat the whole thing.
>
> How often are people switching carriers?
Less than in the past.
> On Jul 25, 2021, sms wrote
> (in article<news:sdksv1$ge$1...@dont-email.me>):
>> The whole idea is to make it unattractive to leave prior to all of the
>> subsidy being applied, and then repeat the whole thing.
>
> How often are people switching carriers?
Postpaid Monthly Phone churn, reported quarterly:
AT&T: 0.76% in Q42020
T-Mobile: 1.03% in Q42020
Verizon: 0.98% in Q42020
In the past, monthly churn was routinely over 2% for some carriers. That
means an annual churn rate of over 29% when compounded. At 1.03% monthly
churn the annual churn rate is a little over 14%.
> Why?
Lots of reasons.
T-Mobile has been very successful in adding new postpaid customers by
offering lower prices as well as various perks like included low-speed
foreign roaming data, Netflix, and "T-Mobile Tuesday" perks which have
included free tacos from Taco Bell and free Whoppers from Burger King .
Verizon and AT&T get people to switch because they offer better
coverage, quality, and data speeds.
You can see the vast differences between carriers in the latest
Rootmetrics study at
<https://rootmetrics.com/en-US/content/us-state-of-the-mobile-union-1h-2021>.
RonTheGuy
Jul 25, 2021, 10:40:27 PM7/25/21
to
On Jul 25, 2021, sms wrote
(in article<news:sdl5b6$ato$1...@dont-email.me>):
>>> The whole idea is to make it unattractive to leave prior to all of the
>>> subsidy being applied, and then repeat the whole thing.
>>
>> How often are people switching carriers?
>>> subsidy being applied, and then repeat the whole thing.
>>
>> How often are people switching carriers?
> At 1.03% monthly churn the annual churn rate is a little over 14%.
I wonder why it's as high as 1 out of every 7 people changing carriers.
>> Why?
>
> Lots of reasons.
>
> T-Mobile has been very successful in adding new postpaid customers by
> offering lower prices as well as various perks like included low-speed
> foreign roaming data, Netflix, and "T-Mobile Tuesday" perks which have
> included free tacos from Taco Bell and free Whoppers from Burger King .
> Verizon and AT&T get people to switch because they offer better
> coverage, quality, and data speeds.
It must be price.
Which carrier has the best US prices (without playing games with the plans)?
AJL
Jul 25, 2021, 10:50:28 PM7/25/21
to
sms wrote:
> On 7/25/2021 3:50 PM, AJL wrote:
>> sms wrote:
>>
>>> Some people insist that the 24 month phone subsidies amount to
>>> the same thing as a contract, but they really don't--you can
>>> leave anytime and just pay off the balance due.
>>
>> Not exactly with Verizon. I bought my $999 list price phone for
>> $699. A $300 discount. Problem is that Verizon applies the
>> discount over a 24 month period at $12.50 a month. So if I leave
>> early I lose the remaining discount, thus making my phone a bit
>> more expensive than planned...
>
> Right, a $300 subsidy applied at a rate of $12.50 per month for 24
> months.
Right. In the old days if I left early I paid extra. Same today.
> On 7/25/2021 3:50 PM, AJL wrote:
>> sms wrote:
>>
>>> Some people insist that the 24 month phone subsidies amount to
>>> the same thing as a contract, but they really don't--you can
>>> leave anytime and just pay off the balance due.
>>
>> Not exactly with Verizon. I bought my $999 list price phone for
>> $699. A $300 discount. Problem is that Verizon applies the
>> discount over a 24 month period at $12.50 a month. So if I leave
>> early I lose the remaining discount, thus making my phone a bit
>> more expensive than planned...
>
> Right, a $300 subsidy applied at a rate of $12.50 per month for 24
> months.
> The whole idea is to make it unattractive to leave prior to all of
> the subsidy being applied,
> and then repeat the whole thing.
works great so I'll likely keep it another year or two. In the old days
I'd always get a new free phone since I'd be paying the same whether I
did or not. Now it will definitely be cheaper to keep the old phone.
> At only $300 off that is not so attractive though.
Verizon from the beginning and likely to the end, I figured
why not.
nospam
Jul 25, 2021, 11:06:13 PM7/25/21
to
In article <wq5llcj1uoay$.d...@news.solani.org>, RonTheGuy
<r...@null.invalid> wrote:
> On Jul 25, 2021, sms wrote
> (in article<news:sdl5b6$ato$1...@dont-email.me>):
> On Jul 25, 2021, sms wrote
> (in article<news:sdl5b6$ato$1...@dont-email.me>):
> > At 1.03% monthly churn the annual churn rate is a little over 14%.
>
> I wonder why it's as high as 1 out of every 7 people changing carriers.
it's not.
>
> I wonder why it's as high as 1 out of every 7 people changing carriers.
JF Mezei
Jul 26, 2021, 12:22:21 AM7/26/21
to
On 2021-07-24 06:44, nospam wrote:
> cdma was well ahead of gsm.
Good joke. GSM was widely deployed in early 1990s.
> cdma was well ahead of gsm.
GSM standard agreed upon 1987
First GSM voice call 1991
First SMS 1992
1993: Australia deploys GSM (first outside Europe)
1993: UK deploys GSM on 1800 (Fiorst deployments were on 900)
1995: circuit switched data available
1995: 1900 GSM available for north american deployment
(Fido in Canada start in 1996 or early 1997 as I recall)
2000 First GPRS in commercia operation
CDMA:
1989 Qualcomm starts to develiop what would become IS-95
1993 US agres to Qualcomm proprietary IA95 standard. (so 6 years after
GSM's standard was agreed to)
1996: First Qualcomm IS-95 deployment: South Korea.
