Hey all,
I was wondering if there was any tether bypass method for Windows Phone users on T-Mobile so that tethering won't count towards your hotspot usage. Preferably one that works with 8.1.
TetherX is an app that runs a proxy server on your phone, which is a pretty good way to handle web browsing, email, and other proxy-aware things while still having the phone show all the traffic as coming from itself, not from another machine. There's also wired tethering, which on my ATIV S is possible (though device-specific hacks, sadly) and does not show up as tethered data... but my ATIV S can't use the normal Internet Sharing feature anyhow (it always says there's no data connection to share, which is a blatant lie but I've talked to MS, TMo, Samsung, and even the original carrier Telus and none of them know how to fix it).
GoodDayToDie said:
TetherX is an app that runs a proxy server on your phone, which is a pretty good way to handle web browsing, email, and other proxy-aware things while still having the phone show all the traffic as coming from itself, not from another machine. There's also wired tethering, which on my ATIV S is possible (though device-specific hacks, sadly) and does not show up as tethered data... but my ATIV S can't use the normal Internet Sharing feature anyhow (it always says there's no data connection to share, which is a blatant lie but I've talked to MS, TMo, Samsung, and even the original carrier Telus and none of them know how to fix it).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The problem with Tether X is that I think you can only use a browser with the connection. For example, how would I get it to work with the Netflix app on Windows 8, or connect my game console to it? I'm not sure wired tethering works with my device (Lumia 925). And even then, I run into the same problem of not being able to connect more devices.
Update:
So oddly enough it seems I can go past the tethering limit but only for certain tasks. I can browse the web for the most part and even stream youtube video, using the Fiddler trick posted on XDA. But anything requiring https is a no-go. Can't check email, login to certain websites, etc. PSN doesn't work either. This is quite frustrating, ugh. Not sure why https traffic is being blocked.......
TetherX, as I said, should work on anything that is proxy-aware. In practice, that's a surprisingly broad range of software: email and IM clients will generally either respect the system proxy settings or have their own, most well-written third-party software that is targeted at Windows specifically will try to use the system proxy, and there are a non-zero number of games which are also proxy-aware (it is a sad fact of the universe that, in so far as polished quality is concerned, virtually no games are "well-written" but a few of them do just rely on the Windows network connections without trying to get fancy).
Now, with all that said, there's a "should" at the start, there. I don't personally use TetherX. It's possible that it only handles HTTP and HTTPS, or some similarly stupid limitations. It *SHOULD* be implemented as a SOCKS proxy, but it might just be a stupid HTTP proxy ("stupid" here meaning that all it does is forward HTTP requests at the application layer, and is not aware of any other form of TCP traffic). HTTP proxies are arguably easier to write, but SOCKS isn't *terribly* complex and it is by far the superior choice for the purpose.
As an addendum: Whether or not TetherX works, you might want to try Bluetooth Proxy. It is free and uses SOCKS. It's a little complex to set up - BT can be used for a network connection but most people never do, so it's a bit confusing - but it should work if TetherX isn't working, and it doesn't cost anything!
GoodDayToDie said:
TetherX, as I said, should work on anything that is proxy-aware. In practice, that's a surprisingly broad range of software: email and IM clients will generally either respect the system proxy settings or have their own, most well-written third-party software that is targeted at Windows specifically will try to use the system proxy, and there are a non-zero number of games which are also proxy-aware (it is a sad fact of the universe that, in so far as polished quality is concerned, virtually no games are "well-written" but a few of them do just rely on the Windows network connections without trying to get fancy).
Now, with all that said, there's a "should" at the start, there. I don't personally use TetherX. It's possible that it only handles HTTP and HTTPS, or some similarly stupid limitations. It *SHOULD* be implemented as a SOCKS proxy, but it might just be a stupid HTTP proxy ("stupid" here meaning that all it does is forward HTTP requests at the application layer, and is not aware of any other form of TCP traffic). HTTP proxies are arguably easier to write, but SOCKS isn't *terribly* complex and it is by far the superior choice for the purpose.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are correct, I was able to use Tether-X to hook up my computer and my PS3. There are some caveats here that make it pretty cumbersome however:
1) Speeds seem slow
2) Latency was very high (700+ ping to closest ST server, unsuitable for multiplayer gaming)
3) Different proxy server address every time you start the app (That means retyping proxy server address every single time I want to hook up my devices to it)
Slow speeds may been because of the network, but the super high latency is perplexing. Direct internet sharing I get around ~100 ms ping, but on Tether X it increases it significantly. Any idea what that's all about?
