Related
This is specific to the USA, but I'm sure will be heading out across the borders soon enough.
Today is 21 December 2010. It marks an unprecedented time in our judicial system. Today, Net Neutrality begins to come to a close.
For those who don't know what Net Neutrality is, it is simply your current right to view, say, do, or read what ever you like (legally) from the Internet without restriction. This means that your ISP, or Internet Service Provider, cannot restrict you access to anything online that is within the bounds of the law. Without Net Neutrality, ISPs would be allowed to throttle, or limit, your bandwidth to competing markets, or surcharge you for using higher than normal bandwidth. How would you feel to have to pay per Gigabyte of downloads instead of a set monthly fee? This is precisely what some regulators are looking into.
Comcast is one of the largest media companies in the United states, controlling content providers across the nation. If this bill passes tomorrow, they would be allowed to charge you more money based on the amount of things you download. If you don't think you download very much, think again. On average, in one hour, a user may consume over over 3GB of data while watching HD content on Youtube. Now imagine that you were charged a rate per GB of download. Even a small rate would add up very quickly, would it not? This move would also give Comcast the power to throttle the content to users. Currently, ISPs are not allowed to influence data moving to and from your connection. This move will allow them to slow your connection whenever they please with or without reason. They don't need your permission but simply have to notify you of the change.
This bill gets even more lenient with wireless carriers. It goes so far to say that wireless content providers, such as AT&T and Verizon, can limit bandwidth on their networks and surcharge users for competing content. There is a plan already in the works with AT&T and Verizon to charge users different rates for accessing content providers like Facebook ($0.02 per MB of data), Youtube ($0.50 monthly fee), and Skype ($3 monthly fee). They aren't even shy about it. Both of these companies know they are wrong, but they also know there's nothing you can do to stop them.
The current bill is set to be approved tomorrow. These politicians are setting in motion a bill that 'fixes' problems that do not exist. It is the sole embodiment of the broadband lobbyists getting their way. This document is so riddled with loopholes it is clear that the FCC chairman has nothing more on his mind than the green in his wallet.
Considering our President vowed to "take a backseat to no one in my commitment to Net Neutrality," he is certainly not doing anything to stop this monstrosity of a bill from being passed. I can't wait to see how he and the FCC chairman try to put a positive spin on this horrible stain on our judicial system. It is the FCC chairman's job to protect the consumers from these very companies they are enabling. It is also taking the power away from the FCC and putting it into the hands of these companies to regulate the Internet in their own manner.
I'll be able to tell my children someday about how the FCC used to be on our side. It's too late now to fix this problem. I just felt it prudent to pass the information along and explain it to those who don't understand what is about to happen to the free society of the Internet in America.
If you decide you want to contact your politician about this, let your politician know. I know I have.
To find your member of Congress, go here: http://www.contactingthecongress.org/.
Or call the FCC members directly:
Main FCC number 1 (888) CALL-FCC
Julius Genachowski 1 (202) 418-1000
Michael Copps 1 (202) 418-2000
Robert M. McDowell 1 (202) 418-2200
Mignon Clyburn 1 (202) 418-2100
Meredith Attwell Baker 1 (202) 418-2400
Or, fax a letter to the FCC at 1 (866) 418-0232
Make your opinion heard!
**UK ONLY**
THIS IS FOR USERS WHO PURCHASED A "SIM-ONLY" Package.
Hello, I'm not sure if this is allowed here. If not please can it be moved to the right location.
Short story...
I am currently on contract with 3 UK that gives me 100 minutes, 5000 texts and 500MB internet. I am paying £15.32 per month.
I rarely use minutes and don't use anywhere near 5000 texts. So I was thinking how many users are like me, that doesn't really use most of the allowance given to us, but pay for the allowances that we don't actually use.
I have created this short survey that I would like you all to fill out. Please just the UK only!
Here is the survey:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/viewform?formkey=dFROQ1ozcklQM2hvUVhNczRJRVZqRGc6MQ
And please spread this round!
I had decided that this would be only for "Sim-Only" users as going on contract with a phone will mess wit the results as you are paying for the phone too.
I'm on contract so i won't fill out the form, but i don't think £15.00 a month is bad at all.
I would like to see carriers introduce data only tariffs though, much like i have with Be* for my internet. For that tariff you would get a larger data allowance but no free calls or texts. Can't see them going for it though.
Anyway, good luck with your survey! Let us know your results when you're done?
DirkGently1 said:
I'm on contract so i won't fill out the form, but i don't think £15.00 a month is bad at all.
I would like to see carriers introduce data only tariffs though, much like i have with Be* for my internet. For that tariff you would get a larger data allowance but no free calls or texts. Can't see them going for it though.
Anyway, good luck with your survey! Let us know your results when you're done?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I believe 3 do a data only tariff.