1996: Bell Atlantic starts testing its CDMA IS95 in Trenton NJ
1997: Bell Atlantic launched in Washington, Baltimore Pittsburg.
2000: EVDO unveiled in a Lucent/Qualcomm joint lab experiment
(meanwhile GPRS already in commercial operation)
2001: First 1XRTT deployment : Western Wireless (now Verizon)
I know that in Canada, when telcos (at the time, BC Tel, Edmonton
Telephpone, AGT, SaskTel, MTS, Bell Canada , Bell Aliant (not sure ob
the maritimes have merged yet) were quite late in introducing SMS
capability on their sevices which gace Fido a big advantage. When they
did, there ewre then calls for interoperability and a central exchange
was done so the GSM networks (Rogers wibhc include Fido) and the telcos
could exchange between the GSM and CDMA worlds, inluding the fact SMS
messages on CDMA were shorter).
So there was no time where Qualcomm's CDMA (IS95 or CDMAone or CDMA 2000
later) was deployed before any of the GSM generations.
sms
Jul 26, 2021, 1:24:26 AM7/26/21
to
On 7/25/2021 7:40 PM, RonTheGuy wrote:
> On Jul 25, 2021, sms wrote
> (in article<news:sdl5b6$ato$1...@dont-email.me>):
>>>> The whole idea is to make it unattractive to leave prior to all of the
>>>> subsidy being applied, and then repeat the whole thing.
>>>
>>> How often are people switching carriers?
>> At 1.03% monthly churn the annual churn rate is a little over 14%.
>
> I wonder why it's as high as 1 out of every 7 people changing carriers.
That's actually very low compared to what it was. Look at T-Mobile churn
> On Jul 25, 2021, sms wrote
> (in article<news:sdl5b6$ato$1...@dont-email.me>):
>>>> The whole idea is to make it unattractive to leave prior to all of the
>>>> subsidy being applied, and then repeat the whole thing.
>>>
>>> How often are people switching carriers?
>> At 1.03% monthly churn the annual churn rate is a little over 14%.
>
> I wonder why it's as high as 1 out of every 7 people changing carriers.
over the years, from a quarterly high of 5.39% down to the current low
of 2.78% (those are quarterly numbers, not monthly).
> That stuff isn't going to change all that fast to support 1 out of 7.
> It must be price.
especially once they're in a situation where they need coverage and
don't have it. If not, T-Mobile would be #1 instead of #3. I don't think
the differences in data speeds are such a big deal. Yes T-Mobile is the
slowest but for phone data those differences are inconsequential.
T-Mobile is in a good position by catering to price-sensitive
subscribers for whom geographic coverage in non-urban areas is not a big
concern. The downside is that they can't really raise prices unless they
improve coverage and improving coverage is extremely expensive.
> Which carrier has the best US prices (without playing games with the plans)?
lowest postpaid prices, especially when you factor in the included taxes
& fees which can be substantial depending on location. However
T-Mobile's prepaid Metro service is no bargain compared to what is
offered by AT&T (Cricket) and Verizon (Visible).
sms
Jul 26, 2021, 1:30:40 AM7/26/21
to
CDMA2000. They had no choice since CDMA is a much more efficient use of
spectrum. And they had to bay royalties to Qualcomm no matter what.
Not sure which will be completely shutdown in the U.S. first. AT&T
already shut down GSM but T-Mobile still operates their GSM network.
Verizon and U.S. Cellular haven't shut down CDMA yet.
nospam
Jul 26, 2021, 1:57:36 AM7/26/21
to
In article <%LqLI.72184$dp5....@fx48.iad>, JF Mezei
was slow and generated a shitload of rfi, which is why 3g/hspa switched
to it for its air interface. lte and 5g are based on cdma.
<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>
> > cdma was well ahead of gsm.
>
>
> Good joke. GSM was widely deployed in early 1990s.
so what? cdma is technologically better in every way than gsm, which
>
> > cdma was well ahead of gsm.
>
>
> Good joke. GSM was widely deployed in early 1990s.
was slow and generated a shitload of rfi, which is why 3g/hspa switched
to it for its air interface. lte and 5g are based on cdma.
Joerg Lorenz
Jul 26, 2021, 5:05:31 AM7/26/21
to
Am 25.07.21 um 14:50 schrieb RonTheGuy:
There is always a contract. Contracts do not need the written form.
Joerg Lorenz
Jul 26, 2021, 5:11:00 AM7/26/21
to
Am 25.07.21 um 20:59 schrieb sms:
understanding what the legal term contract means.
You have a lot of problems to understand various aspects of mobile
communication technology and its implementation anyway.
> It is extremely naive to judge the state of mobile communications in a
> country by contract versus no-contract cell phone plans. It's an absurd
> metric. It's even more absurd because U.S. carriers no longer require
> contracts!
Even prepaid is a contract. You only show that you have not a deeper
> country by contract versus no-contract cell phone plans. It's an absurd
> metric. It's even more absurd because U.S. carriers no longer require
> contracts!
understanding what the legal term contract means.
You have a lot of problems to understand various aspects of mobile
communication technology and its implementation anyway.
Joerg Lorenz
Jul 26, 2021, 5:20:55 AM7/26/21
to
Am 26.07.21 um 00:50 schrieb AJL:
Obviously neither Verizon nor you understand the meaning of economic
equivalence.
Remove the chip from the phone and pay the rest of the monthly
installments until the end of the contract. In addition cancel the
contract on the ealiest date possible. It is so easy.
Certainly it would be much easier if both parties would agree to
terminate the contract earlier.
There could be one caveat: The phone could be locked until the end of
the contract. In many countries this is illegal btw.
equivalence.
Remove the chip from the phone and pay the rest of the monthly
installments until the end of the contract. In addition cancel the
contract on the ealiest date possible. It is so easy.