GoodDayToDie said:
As an addendum: Whether or not TetherX works, you might want to try Bluetooth Proxy. It is free and uses SOCKS. It's a little complex to set up - BT can be used for a network connection but most people never do, so it's a bit confusing - but it should work if TetherX isn't working, and it doesn't cost anything!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Is this limited by the speed of the Bluetooth protocol? And can you connect additional devices using this method?
Ok, so I figured out what was causing the high latency with Tether-X. Unfortunately PSN is still blocked when proxying through Tether X. It's able to access the internet through the PS3, but not PSN. What I did was connect to the adhoc network on my computer, and the supply the Tether X proxy and port when setting up the network (is there anything else I should be doing?). I keep getting weird DNS errors.
So close, yet so far....
Yes, Bluetooth networking is limited to the speed of BT (which is actually decent, though not amazing). No knowledge of connecting multiple devices, but it may be possible directly, and if not you could connect the others to a PC's WiFi and use Internet Connection Sharing with the BT interface as the uplink.
I would *expect* DNS to get proxied correctly, but I know little about how either TetherX or the PS3 work. Sorry. Short of suggesting something like manually configuring a DNS server (Google runs a few, for example), I don't know what to suggest.
Well, aside from getting a real Internet connection. They don't cost *that* much, don't come with usage limits in most cases, and are generally both more stable and lower latency than phone connections (these being two of the main needs for gaming).
maybe a stupid q , but on settings you have the button internet sharing , is that still on your phone ?
or is it greyed out ?
maybe flash another rom ? (not a bloated one from T-Mobile)
T-Mobile US provides a limited amount of free tethering with their service, but it sounds like the OP is trying to get past that "limited" part (overall data service is unlimited). The official Internet Sharing feature uses your (limited) tethering allowance.
On Android there seems to be many ways to get around this, but not on Windows Phone . Tether-X almost works, but I can't get devices like game consoles to connect.
Related
Anyone have any idea if T-Mobile actively blocks any ports, protocols, or scripts over the G1 data connection?
Having attempted numerous times to access the web interface for a friend's security cameras, the data comes through as a garbled mess of Chinese characters, etc., but when connected to a coffee shop hot spot, the video feeds display perfectly.
Any thoughts?
If you are using a web browser to access it don't you think you would get an HTTP error if there was a blocked port, like 403 Forbidden or something along those lines, or atleast a timeout.
Garbled text sounds like the browser is not supported.
Just a thought.
juphro said:
If you are using a web browser to access it don't you think you would get an HTTP error if there was a blocked port, like 403 Forbidden or something along those lines, or atleast a timeout.
Garbled text sounds like the browser is not supported.
Just a thought.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I would normally agree, except that the only variable here is the internet connection (tethered T-Mobile G1 3G connection vs. non-T-Mobile WiFi).
Leads me to believe there is either some traffic shaping, or some kind of odd compression going on either on T-Mobile's end, or with the tether app itself.
Can you browse the web normally tethered but not going to that web portal for security cameras?
So I work at a computer store in a small town, and part of my job is setting up networks for all the local businesses.
Lately I have had the local internet provider trying to tell me that the routers we are selling to people are causing their ENTIRE (meaning the whole town) network to go down.
Is this even possible? Or is it just a sad excuse for a poor network?
(BTW, this is actually the second ISP in the town to say that. I am really starting to think its just a really sad excuse for them to make because they dont know how to fix their own damned problems).
How can ONE persons router knock out internet for a whole city?
no they are
1. trying to sell your their expensive solution
2. have a very very crazy DIY broken network
or your strange router is sending AC power into their Phone cables
Well no they arent trying to sell us anything. We dont buy stuff from the internet providers here. But we are the only computer store in town so every single person with an internet issue calls up their provider, then the provider says its not their issue so they are told to come into my store.
Well when they get here, I show the customer that there is absolutely no issue with their computer and that its an internet provider issue. Then they get pissed at me because I didnt find an issue.