£15 a month IMO is a bit much for what I use. I just want the option to reduce my allowance a save a few £. I'm sure a lot of users would also appreciate this.
I also had an idea which led me to create this survey. See picture.
You get a fixed amount of minutes and you can change how many texts or data you want. You can sacrifice some texts for some more data allowance. You can adjust on a monthly basis. I have set the price to compete with the 3 network as they have the cheapest tariffs with mobile data included.
I was thinking of opening a Mobile Virtual Network Operator like GifGaf and Tesco.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_virtual_network_operator
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_UK_MVNO#United_Kingdom
But I have no experience in any of them sectors and I'm not a business person. I just have an idea.
Perhaps I should pass my idea with the major networks? But will be hard to contact.
I'd post results if i get any XD
You've got me thinking now. I'm paying £30 a month for what amounts to 500MB of data. I don't really call or text at all. (Forever alone.jpg)
And you think you're overpaying!
DirkGently1 said:
You've got me thinking now. I'm paying £30 a month for what amounts to 500MB of data. I don't really call or text at all. (Forever alone.jpg)
And you think you're overpaying!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well you are paying for a phone too
Does anyone have any information on when Foxfi will be working again for phones with KitKat? My app broke when i updated to KitKat.
Have you tried emailing the app maker?
KidJoe said:
Have you tried emailing the app maker?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i have, and they have yet to respond. it doesn't work. hoping someone comes up with a workaround as i'm trying to see how long i can go without rooting this phone.
640k said:
i have, and they have yet to respond. it doesn't work. hoping someone comes up with a workaround as i'm trying to see how long i can go without rooting this phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My post on another forum below. I've been emailing the creator/current holder of FoxFi and they're incompetent.
FoxFi does NOT work on Verizon. It asks for credential passwords (of which there is no answer for) or to enable native tethering which just results in a subscription check. I've brought this to the Foxfi developer's attention, and it's not been fun. We've exchanged multiple emails back and forth and it seems I'm dealing with someone who doesn't understand English or is just bad at reading. They keep answering everything but what I ask. First they said I can update to Kit Kat and FoxFi wifi tethering would work - false. I replied telling them this and also explained that FoxFi is asking for a credential password after having me create a lock screen with password (also new). Their reply - I can remove the lock screen by entering the wrong password 5-10 times. Again, not even close or relevant to what I asked. I'm just about done speaking with them and wouldn't consider buying FoxFi if support can't even be bothered to respond coherently.
Yazzinit said:
My post on another forum below. I've been emailing the creator/current holder of FoxFi and they're incompetent.
FoxFi does NOT work on Verizon. It asks for credential passwords (of which there is no answer for) or to enable native tethering which just results in a subscription check. I've brought this to the Foxfi developer's attention, and it's not been fun. We've exchanged multiple emails back and forth and it seems I'm dealing with someone who doesn't understand English or is just bad at reading. They keep answering everything but what I ask. First they said I can update to Kit Kat and FoxFi wifi tethering would work - false. I replied telling them this and also explained that FoxFi is asking for a credential password after having me create a lock screen with password (also new). Their reply - I can remove the lock screen by entering the wrong password 5-10 times. Again, not even close or relevant to what I asked. I'm just about done speaking with them and wouldn't consider buying FoxFi if support can't even be bothered to respond coherently.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
thei VPN certificate is supposed to bypass the check. i had this working on 4.2.2, before the KitKat update came. I suspect the additional security layers added with 4.4 negated the effectiveness of their solution. It is possible they haven't even started testing with the latest version.
640k said:
thei VPN certificate is supposed to bypass the check. i had this working on 4.2.2, before the KitKat update came. I suspect the additional security layers added with 4.4 negated the effectiveness of their solution. It is possible they haven't even started testing with the latest version.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have it working on another VZW phone(HTC One) running a 4.4 Sense ROM so it may be directly related to something with the Moto X 4.4 update. Have you tried the PDA+ app. I know they are essentially the same company now but previously it worked for me when the actual Foxfi app didnt. I should have be Moto X sometime early next week(hopefully:fingers-crossed so I will give it a go myself and report back.
mademan420 said:
I have it working on another VZW phone(HTC One) running a 4.4 Sense ROM so it may be directly related to something with the Moto X 4.4 update. Have you tried the PDA+ app. I know they are essentially the same company now but previously it worked for me when the actual Foxfi app didnt. I should have be Moto X sometime early next week(hopefully:fingers-crossed so I will give it a go myself and report back.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
if you go to pdanet/foxfi's site, it specifically says that wifi tethering is through/from the actual foxfi app, so i have no confidence that pdanet will work any better than foxfi on its own.