Certainly it would be much easier if both parties would agree to
terminate the contract earlier.
There could be one caveat: The phone could be locked until the end of
the contract. In many countries this is illegal btw.
Joerg Lorenz
Jul 26, 2021, 5:41:40 AM7/26/21
to
Am 26.07.21 um 11:20 schrieb Joerg Lorenz:
> Certainly it would be much easier if both parties would agree to
> terminate the contract earlier.
Meaning to pay the remaining monthly installments now as a lump sum.
> terminate the contract earlier.
AJL
Jul 26, 2021, 11:31:38 AM7/26/21
to
Joerg Lorenz wrote:
> Am 26.07.21 um 00:50 schrieb AJL:
>> sms wrote:
>>
>>> Some people insist that the 24 month phone subsidies amount to
>>> the same thing as a contract, but they really don't--you can
>>> leave anytime and just pay off the balance due.
>>
>> Not exactly with Verizon. I bought my $999 list price phone for
>> $699. A $300 discount. Problem is that Verizon applies the
>> discount over a 24 month period at $12.50 a month. So if I leave
>> early I lose the remaining discount, thus making my phone a bit
>> more expensive than planned...
>
> Obviously neither Verizon nor you understand the meaning of economic
> equivalence.
Huh?
> Am 26.07.21 um 00:50 schrieb AJL:
>> sms wrote:
>>
>>> Some people insist that the 24 month phone subsidies amount to
>>> the same thing as a contract, but they really don't--you can
>>> leave anytime and just pay off the balance due.
>>
>> Not exactly with Verizon. I bought my $999 list price phone for
>> $699. A $300 discount. Problem is that Verizon applies the
>> discount over a 24 month period at $12.50 a month. So if I leave
>> early I lose the remaining discount, thus making my phone a bit
>> more expensive than planned...
>
> Obviously neither Verizon nor you understand the meaning of economic
> equivalence.
> Remove the chip from the phone
> and pay the rest of the monthly installments until the end of the
> contract.
costing me the same. Pay the phone's total retail price up front. Pay
for the phone in 24 *interest free* installments. Quit anytime in
between and pay the balance with no penalty.
I'm doing the interest free 2 year loan since I planned to stay with
Verizon anyway.
> In addition cancel the contract on the ealiest date possible. It is
> so easy.
gave me a $300 phone discount payable at $12.50/mo. (Verizon calls it a
discount, sms calls it a subsidy, but it's really just a tomato/tomaaato
thing.)
Since I liked the premium phone and my other local stores weren't
beating the Verizon discount I went with it.
> Certainly it would be much easier if both parties would agree to
> terminate the contract earlier.
online. Just pay off the phone's balance. Course I would lose the
remaining discount/subsidy.
> There could be one caveat: The phone could be locked until the end of
> the contract. In many countries this is illegal btw.
was the only game in town. In the many years since I've never had one
problem so why change? Sure, I suppose I could find a cheaper service
but mine's not that bad. I currently pay a basic $37.50/phone/mo for
unlimited US talk/text/roam and 2GB of data with rollover. Many couldn't
live on 2GB but I've never gone over so it's unlimited for me. As always
YMMV...
(All quotes in US$)
sms
Jul 26, 2021, 2:00:34 PM7/26/21
to
On 7/26/2021 8:31 AM, AJL wrote:
<snip>
> Cancelling this particular contract is easy peasy. I can even do it
> online. Just pay off the phone's balance. Course I would lose the
> remaining discount/subsidy.
It should not be called a contract. It's just an agreement to pay what
you owe on the device if you leave Verizon. It's very different than the
old contracts where you were hit with a big penalty for leaving for
another carrier before the contract term was up.
<snip>
> I've never considered locking. When I got my first cell phone, Verizon
> was the only game in town. In the many years since I've never had one
> problem so why change? Sure, I suppose I could find a cheaper service
> but mine's not that bad. I currently pay a basic $37.50/phone/mo for
> unlimited US talk/text/roam and 2GB of data with rollover. Many couldn't
> live on 2GB but I've never gone over so it's unlimited for me. As always
<snip>
Verizon locks phones for 60 days, whether purchased outright or paid in
installments (it is unlocked after 60 days even if not paid off). It
used to be 0 days, due to an agreement reached with the FCC but then the
FCC allowed them to lock them for 60 days. If someone doesn't pay off
the balance when they leave then Verizon can blacklist the phone so it
cannot be used on other U.S. carriers. They could also send your account
to collections and report the non-payment to credit reporting agencies.
AT&T and T-Mobile lock phones purchased from them if not paid off, but
will unlock phones bought outright after 40 days (T-Mobile) or 60 days
(AT&T).
Once the phone is paid off, at that low level of usage, you might want
to consider something like Verizon service on RedPocket, $169/year
($14.08/month) for 3GB/month <https://www.ebay.com/itm/133058473014>,
$219/year ($18.25/month) for 8GB per month
<https://www.ebay.com/itm/133058350672>. When you want another
subsidized phone you can go back to Verizon proper.
<snip>
> Cancelling this particular contract is easy peasy. I can even do it
> online. Just pay off the phone's balance. Course I would lose the
> remaining discount/subsidy.
you owe on the device if you leave Verizon. It's very different than the
old contracts where you were hit with a big penalty for leaving for
another carrier before the contract term was up.