Then I get the internet provider telling their customers and us that our routers are knocking out their entire network. Kinda BS.. I even had a conversation with a juniour support tech for this company and he was trying to tell me all kinds of loads of bull. Sorry buddy.. I took networking in school so I am pretty sure I know that most of what you are saying is BS.
These customers are telling me that their internet provider is telling them they need Gigabit network cards to work on their fibre optic network. Well no, you dont. You only need a megabit network card.
There is no way this is possible..
Even if there was a chance, they shouldn't be calling themselves an ISP.
As I'm sure you already know, the ISP engages the Telco to facilitate installation of the line to the client site Demarcation Point. From there a bridging medium between the ISP and client, such a modem, is used to connect to the client network equipment ... typically a firewall/routing device.
It doesn't read like you are a novice so I'm going to assume that the client equipment is sufficiently secured against the usual threats (virus, trojan, etc.) so as to ensure that DoS attacks can't occur.
That said, it may be possible that the firewall/routing device is problematic on their network. Can you provide more information as to which router you are installing at client sites?
Additionally, what is the WAN connection ... DSL, Cable, etc.?
Cheers,
I cant know what type of virus protection / security all of my customers have (sometimes I just sell and set up the router, not having touched their PC).
However the ISP uses Fibre Optics technology to connect, using DHCP.
And I dont know everything, but aren't DoS attacks sort of a thing of the past? Every ISP should be able to protect themselves against DoS attacks.
Although with the amount of viruses going around I wouldnt be suprised if they were causing some sort of security risk to the ISP.
It depends ...
Many ISP's look to protect themselves from externals attacks (Internet, their WAN) and assume their business clients (Internal, their LAN) have appropriate security measures in place.
With my clients, I facilitate the selection of the ISP and the equipment that connects the client to the ISP - the router/firewall, modem, etc.
There are two scenarios that I encounter for the WAN port of the router/firewall: 1) obtains the IP, Subnet, Gateway, DNS from the ISP DHCP server via Dynamic or Static-Dynamic (same IP all the time) or 2) full Static, where I configure the WAN port on the router/firewall accordingly. In either case, the client LAN is always NAT'ed behind the firewall.
I typically configure the firewall services to:
Only allow inbound sessions that have been initiated by an internal device
Drop ICMP, etc.
Forward determined traffic to specific devices (mail, web, dmz, etc.)
Inspect packet traffic (SPI, etc.)
When it comes to the internal devices, I will either work closely with the IT personnel to ensure that devices on the LAN are adequately protected to avoid outbound DoS (bots, zombies, etc.) or am engaged to perform all of the required duties to ensure the well-being of their network and equipment.
In either case, I am usually engaged to review their current WAN, LAN, and Wi-LAN policies, configuration, and requirements.
Still curious, what kind of routing/firewall equipment do you normally supply/configure?
Cheers,
hilaireg said:
Many ISP's look to protect themselves from externals attacks (Internet, their WAN) and assume their business clients (Internal, their LAN) have appropriate security measures in place.
With my clients, I facilitate the selection of the ISP and the equipment that connects the client to the ISP - the router/firewall, modem, etc.
There are two scenarios that I encounter for the WAN port of the router/firewall: 1) obtains the IP, Subnet, Gateway, DNS from the ISP DHCP server via Dynamic or Static-Dynamic (same IP all the time) or 2) full Static, where I configure the WAN port on the router/firewall accordingly. In either case, the client LAN is always NAT'ed behind the firewall.
I typically configure the firewall services to:
Only allow inbound sessions that have been initiated by an internal device
Drop ICMP, etc.
Forward determined traffic to specific devices (mail, web, dmz, etc.)
Inspect packet traffic (SPI, etc.)
When it comes to the internal devices, I will either work closely with the IT personnel to ensure that devices on the LAN are adequately protected to avoid outbound DoS (bots, zombies, etc.) or am engaged to perform all of the required duties to ensure the well-being of their network and equipment.
In either case, I am usually engaged to review their current WAN, LAN, and Wi-LAN policies, configuration, and requirements.
Still curious, what kind of routing/firewall equipment do you normally supply/configure?
Cheers,
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The routers are TP-Link G's (we have N's as well) because all of the more expensive Linksys routers we used did not work with Fibre Optics (constantly dropped connections, support from Linksys we were basically told that fibre optics is too fast for their routers so we said "fine, we will stop selling your routers then).