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
640k said:
if you go to pdanet/foxfi's site, it specifically says that wifi tethering is through/from the actual foxfi app, so i have no confidence that pdanet will work any better than foxfi on its own.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It was merely a suggestion based on my past experience with both apps but ok
PDANet only works on usb tethering for VZW 4.4. The FoxFi part doesn't work, as I posted above. The developer (also as I mentioned above) is pretty incompetent so I'm not holding my breath on a fix and wouldn't recommend buying it after the responses I've gotten. Seriously, they constantly fail to read my questions and I'm not the only one. Another person on another forum (not sure if I can mention it here?) has said the same thing.
I accidentally upgraded to KitKat after having my ultra for only 3 days. Verizon wouldn't help me roll back to jellybean or let me exchange my phone (without paying a restock fee) I agreed to pay the fee and switch for another ultra still running jellybean but the vzw rep said it would be a waste of money because vzw is going to push the update and I eventually won't have an option. So I'm stuck paying my $39 hotspot fee when I was getting the use of my hotspot free on my DNA. I power two TV streaming media boxes, two tablets and my laptop. My average monthly GB usage is around 600gb. I have a 4 and 5 yr old who stream Netflix cartoons to their rooms all day. And never a glitch. So for $30 I shouldn't complain...however it really bothers me that Verizon made me upgrade and now an app I paid for is useless.
Yazzinit said:
PDANet only works on usb tethering for VZW 4.4. The FoxFi part doesn't work, as I posted above. The developer (also as I mentioned above) is pretty incompetent so I'm not holding my breath on a fix and wouldn't recommend buying it after the responses I've gotten. Seriously, they constantly fail to read my questions and I'm not the only one. Another person on another forum (not sure if I can mention it here?) has said the same thing.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
PDANet also works on bluetooth for Verizon 4.4. Not as fast as WiFi and smaller range, but if you don't want to root or tether with a USB cord it is your only option.
---------- Post added at 06:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:44 PM ----------
candi.ultra.girl said:
I accidentally upgraded to KitKat after having my ultra for only 3 days. Verizon wouldn't help me roll back to jellybean or let me exchange my phone (without paying a restock fee) I agreed to pay the fee and switch for another ultra still running jellybean but the vzw rep said it would be a waste of money because vzw is going to push the update and I eventually won't have an option. So I'm stuck paying my $39 hotspot fee when I was getting the use of my hotspot free on my DNA
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ok, so you want Verizon to help you violate their TOS?
candi.ultra.girl said:
I power two TV streaming media boxes, two tablets and my laptop. My average monthly GB usage is around 600gb. I have a 4 and 5 yr old who stream Netflix cartoons to their rooms all day. And never a glitch. So for $30 I shouldn't complain...however it really bothers me that Verizon made me upgrade and now an app I paid for is useless.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
LOL! No, you shouldn't complain AT ALL.
You are pissed because you get to use 600GB of wireless data per month for the price of your $29.99/mo unlimited data plan but now a $5 app is useless to you? It is the data hogs like you that are going to result in Verizon putting an end to the unlimited data plans for all of us.
And you have a 4 and 5 yo who stream Netflix cartoons in their rooms all day *smh* Where did you go to parenting school?!?!? Oh, wait, that is right anyone can have a child no matter how crappy of a parent they are. Get your kids off of their boob tube habit, lady!
This has got to be one of the most unbelievable posts I have ever read. I can't believe you are for real.
waste of time
Yet you took the time to respond? Is this a parenting forum? Are u even a parent? /useless defending myself but I've got time if you do.
Thanks for your nasty attitude and offering no help at all. Maybe you can tell me how I am violating the TOS? Vzw is aware of my data usage. The FCC rules they can't cap my data right? I get what I pay for. If u were a parent you would know that just because the TV runs doesn't mean they are glued to it. They attend a private christian academy and here in Rural Ga it costs more than my mortgage, car notes and utilities, so I try to get more for less anyway I can especially when I pay for the phone and service. We don't subscribe to cable or satellite and I clip coupons too, they also eat ice cream for breakfast would you like to bash me for that? If you dont have anything productive to add then why be so rude? I have been with Verizon for 15+ years since it was cellular one. Don't even get me started on how this huge conglomerate is screwing over its customers...I have a right to use the phone I paid full price for and the unlimited data that came with the original contract I signed with them in any way I see fit. Data hog or not. Your rude opinion is not needed. Just any technical advice. I purchased pda.net in 2007 for around $19 and the same serial # activation still work from junefabrics. Its not the apps fault it is VZW trying to screw customers.
candi.ultra.girl said:
Yet you took the time to respond? Is this a parenting forum? Are u even a parent? /useless defending myself but I've got time if you do.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Of course you do; your kids are staring at Netflix watching cartoons all day so what else do you have to do, lol!
candi.ultra.girl said:
Thanks for your nasty attitude and offering no help at all. Maybe you can tell me how I am violating the TOS?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
By tethering without paying the extra fee.