<snip>
> I've never considered locking. When I got my first cell phone, Verizon
> was the only game in town. In the many years since I've never had one
> problem so why change? Sure, I suppose I could find a cheaper service
> but mine's not that bad. I currently pay a basic $37.50/phone/mo for
> unlimited US talk/text/roam and 2GB of data with rollover. Many couldn't
> live on 2GB but I've never gone over so it's unlimited for me. As always
Verizon locks phones for 60 days, whether purchased outright or paid in
installments (it is unlocked after 60 days even if not paid off). It
used to be 0 days, due to an agreement reached with the FCC but then the
FCC allowed them to lock them for 60 days. If someone doesn't pay off
the balance when they leave then Verizon can blacklist the phone so it
cannot be used on other U.S. carriers. They could also send your account
to collections and report the non-payment to credit reporting agencies.
AT&T and T-Mobile lock phones purchased from them if not paid off, but
will unlock phones bought outright after 40 days (T-Mobile) or 60 days
(AT&T).
Once the phone is paid off, at that low level of usage, you might want
to consider something like Verizon service on RedPocket, $169/year
($14.08/month) for 3GB/month <https://www.ebay.com/itm/133058473014>,
$219/year ($18.25/month) for 8GB per month
<https://www.ebay.com/itm/133058350672>. When you want another
subsidized phone you can go back to Verizon proper.
AJL
Jul 26, 2021, 3:04:39 PM7/26/21
to
sms wrote:
> On 7/26/2021 8:31 AM, AJL wrote:
>> Cancelling this particular contract is easy peasy. I can even do
>> it online. Just pay off the phone's balance. Course I would lose
>> the remaining discount/subsidy.
>
> It should not be called a contract. It's just an agreement to pay
> what you owe on the device if you leave Verizon.
Call it what you like. By definition either a contract or an agreement
> On 7/26/2021 8:31 AM, AJL wrote:
>> Cancelling this particular contract is easy peasy. I can even do
>> it online. Just pay off the phone's balance. Course I would lose
>> the remaining discount/subsidy.
>
> It should not be called a contract. It's just an agreement to pay
> what you owe on the device if you leave Verizon.
can be legally enforceable. And mine is.
> It's very different than the old contracts where you were hit with a
> big penalty for leaving for another carrier before the contract term
> was up.
change over time.
> Once the phone is paid off, at that low level of usage, you might
> want to consider something like Verizon service on RedPocket,
> $169/year ($14.08/month) for 3GB/month
> <https://www.ebay.com/itm/133058473014>, $219/year ($18.25/month) for
> 8GB per month <https://www.ebay.com/itm/133058350672>. When you want
> another subsidized phone you can go back to Verizon proper.
like the service so I'll stick with it. Less hassle. Thanks anyway.
nospam
Jul 26, 2021, 3:09:47 PM7/26/21
to
In article <sdmt81$kma$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
> Verizon locks phones for 60 days, whether purchased outright or paid in
> installments (it is unlocked after 60 days even if not paid off).
it still has a fec lock until paid.
> It
> used to be 0 days, due to an agreement reached with the FCC but then the
> FCC allowed them to lock them for 60 days.
that 'agreement' was actually a bribe, where verizon paid off ajit ź to
ignore that they were deliberately violating their agreement with the
fcc.
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> > Cancelling this particular contract is easy peasy. I can even do it
> > online. Just pay off the phone's balance. Course I would lose the
> > remaining discount/subsidy.
>
> It should not be called a contract. It's just an agreement to pay what
> you owe on the device if you leave Verizon. It's very different than the
> old contracts where you were hit with a big penalty for leaving for
> another carrier before the contract term was up.
it's still a contract, and if you leave early, you owe money.
> > Cancelling this particular contract is easy peasy. I can even do it
> > online. Just pay off the phone's balance. Course I would lose the
> > remaining discount/subsidy.
>
> It should not be called a contract. It's just an agreement to pay what
> you owe on the device if you leave Verizon. It's very different than the
> old contracts where you were hit with a big penalty for leaving for
> another carrier before the contract term was up.
> Verizon locks phones for 60 days, whether purchased outright or paid in
> installments (it is unlocked after 60 days even if not paid off).
> It
> used to be 0 days, due to an agreement reached with the FCC but then the
> FCC allowed them to lock them for 60 days.
ignore that they were deliberately violating their agreement with the
fcc.
sms
Jul 26, 2021, 3:27:02 PM7/26/21
to
On 7/26/2021 12:04 PM, AJL wrote:
<snip>
> I'm fortunate in that I don't have to worry about the small stuff. I
> like the service so I'll stick with it. Less hassle. Thanks anyway.
True, it's a minor expense. I just don't like giving Verizon, or any
carrier, any more money that necessary. It's also a little different
when I'm paying for four lines with unlimited data versus one line with
very little data.
<snip>
> I'm fortunate in that I don't have to worry about the small stuff. I
> like the service so I'll stick with it. Less hassle. Thanks anyway.
carrier, any more money that necessary. It's also a little different
when I'm paying for four lines with unlimited data versus one line with
very little data.
AJL
Jul 26, 2021, 4:10:44 PM7/26/21
to
paul
Jul 26, 2021, 5:06:04 PM7/26/21
to
nospam wrote on 26.07.2021 21:09
broken phone replaced by them, and having left AT&T because they wouldn't
put a data block on a smartphone, I have been on the contract free T-mobile.
I don't recall if I pay for the next (upcoming) month or for the prior
month, but if it's the next month, then if I call them to quit, then nobody
owes anyone anything.
If it's for the past month, then I own them a single month.
You can call that a contract (since they're obligated once I pay them).
But in the scheme of things, it's not the kind of contract that locks me
into anything egregious if I leave the company for another carrier.
--
Alan Baker, Chris, Haemactylus, Joerg Lorenz, Jolly Roger, Lewis,
nospam, Rod Speed, Savageduck, Wade Garrett, Wolffan, Your Name, et al.
are embarrassed & ashamed at how much is impossible to do with iOS.
> it's still a contract, and if you leave early, you owe money.