Firewall is just basic windows firewall.
Tumdace said:
Firewall is just basic windows firewall.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In today's hostile environments, Windows Firewall isn't sufficient protection. Proper Anti-Virus, Malware, and SPAM protection is still required. This may be an opportunity to obain additional revenue by educating clients.
Tumdace said:
The routers are TP-Link G's (we have N's as well) because all of the more expensive Linksys routers we used did not work with Fibre Optics (constantly dropped connections, support from Linksys we were basically told that fibre optics is too fast for their routers so we said "fine, we will stop selling your routers then).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I suspect the ISP may be partly correct on this one. Did you confirm that the models you are supplying to clients meet the network specifications of the ISP?
If you haven't done so already, obtain the device (backbone equipment) specifications from the ISP and contact TP-Link to ensure that the models you are providing to clients are compatible. I've encountered many devices in my travels that are not compatible with certain types of Telco/ISP's backbone equipment. For example, I ran into a situation with an ISP that provided 10 Mbps WAN for a client where I had to replace their inexpensive router/firewall with a Cisco PIX - chose the PIX since the ISP confirmed as compatible with their equipment.
I assume that you have been updating the firmware to the TP-Link devices to the appropriate level - one that ensures compatibility to the ISP network (latest is not always equal to greatest). Another point to keep in mind is that inexpensive routers/firewall devices can often be problematic - ports prone to failure at high traffic load, insufficient backplane memory, processor bottleneck, poor firewall feature implementations, etc.
Good luck,
hilaireg said:
In today's hostile environments, Windows Firewall isn't sufficient protection. Proper Anti-Virus, Malware, and SPAM protection is still required. This may be an opportunity to obain additional revenue by educating clients.
I suspect the ISP may be partly correct on this one. Did you confirm that the models you are supplying to clients meet the network specifications of the ISP?
If you haven't done so already, obtain the device (backbone equipment) specifications from the ISP and contact TP-Link to ensure that the models you are providing to clients are compatible. I've encountered many devices in my travels that are not compatible with certain types of Telco/ISP's backbone equipment. For example, I ran into a situation with an ISP that provided 10 Mbps WAN for a client where I had to replace their inexpensive router/firewall with a Cisco PIX - chose the PIX since the ISP confirmed as compatible with their equipment.
I assume that you have been updating the firmware to the TP-Link devices to the appropriate level - one that ensures compatibility to the ISP network (latest is not always equal to greatest). Another point to keep in mind is that inexpensive routers/firewall devices can often be problematic - ports prone to failure at high traffic load, insufficient backplane memory, processor bottleneck, poor firewall feature implementations, etc.
Good luck,
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Trust me I educate my clients on anti virus programs and added security. The problem is that I live in a rural small town, and everyone is too cheap to put a little bit more money into their computers, so they always go with Windows firewall and a free anti virus.
BTW its less about clients and more about just random customers.
I am not like a systems integrator, I just work at a computer store.
How are you configuring the routers in general? DHCP that is provided from their ISP? or are you statically assigning an address? I could see issues if you were statically assigning because of ISP router IP conflicts, but otherwise I can't think of anything that would specifically cause an entire network to go down. In my own personal experience, this would warrant a house call to check out how things are set up and perhaps fluking the line to see where the line goes to and the end destination if possible.
Dears,
I just finished to setup my laptop to be an AccessPoint for my nexus.
I did this creating a new ad-hoc wireless connection.
It works! ...for browsing websites
does not work for market or app web connection...
I configured proxy settings to enable websites browsing.
If I try change proxy settings on my phone, obviously websites browsing stops.
Note I'm inside an office network now and I cannot change or control about network setups.
any idea why android market does not work with my setup?
does market need some "special ports" opened?
help me please....
Just download connectify. It's a program that makes your computer a WiFi hotspot. I use it to get internet on my x 10, and it works flawlessly
-------------------------------------
Sent via the XDA Tapatalk App
eh......
I already tried... bit my network card is not supported by connectify...
The same with VirtualRouter.
The only way I has some success is as described before (ad-hoc network).
Please help me with that market issue...
Could it be that it's blocked by your company? Like can you go to youtube on your pc?