Now, having said that, as I post all over the internet all of the time, Verizon can't stop you from using an app to do that because of the terms of their block C licenses. But that doesn't mean it doesn't violate their TOS; it does. They just can't enforce their TOS by stopping you from using that app.
But guess what they can do once your contract expires? Drop you as a customer for violating their TOS.
candi.ultra.girl said:
The FCC rules they can't cap my data right?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
NO!!!!!!! That is NOT what the FCC rules say. The FCC rules say that Verizon can't stop you from using an app. But it doesn't mean that isn't a violation of their TOS. And it doesn't mean that they can't pressure Google or the phone manufacturers into closing exploits that allow apps to allow you to violate their TOS. What they clearly can't do is pressure Google to remove those apps from the PlayStore. That they can't do.
I violate Verizon's TOS. However, I don't ask them to help me to do it nor do I get angry at Verizon when they won't help me to do it. That is the point that is ridiculous to me. You want them to help you violate their TOS and are angry that they won't, lol!
candi.ultra.girl said:
If u were a parent you would know that just because the TV runs doesn't mean they are glued to it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I was remarking on what you said. You said they stream Netflix cartoons all day.
candi.ultra.girl said:
They attend a private christian academy and here in Rural Ga it costs more than my mortgage, car notes and utilities, so I try to get more for less anyway I can especially when I pay for the phone and service. We don't subscribe to cable or satellite and I clip coupons too, they also eat ice cream for breakfast would you like to bash me for that?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Clipping coupons doesn't deprive me of anything. Being a data hog by using 600GB of data a month risks depriving all of us who have unlimited data ultimately.
Verizon does not have to continue to allow us to have unlimited data. People like you risk ruining it for all of us. Shame on you!
candi.ultra.girl said:
I have a right to use the phone I paid full price for and the unlimited data that came with the original contract I signed with them in any way I see fit.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
OK, you clearly didn't go to law school, but hey, you stick your kids in front of a TV all day so I wasn't thinking you were very educated.
First - that contract expired long ago. Verizon can at any time after a contract expires refuse to renew it at those terms. That is clearly in the contract. So no, you do not have any "right" to the terms of the original contract once it expires.
Second - it is Verizon's position that data is a feature and not part of the contract anyhow and that they can change your data plan at their whim. Whether or not they have a legal leg to stand on with that argument is a complex legal argument that depends not only on federal law but the choice of law provisions in Verizon's TOS and one that you would never be able to grasp no matter how clearly I explained it to you.
---------- Post added at 10:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:36 PM ----------
These are the FCC rules that are being discussed here in case anyone is trying to follow this:
47 CFR 27.16
(b) Use of devices and applications. Licensees offering service on spectrum subject to this section shall not deny, limit, or restrict the ability of their customers to use the devices and applications of their choice on the licensee's C Block network, except:
(1) Insofar as such use would not be compliant with published technical standards reasonably necessary for the management or protection of the licensee's network, or
(2) As required to comply with statute or applicable government regulation.
600GB of data runs the risk of giving Verizon the argument that they can cut you off under 47 CFR 27.16(b)(1). Now having said that, there is this:
(c) Technical standards. For purposes of paragraph (b)(1) of this section:
(1) Standards shall include technical requirements reasonably necessary for third parties to access a licensee's network via devices or applications without causing objectionable interference to other spectrum users or jeopardizing network security. The potential for excessive bandwidth demand alone shall not constitute grounds for denying, limiting or restricting access to the network.
So they can't do it if the only reason is the potential for excessive bandwidth demand, but it opens the door for them to argue that it jeopardizes other users on the network depending on the network traffic. Now so far Verizon hasn't tried to make these arguments because they have been successful in getting people off of their unlimited data plans. But we will see how this all plays out over time.
However, someone who thinks they should get all of their internet, TV and video through their $29.99 Verizon data plan to the tune of 600GB/mo so that they can send their kids to an overpriced private school is over the top and jeopardizes unlimited data for all of us.
1- The kids are at the aforementioned school.
2- I am educated. I have a BS in Justice Administration from Georgia Southern University. And I know it doesn't mean much but I also have an Associates degree from a community college in Early Childhood education. Why must you make things so personal? Do you have no life other than belittling people on a Tech advice forum? You obviously have trouble comprehending what I stated- just because the TV is on and streaming doesn't mean the kids are stuck in front of it, like I said obviously you are not a parent. Yet you continue to harp on that.