Being someone who left Verizon because they upped the contract when I had a
broken phone replaced by them, and having left AT&T because they wouldn't
put a data block on a smartphone, I have been on the contract free T-mobile.
I don't recall if I pay for the next (upcoming) month or for the prior
month, but if it's the next month, then if I call them to quit, then nobody
owes anyone anything.
If it's for the past month, then I own them a single month.
You can call that a contract (since they're obligated once I pay them).
But in the scheme of things, it's not the kind of contract that locks me
into anything egregious if I leave the company for another carrier.
--
Alan Baker, Chris, Haemactylus, Joerg Lorenz, Jolly Roger, Lewis,
nospam, Rod Speed, Savageduck, Wade Garrett, Wolffan, Your Name, et al.
are embarrassed & ashamed at how much is impossible to do with iOS.
JF Mezei
Jul 26, 2021, 8:02:18 PM7/26/21
to
On 2021-07-26 01:24, sms wrote:
> T-Mobile is in a good position by catering to price-sensitive
> subscribers for whom geographic coverage in non-urban areas is not a big
> concern.
T-Mobile had been left for dead when Deutsche Telekom put it up for
> T-Mobile is in a good position by catering to price-sensitive
> subscribers for whom geographic coverage in non-urban areas is not a big
> concern.
sale, and remained stagnant during the AT&T takeover since much of T-Mo
would be shut down. Coverage not only didn't imprve but got worse during
those years, and T-mo was stuck with 3G on 1700 which had very few phones.
When the AT&T merger was blocked, Deutsche Telekom was stuck with it, so
it hired Legere to bring it back to life. Agressive marketing combined
with network rebuild, AT&T spectrum, and AT&T no longer blocking iPhone
3G on 1700 got T_mobile were all jolts to rescussitate T-mobile.
But as T-mobile regains strength and gets a much mroe decent netork
(especially with Sprint), expect them to no longer sell at a discount
becaiuse they will feel their network can compere against AT&T and Verizon.
There is also the facte there is now less competition.
JF Mezei
Jul 26, 2021, 8:08:48 PM7/26/21
to
On 2021-07-26 01:30, sms wrote:
> Well eventually GSM moved to CDMA as well, just W-CDMA instead of
> CDMA2000.
Very important ]edantic distinction:
> Well eventually GSM moved to CDMA as well, just W-CDMA instead of
> CDMA2000.
GSM moved to cdma air interface, not CDMA. CRMA is a trademark for
Qualcomm for its IA95 and CDMA 2000 proprietary protocols.
GSM manufactuers had to pay some royalties for use of the cdma concept,
but not for actual Qualcomm products or protocols. The implementation
was completely different and much of the GSM stack was presderved onto
the new ai interface that had more capacity.
> Not sure which will be completely shutdown in the U.S. first. AT&T
> already shut down GSM but T-Mobile still operates their GSM network.
> Verizon and U.S. Cellular haven't shut down CDMA yet.
canadian carriers all define their networks interms of GSM, requirement
to be member of GSM association, GSM protocols, GSM SIM cards etc.
The GSM = 2G association is mostly a US phenomena because of marketing
when they evolved, especially carriers like Verizon and Sprint who
sidn,T want to admit they were joining a european assopciation because
that looks bad to their MAGA style customers.
CDMA/Qualcomm was adopted formally by US government as strategic move to
counter the European protocol, so it was hard for americans to accept
GSM so the second they could drop the "GSM" brand they did.
nospam
Jul 26, 2021, 8:17:27 PM7/26/21
to
In article <h8ILI.18264$Ei1....@fx07.iad>, JF Mezei
cdma is the superior technology, which is why gsm switched to it for
3g/hspa. there are minor differences between cdma2000 and wcdma but
nothing that matters. they are both cdma.
>
> what you call 5G is GSM.
nope.
gsm is 2g, however, it's often incorrectly used to mean 2g, 3g, 4g/lte
and now 5g.
<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> > Well eventually GSM moved to CDMA as well, just W-CDMA instead of
> > CDMA2000.
>
> Very important ]edantic distinction:
>
> GSM moved to cdma air interface, not CDMA. CRMA is a trademark for
> Qualcomm for its IA95 and CDMA 2000 proprietary protocols.
that is not an 'important jedantic distinction'.
> > Well eventually GSM moved to CDMA as well, just W-CDMA instead of
> > CDMA2000.
>
> Very important ]edantic distinction:
>
> GSM moved to cdma air interface, not CDMA. CRMA is a trademark for
> Qualcomm for its IA95 and CDMA 2000 proprietary protocols.
cdma is the superior technology, which is why gsm switched to it for
3g/hspa. there are minor differences between cdma2000 and wcdma but
nothing that matters. they are both cdma.
>
> what you call 5G is GSM.
gsm is 2g, however, it's often incorrectly used to mean 2g, 3g, 4g/lte
and now 5g.
sms
Jul 26, 2021, 8:47:05 PM7/26/21
to
two top-tier carriers in terms of the quality and coverage of their network.
Catering to price-sensitive customers and not trying to go head-to-head
with AT&T and Verizon for corporate and government accounts, and not
spending a fortune on fixing coverage issues, has paid off. Expanding
rural coverage would not gain them many customers in those rural areas
and they’re content to write off the customers for whom geographic
coverage is a no-compromise requirement.
Twice I've had T-Mobile sales people trying to sell service to places I
worked. First was at an IOT company where we had a lot of devices with
GSM radios out in the field with AT&T SIM cards and AT&T was shutting
down GSM. But it was of no interest because the devices were often in
remote locations where there was nothing but AT&T service. Second time
they gave us some activated SIM cards to try out their network, but the
problem was that the coverage wasn't good enough in Silicon Valley once
you got out to the foothills. We would have saved about $3000 per month
by switching all the lines from Verizon to T-Mobile but it just was not
do-able.