Like i understand you are using proxy to connect the net so http is allowd and all the others are closed.
correct: proxy is only working for http access.
I have troubles also with google sync, gmail, youtube, market etc...
I'm only able to surf the web via browser.
Note that wih my notebook I have access to all youtube... so cannot understand why it works whit notebook but does not work with nexusOne...
maybe notebook and nexus use different protocols or services that are closed by the proxy.
Any idea to make my ad-hoc network fully open?
I'm having trouble getting connectify to work... it loads up and runs fine on my Win7 x64 laptop, but when I try to connect with the N1 it appears to be eternally stuck at the "Obtaining IP Address" stage before it finally times out and the network state is reported as "Unsuccessful". I've tried both pulling the IP from DHCP and manually specifying a static IP address on the correct network, and I have attempted running both Android 2.1 and 2.2.
Even when specifying a static IP, I still get the "Obtaining address..." status before it fails out.
Any thoughts?
for me too: both with ad-hoc connection, Connectify (@home) or VirtualRouter (@home) I have same issue than you.
Sometimes n1 connects the wireless network with no problems, other times it dont connect the network... Dont know the reason. Only I saw that if you delete the ad-hoc network and create a new one it works... It's boring, I know... but works..
also I saw that @home connecting in same mode than in office I was able to navigate market, youtube and all other programs that need an internet connection .
This to confirm that the problem I'm having @office is caused by some LAN restrictions (filters, firewalls and something like this)
Cool, I'll give that a go when I get off work I suppose. I've only got about another week or so here in Afghanistan, but while I'm here the only accessible internet is a wifi access point that passes through a fairly restrictive firewall/proxy before hitting the satellite internet. I'm able to bypass the firewall and proxy if I use an ethernet connection on my laptop (luck of the draw: my room in the tent is the one with all the networking gear ), and was hoping I could use this Connectify or VirtualRouter business to then extend that internet offering to my N1. So far, no luck. Maybe I'll fight with it some more tonight and get somewhere with it.
Off-topic: How's Padova this time of year? I spent about three months up in Aviano back at the end of last summer and fall... absolutely gorgeous country.
Maybe is useful for you to knwo ho I'm able to surf web using browser on my N1 (using win7).
3 modes:
- ad-hoc network (pc-to-n1) directly from network control center of win7
- connectify (using a virtual access point)
- virtual router (same as connectify)
@ home: LAN without filters or restrictions. I'm able to surf web, use youtube player, market etc.
@ work: LAN with filters and restrictions. I'm able to surf web only.
These are my tests. I hope you will have more luck than me.
OT: Padova is great in this period. Weather is hot (25-28°), summer is starting. Unfortunatly in these days we have some rain but our "sunny season" is already started.
I know Aviano, there's a US militay base. Are you a soldier? I'm a fan of the "soldiers world" (I played for a long time a free online game called "America's Army" )
Sorry for OT
_PeTiT_ said:
Maybe is useful for you to knwo ho I'm able to surf web using browser on my N1 (using win7).
3 modes:
- ad-hoc network (pc-to-n1) directly from network control center of win7
- connectify (using a virtual access point)
- virtual router (same as connectify)
@ home: LAN without filters or restrictions. I'm able to surf web, use youtube player, market etc.
@ work: LAN with filters and restrictions. I'm able to surf web only.
These are my tests. I hope you will have more luck than me.
OT: Padova is great in this period. Weather is hot (25-28°), summer is starting. Unfortunatly in these days we have some rain but our "sunny season" is already started.
I know Aviano, there's a US militay base. Are you a soldier? I'm a fan of the "soldiers world" (I played for a long time a free online game called "America's Army" )
Sorry for OT
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for the info
And no, I'm not a soldier, but I work as a civilian geek/technician/engineer for a US defense contractor that builds air/battlespace control systems - like a glorified Air Traffic Control. I get sent for a few months at a time to different locations that we have our systems to support the soldiers and airmen who use them.
Needless to say, Aviano has been the best assignment yet
_PeTiT_ said:
Maybe is useful for you to knwo ho I'm able to surf web using browser on my N1 (using win7).
3 modes:
- ad-hoc network (pc-to-n1) directly from network control center of win7
- connectify (using a virtual access point)
- virtual router (same as connectify)
@ home: LAN without filters or restrictions. I'm able to surf web, use youtube player, market etc.