3- Back to the only thing that really pertains to you hijacking this thread- I havent researched as much as you but as to the FCC ruling in which I was referring:
"Verizon defended its tethering fee explaining that customers with unlimited data plans were able to share their data with an unlimited population of wireless devices and such activity was bound to have negative operational effects on its network.[10] Verizon implemented the tethering fee in hopes of supplementing the cost of the additional data the customer would be sharing among multiple devices.[11] This in itself makes sense to most consumers, however, the issue lied in the fact that Verizon was also charging the $20 tethering fee to customers whose data plans were limited, hence, these customers were being charged extra for using only what they had already paid to use![12] Furthermore, Verizon was also limiting access to tethering apps for its customers by requesting Google to make tethering apps invisible from its Android application market on Verizon’s C Block customers’ phones.[13]
The FCC began investigating the matter in 2011 and after preliminary inquiry, Verizon decided to settle without admitting any fault, agreeing to pay $1.25 million to the Department of Treasury in exchange for the termination of the investigation.[14] The FCC touted the settlement as a message that “compliance with FCC regulations is not optional." That came from rctlj dot org (can't post links) for verification I fan message it to you
I know that is for tethering...but if I opt to buy an app that means I don't have to "tether" but can connect wirelessly then I think the same would apply.
candi.ultra.girl said:
That came from rctlj dot org (can't post links) for verification I fan message it to you.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Here is the actual FCC consent decree that is binding on Verizon:
FCC Consent Decree
Doesn't say you can tether without paying a fee and doesn't say that you can use as much data as you want when you have an UDP. It says Verizon can't pressure Google to remove tethering apps from the PlayStore. Verizon voluntarily then started offering the Share Everything plans, which allow free tethering. Note that Verizon still does not allow free tethering on not only unlimited data plans, but any of the capped data plans on the older, grandfathered plans. It is only the new Share Everything and now the More Everything plans that have free tethering.
Also, nothing in any contract you signed with Verizon says they have to offer you unlimited data after the contract expires and you go month-to-month. They are doing that for public relations reasons and because they have been able to get people voluntarily off of unlimited data plans by refusing to give us subsidized phones.
But 600GB a month usage is why they want people off of unlimited data plans. There is not infinite bandwidth. Maybe none of your neighbors are on Verizon, but a lot of mine are and if we all used that kind of data through our tower, our data speeds wouldn't even be able to support video streaming.
And I linked you to 47 CFR 271.6, which is the federal regulation that governs Verizon's Block C licenses. It also doesn't say you can tether without paying a fee nor does it say you can use as much data as you want when you have an unlimited data plan. Rather, it says Verizon can stop you from using apps that objectionaly interfere with other network users' use of the spectrum under the provisions of 47 CFR 27.16(b)(1), which in turn is further spelled out in 47 CFR 27.16(c)(1).
We will see how this all plays out. For now enough people have been moved off of unlimited data plans that Verizon is still letting us keep them but who knows how long that will last if the data hogs overburden the network.
If you feel Verizon is violating the Consent Decree or the terms of their Block C licenses by not allowing you to tether for free, complain to the FCC and see what they say.
Also keep in mind that Apple DOES block tethering for free in iOS and refuses to allow apps that can circumvent these restrictions in the App Store. Apple is allowed to do that since they are not the licensee of any Block C spectrum. Google could do it, too for the same reason. It is just that Verizon can't pressure Google or Apple to do it.
And remember, you are using 600GB a month and are not even willing to pay $60 for it ($29.99 UDP + $30 hotspot fee), which would only be 10 cents per GB! Instead, you want to pay 5 cents per GB. Wow, that takes the cake on being cheap!
Instead of being angry at Verizon you should be thanking them for only charging you 10 cents a GB for data!!!!
candi.ultra.girl said:
however it really bothers me that Verizon made me upgrade and now an app I paid for is useless.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I usually don't like to add fuel to a fire but... If you still have unlimited data, be thankful that you didn't get forced onto a tiered data plan. at 600gb per month, that would get pricey. At one time the $29.99 Hot Spot feature had a 5gig limit. I'm not sure did they finally remove the cap?
On a side note, if you purchased a developer edition Moto X, Droid Maxx, or other DE Moto phone, you'd still be able to root and tether, even with Kit Kat. Maybe not via FoxFi, but you could do it.
KidJoe said:
If you still have unlimited data, be thankful that you didn't get forced onto a tiered data plan. at 600gb per month, that would get pricey.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, on tiered data she would be paying $5980 per month just for her data use since the 10GB tiered plan is $80/mo and overages are $10/GB!!!!!!
Even paying the $30 hot spot fee, she is only paying 10 cents a GB!! She is angry at Verizon that she can no longer pay 5 cents a GB!!!
Good grief! Wireless data was not meant to be used to stream media throughout an entire house like that, filled obviously with people who watch WAY TOO MUCH TV! And it is the data hogs like her who are going to ruin it for all of us reasonable UDP users. She is avoiding paying for dish or cable TV and using her kids school as an excuse.