Acquiring Sprint won't help T-Mobile's geographic footprint much, if at
all, since Sprint had such a tiny network and relied heavily on Verizon
for roaming. T-Mobile wanted Sprint for two reasons: 1) the 33 million
or so Sprint postpaid customers, and 2) the spectrum owned by Sprint.
So far, T-Mobile has been intent on adding 5G to their existing towers
but has not done much to expand their geographic coverage. All their
marketing is about touting 5G. I saw their commercial during the
Olympics and I had to laugh when I heard the weasel words that I guess
they were forced to include regarding data speeds.
Free Netflix, free Taco Bell tacos, and free Burger King Whoppers are
not going to impress commercial and government customers. Those
customers are willing to pay the extra cost for a better network.
The Rootmetrics report <
https://www.androidcentral.com/rootmetrics-reports-verizon-has-best-overall-network-first-half-2021>
is spot-on.
nospam
Jul 26, 2021, 8:56:25 PM7/26/21
to
In article <sdnl28$9p9$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
verizon except in very rural areas. i've used it. you obviously have
not.
> T-Mobile wanted Sprint for two reasons: 1) the 33 million
> or so Sprint postpaid customers, and 2) the spectrum owned by Sprint.
more accurately, sprint had financial difficulties and needed to be
purchased or go poof. i know someone who designs their hardware and he
has many stories to tell.
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> Acquiring Sprint won't help T-Mobile's geographic footprint much, if at
> all, since Sprint had such a tiny network and relied heavily on Verizon
> for roaming.
nonsense. sprint's network is/was quite good and almost never roamed on
> Acquiring Sprint won't help T-Mobile's geographic footprint much, if at
> all, since Sprint had such a tiny network and relied heavily on Verizon
> for roaming.
verizon except in very rural areas. i've used it. you obviously have
not.
> T-Mobile wanted Sprint for two reasons: 1) the 33 million
> or so Sprint postpaid customers, and 2) the spectrum owned by Sprint.
purchased or go poof. i know someone who designs their hardware and he
has many stories to tell.
sms
Jul 26, 2021, 9:00:28 PM7/26/21
to
On 7/26/2021 5:08 PM, JF Mezei wrote:
> On 2021-07-26 01:30, sms wrote:
>
>> Well eventually GSM moved to CDMA as well, just W-CDMA instead of
>> CDMA2000.
>
> Very important ]edantic distinction:
>
> GSM moved to cdma air interface, not CDMA. CRMA is a trademark for
> Qualcomm for its IA95 and CDMA 2000 proprietary protocols.
>
> GSM manufactuers had to pay some royalties for use of the cdma concept,
> but not for actual Qualcomm products or protocols. The implementation
> was completely different and much of the GSM stack was presderved onto
> the new ai interface that had more capacity.
All the phone makers ended up licensing Qualcomms patents for W-CDMA.
> On 2021-07-26 01:30, sms wrote:
>
>> Well eventually GSM moved to CDMA as well, just W-CDMA instead of
>> CDMA2000.
>
> Very important ]edantic distinction:
>
> GSM moved to cdma air interface, not CDMA. CRMA is a trademark for
> Qualcomm for its IA95 and CDMA 2000 proprietary protocols.
>
> GSM manufactuers had to pay some royalties for use of the cdma concept,
> but not for actual Qualcomm products or protocols. The implementation
> was completely different and much of the GSM stack was presderved onto
> the new ai interface that had more capacity.
i.e.
<https://www.reuters.com/article/us-qualcomm-nokia-facts/factbox-qualcomm-nokia-end-3-year-patent-battle-idUSN2142251820080724>
JF Mezei
Jul 27, 2021, 3:23:35 AM7/27/21
to
On 2021-07-26 20:17, nospam wrote:
> cdma is the superior technology, which is why gsm switched to it for
> 3g/hspa. there are minor differences between cdma2000 and wcdma but
> nothing that matters. they are both cdma.
cdma is a concept, like tdma. CDMA, CDMA2000, HSPA/UMTS are all
> cdma is the superior technology, which is why gsm switched to it for
> 3g/hspa. there are minor differences between cdma2000 and wcdma but
> nothing that matters. they are both cdma.
different implementations of the CONCEPT.
There are not minor differences.
cdma is akin to using front wehel vs rear wheel drive (tdma). But once
you select that, you still have very different drive trains, very
different transmissions.
UMTS/HSPA has implememntation of cdma phisolophy that is totally
different from what Qualcomm implemented. The channel widths,
compression, encoding"modulation are all different (which is why HSPA
managed up to 42mbps while CDMA2000 was stuck at 3mbps).
The two are totally imcompatible even though both are "front wheel
drive"concepts.
GSM had to pay royalties to Qualcomm for use of the cdma _concept_ (on
which Qualcomm had patents), they did not pay Qualcomm for use of actual
CDMA IA95 or CDAM2000 code/protocols/designs.
JF Mezei
Jul 27, 2021, 3:29:04 AM7/27/21
to
On 2021-07-26 20:47, sms wrote:
> Financially they're doing great. But they still lag far, far behind the
> two top-tier carriers in terms of the quality and coverage of their network.
T-Mobile had near death experience and has managed to come back strong
> Financially they're doing great. But they still lag far, far behind the
> two top-tier carriers in terms of the quality and coverage of their network.
by discounting its inferior network.
But as it gets stronger, its network is improving and as it the need to
discount its services to get customers will diminish as it can start to
compete more ehead to head against AT&T and Verizon.
We had similar here in Canada with almost all the 2007 batch of new
entrants dying, and Wind having to really discount its prices due to bad
network (and lack of money to build it). Once sold to Shaw, Shaw
deployed LTE, obtained spectrum and really improves their coverage in
the cities they serve and they stated their goal was to eventually match
other incumbet,s ARPU (akaL raise prices to same as incumbents).