@ work: LAN with filters and restrictions. I'm able to surf web only.
These are my tests. I hope you will have more luck than me.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you can use everything @home this isn't a fault of your setup. everything gets blocked by the proxy server. if you really want it you have to talk with the administrator, i really doubt that he will do changes to please you.
for now i think it's impossible to use them.
ok... thanks for the bad news...
codesplice said:
I'm having trouble getting connectify to work... it loads up and runs fine on my Win7 x64 laptop, but when I try to connect with the N1 it appears to be eternally stuck at the "Obtaining IP Address" stage before it finally times out and the network state is reported as "Unsuccessful". I've tried both pulling the IP from DHCP and manually specifying a static IP address on the correct network, and I have attempted running both Android 2.1 and 2.2.
Even when specifying a static IP, I still get the "Obtaining address..." status before it fails out.
Any thoughts?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have the same problem (ok, with a Desire). No IP obtained. OS is Win7/64 too.
Did you have any success in the meantime?
I think the market actually uses https:// ... is that set up as well? Even if it is, the phone might reject it because of redirecting certificate issues...
You're probably better off setting up a VPN on your home machine, or some server outside the network. Then VPN to that on your phone for open access (Of course u can buy vpn accounts from various companies too.)
What kind of proxy is it? Socks? http? remember most don't support UDP, and may only support port http or https.
How do you get N1 to see ad-hoc wifi? I tried but wasn't able to using stock froyo...
Heeeeeeeeeelp please!!!
i have installed connectify and the virtual router on my win7 laptop.
i can connect to the new wireless networks created by these softwares but I can't browse the web (no data is received in my Nexus one)
can you please help me?
I have stock froyo FRF91 on my Nexus one
reverse tether
nokia 5000 how to reverse tethering
connectify does not transmit internet signal from PC to CP
Hi!
In german boards there are several speculations about how the N1's WiFi tethering works and how carriers might detect it. But there are no real facts, it seems like there is no one, who really knows about it.
Maybe here are some kind of "cracks", who really know what they are talking about and can provide some real information about it.
How does N1-tethering work? I guess it uses NAT-routing. Is this right? And the probably most important part: How do carriers detect tethering? They officially claim, they could detect it. But the question is, which way do they do this? Can they only detect if you use tethering at all, or do they also have the ability to separate between tethered data and phone's data? Only in that case they would be capable to bill the tethered data (here in Germany some carriers do not prohibit tethering, they can only charge about 50 cent per MB).
Is it possible, that the carrier only detect several devices, that connect to the internet using tethering? I'm a vodafone-customer and I've tried tethering my iPad and my Linux-Netbook several times. Nothing has been charged. Other customers, having the same data-plan, reported, that they habe been charged for tethering within minutes.
Maybe someone can answer my questions.
I dont know how it works but "I would imagine the request headers are what the provider is reading in order to determine the device/browser that is making the request."
http://talk.maemo.org/archive/index.php/t-3757.html
If it really is like that, then I would just have to use Cisco-VPN on my iPad and they would not be able to read any requests anymore.
But someone in the official German vodafone-board said, the user-agent doesn't matter. And he seemed to be very sure about that. But unfortunately he didn't tell anything else. If you think of Dolphin for Android, which allows you to change the browser-identification, it really looks like this is nothing the carrier could make use of.
cymru said:
I dont know how it works but "I would imagine the request headers are what the provider is reading in order to determine the device/browser that is making the request."
http://talk.maemo.org/archive/index.php/t-3757.html
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't believe this to be accurate as phones are capable of changing their user agent to mimic a desktop browser, so it wouldn't be a reliable way of identifying a tethered connection.
IMO, there is no 100% fool proof way as it sits. The carrier can look at the traffic patterns though and might be able to figure it out though. Remember when you're connected to your carrier everything you do is going through their gateway, so they can see everything you're doing.
I agree that if you're wanting to make 100% sure they don't know, a VPN tunneling traffic would work. Once the traffic is encrypted, they have no way to tell what is happening, aside from the actual amount of data being transferred, which is why a lot of carriers in the USA or switching away from unlimited data plans and offering only limited ones (i.e. a 2gb or 5gb limit on plans).
It was discussed here a couple of months ago, I remember..