Cozume said:
Good grief! Wireless data was not meant to be used to stream media throughout an entire house like that, filled obviously with people who watch WAY TOO MUCH TV! And it is the data hogs like her who are going to ruin it for all of us reasonable UDP users. She is avoiding paying for dish or cable TV and using her kids school as an excuse.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not going to comment on the "way too much TV" part... I'm not there..
I can say using the 6ABC app to watch the news during power outages the first few days of Feb I used about 16gig in 2 days. And I didn't watch constantly, only a few news casts. So I could see data adding up for streaming movies and other shows.
KidJoe said:
I can say using the 6ABC app to watch the news during power outages the first few days of Feb I used about 16gig in 2 days. And I didn't watch constantly, only a few news casts. So I could see data adding up for streaming movies and other shows.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yes it can - the wireless phone networks were not meant to support replacing your cable provider so you can watch TV throughout your house using your phone's data plan.
And to be indignent at Verizon for doubling the cost of data from 5 cents to a whooping 10 cents a GB when other network users pay $10/GB (which is 100 times more than what she is paying even with the hot spot fee) instead of thankful they let her keep her UDP, well that takes the cake!
Cozume said:
...the wireless phone networks were not meant to support replacing your cable provider so you can watch TV throughout your house using your phone's data plan.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yup, and that is why cell data has ALWAYS cost more than "wired" data like cable, fios, DSL, etc.
**Really sorry if I shouldn't have asked a question here, but wherever I try to post it, it pops up with a message saying it's not a Q&A forum, but I can't see where I should put it, plus the answer would be really useful to others I should imagine**
Hi
Just over a week ago I released my first Android app, I made an ad supported free version, and a paid version with no ads in it.
Since having a look around the settings in my Google Merchant account, I discovered a section about setting tax rates for my apps.
I have been through the hassle of getting the rates for each country I want my apps sold in.
I am wondering whether that was the correct thing to do, I have seen things on various forums saying I don't need to collect VAT unless I earn over £81,000 (I'm in the UK btw, and I'd be quite happy to make £100), others have said only put in the tax rate for the country which I'm selling from, others have said input for every country selling to.
I'm confused as to which I should have done.
Also, I saw that it said that Google will take the VAT off the gross price, then take their 30% off the net price, they will then pass on the gross price minus their cut, e.g.:
if app is £1
UK VAT is 20% so £1 minus 20% is £0.80
Google will take 30% of the £0.80, so this would be £0.24
They will then pass on the gross price minus their cut, so pass on £0.76
The way I read that I have £0.20 which is VAT sitting in my bank account, am I supposed to pay this in somehow, even if I'm not VAT registered, do I have to do that for every country around the world that I sell my apps to? And can I pay it all to the UK government or do I have to pay each relevant government their cut?
It's only a 69p app, I'm an unknown, I don't expect it to make huge amounts of money, I just wanted to learn and see how far I could get, might even look good on my CV, but the "paperwork" side of getting this thing up and running has been a headache.
For a multi billion dollar company, I think Google have done a really bad job of trying to encourage people that aren't part of large companies to develop apps, Apple deal with it all for you!
Money Saving Expert (great UK forum for anything to do with money have answered the question for me, as being a No don't put tax rates on as charging VAT when not VAT registered (due to being below the threshold) is fraud
I'm from Italy and I'm blocked on this question too.
Is there somebody who knows The Answer?
Stopping Network Abusers: An Open Letter to T-Mobile Customers
FYI.
Thanks, Biker1.
Biker1
Today, 05:46 AM |#15
Senior Member3,404 posts Thanks: 1,257
Quote:
Originally Posted by graysooner
Stopping Network Abusers: An Open Letter to T-Mobile Customers
FYI.
The link is down.
I'm linking to it here:
http://newsroom.t-mobile.com/issues-...rk-abusers.htm
It's MY data. I will do with it as I please.
Your data? You own the cellular towers and the wireless spectrum?
Good for T-Mobile. Hope they catch all the jokers who abuse the system
Really glad T-Mobile is going this route. At least they found a way to keep Unlimited and not cut it out completely like AT&T and Verizon did (not that I use it, anyway) and I'm glad they're taking measures to make sure that the rest of us don't have to deal with congestion or unfair practices commited by others.
I mean, if i pay for unlimited data then tethering shouldn't be seen as a huge problem...
Sometimes i need a large file to be stored/opened on my desktop computer. I could download the file onto my phone over LTE and then just transfer the file from phone to computer, or i could tether my connection and avoid waiting the time it would take to transfer the file from one device to the other. The point being - if i pay for unlimited data then i'm definitely going to use as much as i want. I do not have an internet connection at my house currently as i'm moving out very soon, however i still like to watch Netflix in my downtime/before bed/etc. I would still be using my unlimited data to stream shows or movies if i were to watch things on my device but i would rather WiFi tether so that i can cast it to my chromecast. I'm not using any MORE data than i would if i had not tethered.
