Google Allows Carriers To Ban Tethering Apps 328
iluvcapra writes "Google, in its continuing struggle to provide phone carriers (if not its end users) with an open platform, is now banning tethering apps from the Android market. These apps haven't disappeared and can still be sideloaded, insofar as your carrier doesn't lock this functionality or snoop on your packets."
This is good. (Score:5, Insightful)
It puts more load on their network if you use up your five gigabytes of monthly data with your laptop instead of your cell phone, unless you pay extra for it.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why the sensational title? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why the sensational title
The 'i' in Android is not at the beginning of the product name.
Capped. (Score:5, Insightful)
With virtually all carriers capping virtually all plans these days, any rationale for preventing tethering disappeared.
Now it is simply GREED. They have special plans that add tethering. Therefore you can't tether for free any more.
They can't claim network impact. As long as you stay under your Cap what is the problem?
There is precious little data to suggest tethering users actually use more data. I know I don't. Sometimes I just want to
send an email attachment that happens to be on my laptop. Some times I need to SSH into a server and can't put up with
trying do deal with a command line task on that tiny screen.
But it seems the defenders of this clamp down all seem to be rushing to defending the carriers because the carriers
rely on the "over sell" of their bandwidth. Any user that approaches his CAP is therefore somehow stealing from
the carrier. (I kid you not, I've seen this argument posted [androidcentral.com]).
But even to reach that level of gullibility you have to buy into the idea that people who tether use more data. But its just not supported by the facts.
The coming release of a flood of WIFI only tablets, with no continuing data plan for the carriers has a lot of people planning to tether these tablets for those few times a year when traveling where there is no handy WIFI. The carriers are trying to nip this in the bud, and they believe that every handheld device needs to have a carrier plan.
Re:This is good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Basic contract law says that they can't make changes to the contract without your agreement.
You agreed to let them make changes to the contract when you signed it.
VPN + tethering works & why we like cryptograp (Score:3, Insightful)
This totally works. Yes. This makes it impossible for anyone without your VPN keys to inspect your packets. VPN is just an encrypted P2P connection. Carriers will not arbitrarily block encrypted connections. Ergo, this is technically how to overcome any attempts to block tethering by the network provider. If carriers begin to routinely block tethering, this is how the technically adept will respond.
Here is another example of why all traffic on the internet should always be encrypted. Should we fork the internet, this is how the new, forked version will have to work.
Re:This is good. (Score:5, Insightful)
But you can't. IANAL, but any contract that says "you agree to any changes in the future" is illegal and non-binding.
This is why WoW's Terms and Conditions are continually popping up for you to agree to -- every time they make a change, you have to reagree.
Re:This is good. (Score:4, Insightful)
But you can't. IANAL, but any contract that says "you agree to any changes in the future" is illegal and non-binding.
This is a almost universal in subscription service contracts. For you, a non-lawyer, to stand up and state that it is universally non-binding flies in the face of the facts that it is used everywhere, enforced everywhere, and any time you challenge it, they simply terminate the contract and send you packing.
Re:Capped. (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not just greed. I have no problem with greed, plus there is no realistic way to prevent greed on a macro scale. This smacks of collusion, which I am quite against. In a truly competitive market you would expect market forces to make things which cost virtually zero to provide to cost virtually zero. One major carrier would offer tethering for free and all the others would be forced to follow. For that matter, it is inconceivable to me that text messages are not free with any voice plan as they use so much less bandwidth. The stupid two year contract standard in the US allows all carriers to exert monopolistic policies. IMO this could be solved quickly if all carriers were forced to offer a la carte pricing and advertise how much that "free" phone costs over a 2 year contract.
Re:Damn. (Score:2, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is good. (Score:3, Insightful)