(Shaw is slated to disapear if the Shw/Rogesr merger is approved and
will become an MVNO of Rogers).
BTW Acquiring Sprint will help T-Mobile due to additional spectrum givin
it plenty of capacity and llikely rights to deploy antennas in greater
territory.
JF Mezei
Jul 27, 2021, 3:33:00 AM7/27/21
to
On 2021-07-26 21:00, sms wrote:
> All the phone makers ended up licensing Qualcomms patents for W-CDMA.
> i.e.
> <https://www.reuters.com/article/us-qualcomm-nokia-facts/factbox-qualcomm-nokia-end-3-year-patent-battle-idUSN2142251820080724>
No. W-CDMA is GSM protocol. But because it makes use of the cdma
> All the phone makers ended up licensing Qualcomms patents for W-CDMA.
> i.e.
> <https://www.reuters.com/article/us-qualcomm-nokia-facts/factbox-qualcomm-nokia-end-3-year-patent-battle-idUSN2142251820080724>
concept, a patent help by Qualcomm, any building of wireless tech that
implemnets GSM 3G had to pay roalties to Qualcomm for use of vdma concept.
Qualcomm did not develop W-CDMA itself.
nospam
Jul 27, 2021, 8:59:07 AM7/27/21
to
In article <VvOLI.28295$Nq7....@fx33.iad>, JF Mezei
one that's much better, which is why gsm/2g ditched tdma and switched
to cdma for 3g, which was later improved upon for 4g/lte and 5g.
tdma is garbage.
one that's much better, which is why gsm/2g ditched tdma and switched
to cdma for 3g, which was later improved upon for 4g/lte and 5g.
tdma is garbage.
nospam
Jul 27, 2021, 8:59:08 AM7/27/21
to
In article <1BOLI.46738$qk6....@fx36.iad>, JF Mezei
<jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> T-Mobile had near death experience and has managed to come back strong
> by discounting its inferior network.
no it didn't. you're as bad as sms with the made up bullshit.
> T-Mobile had near death experience and has managed to come back strong
> by discounting its inferior network.
sms
Jul 27, 2021, 2:23:28 PM7/27/21
to
On 7/27/2021 12:29 AM, JF Mezei wrote:
> On 2021-07-26 20:47, sms wrote:
>
>> Financially they're doing great. But they still lag far, far behind the
>> two top-tier carriers in terms of the quality and coverage of their network.
>
> T-Mobile had near death experience and has managed to come back strong
> by discounting its inferior network.
>
> But as it gets stronger, its network is improving and as it the need to
> discount its services to get customers will diminish as it can start to
> compete more ehead to head against AT&T and Verizon.
Perhaps they are expanding rural coverage in some areas, but it hasn’t
> On 2021-07-26 20:47, sms wrote:
>
>> Financially they're doing great. But they still lag far, far behind the
>> two top-tier carriers in terms of the quality and coverage of their network.
>
> T-Mobile had near death experience and has managed to come back strong
> by discounting its inferior network.
>
> But as it gets stronger, its network is improving and as it the need to
> discount its services to get customers will diminish as it can start to
> compete more ehead to head against AT&T and Verizon.
happened in my area yet; the maps on their web sites confirm this fact.
You can be sure that they would show any new coverage that they added on
their coverage maps.
One area we frequently go to is the southern San Mateo County coast and
the northern Santa Cruz County cost. You can see the vast coverage
differences at <https://imgur.com/CpMuMmC>.
Another place we go to frequently is to the part of Yosemite near Fish
Camp in the southwest part of Yosemite. You can see the vast coverage
differences at <https://imgur.com/lEgVxMt>.
The best tool I’ve found for easy comparison of coverage is at
<https://www.whistleout.com/CellPhones/Guides/Coverage>, scroll down to
“Comparing Cell Phone Coverage Maps.”
For users that never leave urban areas, or that don't care about not
having coverage in rural areas, T-Mobile is a very good option since
their postpaid prices are lower than AT&T or Verizon postpaid prices.
paul
Jul 27, 2021, 7:18:16 PM7/27/21
to
sms wrote on 27.07.2021 20:23
> Perhaps they are expanding rural coverage in some areas, but it hasn┤
<https://i.postimg.cc/xCbVQ2pj/signal02.jpg>
Steve is only a few miles from me (we shop at the same pool store for
example), where I live smack dab in the middle of the Santa Cruz mountains.
Here we don't have _any_ public utilities other than electricity & phone
(i.e., we have no water, no sewage, no lpg). We don't even have cable on the
power poles so our Internet has to come from the sky from miles away.
Forget DSL as were many tens of thousands of feet from the nearest station.
The nearest cell towers are miles away (but closer as the crow flies).
We even have 100 feet zoning where we can't build ANYTHING (not even a shed)
within 100 feet of the road, and we have 40 acre zoning (so if you have 79
acres, you can only put ONE house on the lot!). They do not want anyone to
build out here which is why the rules are so Draconian on infrastructure.
And yet... while Steve incessantly claims we have slow T-Mobile speeds...
There it is... 5G at 255Mbps <https://i.postimg.cc/zf9w1tGZ/speedtest07.jpg>
Of course, speeds aren't signal strength so I turned off my Wi-Fi just now
to get my signal strength while on 5G which was above 100 decibels (RSRP).
<https://i.postimg.cc/xCbVQ2pj/signal02.jpg>
The RSPR (Reference Signal Received Power) was -90 & -94 in two back to back
tests as shown in that screenshot above taken only moments ago at my home.
<https://5gstore.com/blog/2021/04/08/understanding-rssi-rsrp-and-rsrq/?