The discussion ended in - if the phone specifically didn't send the carrier any sign that it's tethering, detection of tethering would require heuristic scan patterns on the data that's being transferred - and would violate some "internet openness" rules in the process, and possibly allow a legal case against the carrier.
So, do you by any chance have custom ROM and your friends have official carrier ROMs? That might explain the difference.
People in spain have reported being charged more by vodafone (they charge you more if you tether and your plan doesnt cover it) by simply using an app on the phone that changed the browser's user agent to mimic a desktop one.
I dont know whether it is or it isnt legal to read the 'headers' of HTTP messages. It's more to do with the protocol than with the content, and both ends need to be able to read these things to actually work, some routers may even scoop just to adjust to different QoS patterns or whatever. So it might be legal after all.
Port activity can tell you're tethering or not; moreover, tethering does likely bypass proxy server which is used for phone only.
Ok, to find out more I've made a little research about how to generally detect Network Address Translation and I've made some tests.
As it seems, the Browser-Identification won't work. Maybe in spain there are some data-plans which only allow browsing with the special phone's browser and only using HTTP-Connections. But that's not suitable for a real data plan, which allows you, to send every data you like from your phone. On the other hand, at least in Germany, I think they wouldn't be allowed to read the data content of TCP-packets.
Then I've used a packet sniffer to find out, how different devices (N1, iPad and Kubuntu10.04) handle things like outgoing ports and packet IDs.
Both won't be very likely to use by the carrier, because Android doesn't increment them, but uses it by shuffle. The iPad also shuffles the packet IDs, but increments the ports. I think this will not matter, because the NAT will redirect the ports anyway. Only Kubuntu increments packet IDs and as they normally aren't changed by NAT, carriers could detect that. In general, all of the devices used outgoing ports between 35,000 and 55,000.
Possibly they could look at the time to live of the packets. The interesting question is, how the N1's NAT handels the TTL. Normally, a router decrements the TTL by 1. But it doesn't have to.
All of my tested devices use a TTL of 64 for outgoing packets (no one will wonder about that, because all those system are based on UNIX or Linux). So, if the NAT decrements the TTL, the carrier could detect tethered packets quite easily. Normal packets would reach the carrier's gateway with TTL 64, tethered packets with TTL 63. Maybe, the NAT doesn't decrement the TTL. Then the carrier wouldn't be able to detect it this way, except of this: As I read, Windows-Systems use a TTL of 128, so the carrier ould detect this immediately, no matter if it's decremented or not. This would explain why some people tell they could tether other phones without being billed, but getting charged when tethering their PC. This could only be covered, if the NAT would rewrite the TTL with 64. It don't think it does.
Maybe someone, who has a rooted phone (mine is not rooted, it's a normal FRF91), could install packet sniffer from the market and then catch some packets while tethering. Then we could have a look at the packet's headers and maybe find out, what the NAT does with the TTL.
FYI this isn't technically a problem in the US - it's illegal for carriers to monitor the actual data streams without a warrant.
My understanding is that tethering (WiFi/USB) can be accomplished in two different fashions.
1) The phone (in this case the Nexus One) acts as the modem and router and re-requests whatever the tethered device requested. Thus, the mobile operator sees the Nexus One as using the DATA rather than the actual device requesting the DATA.
2) The phone simply passes the requests to mobile operator along with some identifying info about the requesting device. (the preferred method by the mobile operators)
I have no idea which method the Nexus One (FroYo) employs, but I have a suspicion that it is method 1.
Dan
i Will say it does work as a wifi hotspot, so i connected using my ipad up to the ssid the nexus made, and connected fine, but un sure if charges will appear, i will keep a eye out on my next bill.. but they dont detect then that saves me $25/mon for the 3g data, if i can just use my phone $30 unlimited..
I was wondering about this as well. I have the current $25/mo 2gb plan and I sometimes need to use my laptop to check things that I need a larger screen for (Mostly graphic design attachments like illustrator and photoshop files). Would AT&T detect my using the Nexus One as a hotspot, and if so, would they charge?
I think the whole tethering thing is kind of ridiculous on AT&T. You're paying an extra $20+ per month to use the data you're already paying for except on your computer. They've been dealing with Apple for far too long...
In UK 3 know I'm tethering...