I understand T-Mobile would be mad because they're not making money off an additional service they charge for convenience. But it doesn't necessarily mean i'm abusing the unlimited 4g that i pay monthly for.
So, since he didn't say what "technology" they "now" have, I will take a wild guess and assume T-Mo will blindly shoot those messages out to folks who "exhibit" signs of tethering. Unless they packed another sniffer into the FW, there is not much they can do, especially if one uses a vpn service. I may be wrong, so share whatever knowledge you have.
I too question how they're going to find out who's "abusing." But I agree with their fight against the abusers. It is not cool to pay $30/mo for unlimited LTE data and use it as your primary home internet connection when T-Mobile didn't intend for it to be used that way. They still have truly unlimited for a reason, along with all their other un-carrier moves. They're trying to make the industry better for consumers. Don't take advantage of the one good wireless company we have.
Snakecharmed said:
Your data? You own the cellular towers and the wireless spectrum?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Oh you sweet summer child...
---------- Post added at 10:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:25 PM ----------
Nitemare3219 said:
I too question how they're going to find out who's "abusing." But I agree with their fight against the abusers. It is not cool to pay $30/mo for unlimited LTE data and use it as your primary home internet connection when T-Mobile didn't intend for it to be used that way. They still have truly unlimited for a reason, along with all their other un-carrier moves. They're trying to make the industry better for consumers. Don't take advantage of the one good wireless company we have.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I do tether, but I also don't do it that often. I actually try to build up my data stash (I pay for 11GB/mo) yet I also download heavy once or twice a month.
Seriously, who the f**k uses 2TB of cellular data each month? That's what all-in-one plans are for.
For the sake of comparison, Comcast's soft cap is around 300GB per month. On a wired connection. At speeds far higher than what you'll get over T-Mobile's 4G LTE.
Legere tossed out the 2TB cellular data figure in reference to what we assume are the highest bandwidth users that circumvented the tethering cap. That's no accident. That is willful abuse of the terms and conditions that clearly state that you get 7GB for tethering with the unlimited plan.
I think Legere could have done a better job of delivering the message because it probably didn't need to be a public announcement if only 3,000 users are guilty, and I find the technical validity of his argument a little weak, but I don't think there's legitimate outrage over this either. Many people who've responded in other blogs and forums lack reading comprehension and street smarts to think that "unlimited" is to be taken in the most literal fashion interpretable. Absolutes in favor of the consumer don't really exist in the marketing-heavy consumer product industry, and the government won't save us either. Not when the FDA says 0.49g trans fat = 0g.
Unlike the phone that should be yours to do as you please if you have it fully paid off, your cellular service is a subscription that is subject to the carrier's terms. Whether or not those terms make sense, they won't hesitate to enforce them. T-Mobile is by far the least bad carrier and it's best that its subscribers don't push them towards the business models of the other US carriers.
I agree snake about legere. 300GB is my Comcast soft cap
Looks like this is what he meant by "technology" lol http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=3189003
RussianBear said:
Looks like this is what he meant by "technology" lol http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=3189003
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There's either the entitlement complex or naivety in that guy's post.
Others, including myself, will always believe data is data...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Which goes back to my admittedly tongue-in-cheek but valid first comment in this thread. Does that guy own the cellular towers and the wireless spectrum? No? Then it doesn't matter if he believes data is data. It's the carrier's judgment that counts. For better or worse, all carriers will independently judge excessive use, and T-Mobile's is actually pretty clear for people who can read. Spoiler alert: He got off easy with 138GB.
http://www.t-mobile.com/Company/Com...Tab_ConsumerInfo&tsp=Abt_Sub_InternetServices
To provide the best possible experience for the most possible customers, and to minimize capacity issues and degradation in network performance, we manage Unlimited high-speed data usage through prioritization. Unlimited high-speed data customers who use more data than what 97% of all customers use in a month, based on recent historical averages (updated quarterly), will have their data usage de-prioritized compared to the data usage of other customers at times and at locations where there are competing customer demands for network resources, which may result in slower data speeds. Customers who use data in violation of their Rate Plan terms or T-Mobile's Terms and Conditions may be excluded from this calculation. Data that might be whitelisted for other (fixed allotment) plan options, such as data associated with Music Freedom, does not count towards Unlimited high-speed data customers’ usage for this calculation. Based on network statistics for the most recent quarter, Unlimited high-speed data customers who use more than 21GB of data during a billing cycle will be de-prioritized for the remainder of the billing cycle in times and at locations where there are competing customer demands for network resources. At the start of the next bill cycle, the customer’s usage status is reset, and this data traffic is no longer de-prioritized.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
When it comes to cellular service, people need to get it out of their heads that "unlimited" is the same word that is defined in the dictionary. It's not. It's a marketing term. It's probably legal as far as the government is concerned. And now we circle back to 0.49g trans fat = 0g.
blackknightavalon said:
It's MY data. I will do with it as I please.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
...until your network gets badly jammed up.
graysooner said:
Stopping Network Abusers: An Open Letter to T-Mobile Customers
FYI.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The link is down.