In other words, what Steve claims about coverage & signal is bullshit.
--
For whatever reason, Steve shills for Verizon even as he doesn't use them.
> Perhaps they are expanding rural coverage in some areas, but it hasn┤
> happened in my area yet;
This screenshot, taken moments ago, proves Steve is a bullshitter.
<https://i.postimg.cc/xCbVQ2pj/signal02.jpg>
Steve is only a few miles from me (we shop at the same pool store for
example), where I live smack dab in the middle of the Santa Cruz mountains.
Here we don't have _any_ public utilities other than electricity & phone
(i.e., we have no water, no sewage, no lpg). We don't even have cable on the
power poles so our Internet has to come from the sky from miles away.
Forget DSL as were many tens of thousands of feet from the nearest station.
The nearest cell towers are miles away (but closer as the crow flies).
We even have 100 feet zoning where we can't build ANYTHING (not even a shed)
within 100 feet of the road, and we have 40 acre zoning (so if you have 79
acres, you can only put ONE house on the lot!). They do not want anyone to
build out here which is why the rules are so Draconian on infrastructure.
And yet... while Steve incessantly claims we have slow T-Mobile speeds...
There it is... 5G at 255Mbps <https://i.postimg.cc/zf9w1tGZ/speedtest07.jpg>
Of course, speeds aren't signal strength so I turned off my Wi-Fi just now
to get my signal strength while on 5G which was above 100 decibels (RSRP).
<https://i.postimg.cc/xCbVQ2pj/signal02.jpg>
The RSPR (Reference Signal Received Power) was -90 & -94 in two back to back
tests as shown in that screenshot above taken only moments ago at my home.
<https://5gstore.com/blog/2021/04/08/understanding-rssi-rsrp-and-rsrq/?
In other words, what Steve claims about coverage & signal is bullshit.
--
For whatever reason, Steve shills for Verizon even as he doesn't use them.
paul
Jul 27, 2021, 7:21:54 PM7/27/21
to
paul wrote on 28.07.2021 01:18
--
There isn't any functionality on iOS not already on Android, and yet there
is tons of functionality on Android impossible on iOS. Why? Because Apple
limits what the apps can do while Google can't. The market provides the
functionality for Android (in or out of the Play Store) while the market
can't provide the functionality for iOS if Apple doesn't want them to.
> Of course, speeds aren't signal strength so I turned off my Wi-Fi just now
> to get my signal strength while on 5G which was above 100 decibels (RSRP).
> <https://i.postimg.cc/xCbVQ2pj/signal02.jpg>
>
> The RSPR (Reference Signal Received Power) was -90 & -94 in two back to back
> tests as shown in that screenshot above taken only moments ago at my home.
> <https://5gstore.com/blog/2021/04/08/understanding-rssi-rsrp-and-rsrq/?
BTW, that is *stuff we do every day on Android which is _impossible_ on iOS.*
> to get my signal strength while on 5G which was above 100 decibels (RSRP).
> <https://i.postimg.cc/xCbVQ2pj/signal02.jpg>
>
> The RSPR (Reference Signal Received Power) was -90 & -94 in two back to back
> tests as shown in that screenshot above taken only moments ago at my home.
> <https://5gstore.com/blog/2021/04/08/understanding-rssi-rsrp-and-rsrq/?
--
There isn't any functionality on iOS not already on Android, and yet there
is tons of functionality on Android impossible on iOS. Why? Because Apple
limits what the apps can do while Google can't. The market provides the
functionality for Android (in or out of the Play Store) while the market
can't provide the functionality for iOS if Apple doesn't want them to.
sms
Jul 27, 2021, 8:58:42 PM7/27/21
to
that's why Qualcomm demanded, and received, patent royalties for W-CDMA.
JF Mezei
Jul 27, 2021, 11:26:09 PM7/27/21
to
On 2021-07-27 20:58, sms wrote:
> True, but W-CDMA shares many of the patented items in CDMA2000. At least
> that's why Qualcomm demanded, and received, patent royalties for W-CDMA.
the cdma approach defines a way to send and receive multiple streams in
> True, but W-CDMA shares many of the patented items in CDMA2000. At least
> that's why Qualcomm demanded, and received, patent royalties for W-CDMA.
the same channel/frequency block. Like allowing many in a crowd to speak
at same time and still be able to pick out individual voices.
Consider that tdma vs cdma akin to the difference between AM and FM.
Except i this case, Qualcomm is akin to having patented the concept of
modulating the frequency around a carrier signal (FM) instead of
changing the strength of signal at a specific frequency (amplitude
modulation).
What GSM is paying Qualcomm for is just the use of the patented concept
(cdma), not any particular implementation.
So they get the genaral logic for encoding a signal and decoding it,
need for time synchronisation etc, but in building W-CDMA with wider
channels, all the math is created differently. Furthermore, that is
just for air interface. You then have the digital interface for sending
bits (decoding the analogue frequency stuff from antenna into 1s and 0s)
and the hgher layers of application (voice, data, session,
authentication). None of those are compatible with Qualcom's product
suite with IOS95 or CDMA2000.
There is also the voice codecs (how analogue voice is converted to
digital which define the data rate needed, how "space" between words is
handled/filtered out to reduce load on network etc). GSM and CDMA and
GSM are totally different (and each support a number of codecs, but as
the GSM channesl are wider, GSM tends to have better voice quality codecs).
nospam
Jul 28, 2021, 9:19:06 AM7/28/21
to
In article <sdpiuu$592$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> Perhaps they are expanding rural coverage in some areas, but it hasnšt
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
> Perhaps they are expanding rural coverage in some areas, but it hasnšt
> happened in my area yet;
your area is not in any way rural and has very good t-mobile coverage
0 new messages