On using my Laptop tethered I get a 3 splash screen on first opening up a browser (IE or Firefox). There don't seem to be any other issues (everything else then works fine & dandy) ... yet...
Can't be that long before some carrier decides to clamp down on tethering some more...
Lodger
theartfullodger said:
In UK 3 know I'm tethering...
On using my Laptop tethered I get a 3 splash screen on first opening up a browser (IE or Firefox). There don't seem to be any other issues (everything else then works fine & dandy) ... yet...
Can't be that long before some carrier decides to clamp down on tethering some more...
Lodger
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nexus bought from their network? Rooted? What ROM?
The only viable (and probably legal) way for an operator to detech tethering is via looking data consumptions, other methods discussed over here although technically possible, would be administratively expensive even if legally allowed... I suggest if you are on an unlimited data plan and want to be heavy on tethering do it from the start not later on in order not to raise any flags on the operator side.
Cheers, sub
Sent from my Nexus One using XDA App
unknownrebelx said:
I was wondering about this as well. I have the current $25/mo 2gb plan and I sometimes need to use my laptop to check things that I need a larger screen for (Mostly graphic design attachments like illustrator and photoshop files). Would AT&T detect my using the Nexus One as a hotspot, and if so, would they charge?
I think the whole tethering thing is kind of ridiculous on AT&T. You're paying an extra $20+ per month to use the data you're already paying for except on your computer. They've been dealing with Apple for far too long...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've been using my N1 on AT&T to tether a pretty good amount and had no complaints. I even stream netflix movies and haven't heard a word.
obviously our phones send and receive data over wifi. when tethering, the phone is still sending and receiving data over wifi, it's just connecting to another device. not to be rude but it is a pretty easy concept. it is an amazing thing though.
right now i am on a camping trip, and i of course brought my phone and laptop with me so i have been tethering a bit. i just happened to be in an area with fantastic signal strength and speedtest.net shows that i am getting up to 2.5Mbps down, and about 1Mbps or so up. it's working GREAT! it's still not cable or fios fast, but it's fast.
Tethering on Talkmobile
I've recently get an unlimited data Talkmobile contract (UK) and I'm thinking of tethering (it's against T&Cs). Has anyone else done this? If they don't detect it, it's a great deal at only £12 month (though the unlimited deal which I have got is no longer available).
I was thinking, the mentioned methods of detecting tethering, even if they are viable and legal, might not be enough for the operators to prove that I was tethering, and hence they couldn't legally do anything about it. I don't know if this is the case or not (but I think I'll choose to believe that).
If I can tether, it means I can buy the PS Vita WiFi only and have as much connectivity as the 3G version!
Sounds like a good project for this weekend. I'll do some packet sniffing and post if I find anything. TMO in US, though.
would the carrier (Three in the uk) be able to detect tethering if i connected my phone to a vpn. because then surely all data would look identical?
HTC Desire, cm7.1
I have a Samsung Ativ S which I have been using as a WiFi hotspot to connect my laptop and Nexus 7 to while I am working away. Recently got a text to tell me if I carry on I will be cut off on my mobile contract. I have a sim only deal that gives me unlimited calls, text and 3G internet so I'm a bit brassed off. It took an hour of searching to find the no teathering in the conditions of use.
Any way what I want to know are there any Windows Phone apps that will hide the teathering from my supplier? I am hung off a T Mobile/ Orange network.
Daedalus1
ATIV S can use wired tethering (search the forum for it, I posted instructions and drivers sometime last year). Even though my plan supports tethering, it's data-limited and when I use the wired tethering they don't list the data usage for it so I'm guessing it's not detectable, or at least not easily.
There's also an app called TetherX or something like that, which will act as a SOCKS proxy server on the phone; you then set your PC to use the phone as its proxy server. Won't work for non-proxy-aware apps but otherwise should do the trick.
Of course, this all assumes they're checking whether or not you're using the phone's tethering feature somehow, rather than doing something more nefarious like deep packet inspection. If they're checking "are you using the 'Internet Sharing' feature?" then I would expect them to just limit its usage; the phone has the capability to test whether or not tethering is permitted on your plan, and does so test by default. If they're using DPI and noticing traffic to/from PC clients (based on user-agent strings or something) then you're in trouble unless you can route all your traffic over SSL, which mostly thwarts packet inspection.