I'm linking to it here:
http://newsroom.t-mobile.com/issues-insights-blog/stopping-network-abusers.htm
The reality is there are alot of people being cheap. They don't want to pay for cable TV or cable Internet and decide to use their smartphone data to run their whole house. They are using T-Mobile's $30 or $20 unlimited data plan to replace a $150 to $200 cable and internet bill. These same jerk offs are some of the same people running around saying unlimited means unlimited. They know they are getting over on T-Mobile. Where in the entire world can you pay $20 or $30 a month and get unlimited cell data, home Internet, and cable TV. NO WHERE.
Sent from my LG-H811 using XDA Free mobile app
snowlin said:
I mean, if i pay for unlimited data then tethering shouldn't be seen as a huge problem...
Sometimes i need a large file to be stored/opened on my desktop computer. I could download the file onto my phone over LTE and then just transfer the file from phone to computer, or i could tether my connection and avoid waiting the time it would take to transfer the file from one device to the other. The point being - if i pay for unlimited data then i'm definitely going to use as much as i want. I do not have an internet connection at my house currently as i'm moving out very soon, however i still like to watch Netflix in my downtime/before bed/etc. I would still be using my unlimited data to stream shows or movies if i were to watch things on my device but i would rather WiFi tether so that i can cast it to my chromecast. I'm not using any MORE data than i would if i had not tethered.
I understand T-Mobile would be mad because they're not making money off an additional service they charge for convenience. But it doesn't necessarily mean i'm abusing the unlimited 4g that i pay monthly for.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Which is why they offer free 7GB of hotspot at no additional charge.
Snakecharmed said:
There's either the entitlement complex or naivety in that guy's post.
Which goes back to my admittedly tongue-in-cheek but valid first comment in this thread. Does that guy own the cellular towers and the wireless spectrum? No? Then it doesn't matter if he believes data is data. It's the carrier's judgment that counts. For better or worse, all carriers will independently judge excessive use, and T-Mobile's is actually pretty clear for people who can read. Spoiler alert: He got off easy with 138GB.
http://www.t-mobile.com/Company/Com...Tab_ConsumerInfo&tsp=Abt_Sub_InternetServices
When it comes to cellular service, people need to get it out of their heads that "unlimited" is the same word that is defined in the dictionary. It's not. It's a marketing term. It's probably legal as far as the government is concerned. And now we circle back to 0.49g trans fat = 0g.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Marketing is good when you need to lure the masses, but bad/not to be taken literally when some of those peeps take advantage of it? Lol you can't have it both ways. If people, using their phones (not tethering), get throttled, it's time to stop the false advertisement, or at least start using asterisks...
RussianBear said:
Marketing is good when you need to lure the masses, but bad/not to be taken literally when some of those peeps take advantage of it? Lol you can't have it both ways. If people, using their phones (not tethering), get throttled, it's time to stop the false advertisement, or at least start using asterisks...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm in no way supporting what marketing departments do, but the lack of oversight to their practices has led to the landscape we have today. I've worked in and with marketing teams before and I often don't agree with their ethics, but I also know the tricks they use to hook people. I'm advocating buyer research and awareness. I think it's foolish for consumers these days to take buzzwords like "unlimited" at face value and assume that there isn't fine print or obscure terms involved.
You're asking for an entire industry to become ethical. I say it's up to the buyer to gain the knowledge to make an educated decision because I'm not waiting for an entire industry whose purpose is to extract money from consumers to teach them about the tricks and mind games they use on them.
Snakecharmed said:
I'm in no way supporting what marketing departments do, but the lack of oversight to their practices has led to the landscape we have today. I've worked in and with marketing teams before and I often don't agree with their ethics, but I also know the tricks they use to hook people. I'm advocating buyer research and awareness. I think it's foolish for consumers these days to take buzzwords like "unlimited" at face value and assume that there isn't fine print or obscure terms involved.
You're asking for an entire industry to become ethical. I say it's up to the buyer to gain the knowledge to make an educated decision because I'm not waiting for an entire industry whose purpose is to extract money from consumers to teach them about the tricks and mind games they use on them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Agreed. I'm still curious about Legere's technology, though lol