12 ms·
Let my Wi-Fi go: FCC rules Verizon can't charge for Wi-Fi tethering
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- eridius 14y agoWhat about AT&T? Will the FCC force them to stop charging too, or is there some reason why it's different?
- jevinskie 14y agoIt seems like the ruling was based off of particular regulations for the 4G (LTE) spectrum. I have a feeling it would not apply to 3G spectrum.
- nsmartt 14y agoThat's depressing. Charging for wifi tethering is ridiculous.
- e1ven 14y agoRight - Thank Google for this one. This was one of the conditions Google received from the FCC in exchange for placing their bid. http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iMbsPSv2vatAVvbz_8n0xU3Mfvnw http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iMbsPSv2vatAVvbz_8n0xU3M...
- jonknee 14y agoAT&T has LTE as well FWIW.
- yonran 14y agoSeems like this is thanks to the open applications rule of the 700MHz spectrum auction, Block C[1], that Google lobbied to include and then bid to ensure that it would apply. That spectrum was bought by Verizon for the contiguous 48 states. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_2008_wireless_spectrum_auction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_2008_wireless_spe...
- lancefisher 14y agoI guess we can hope that competitive pressure will encourage AT&T to offer Wi-Fi tethering at no additional charge. My guess is that both carriers will raise their base rate and offer it "free".
- sahaskatta 14y agoDoes this mean that they can simply charge more for the base fee instead?
- abruzzi 14y agoProbably, but since tethering is probably a feature 10% of their data subscribers are interested in, they would also raise the data price on the 90% that don't need it (who are also be more likely to walk away if prices go up.)
- dclowd9901 14y agoA new "processing fee"? Preposterous!
- MatthewPhillips 14y agoMarket should correct any attempts at that.
- vitobcn 14y agoProbably, they will do what they are currently doing but in a different way. For example, offering tiers based on data usage: under 100MB plan (aka non-tethering) for $n; over 100MB plan (aka tethering) for $5n.
- RedwoodCity 14y agoNow your bill will add another mystery fee.
- seanmccann 14y agoDon't all of the new Verizon "Share Everything" plans include tethering? I suppose this is only relevant for archaic data plans (pre June 2012)?
- girasquid 14y agoDoes being older than 2 months really make something archaic?
- gojomo 14y agoThis is the sort of price/service regulation that superficially appears beneficial to consumers... but might not be pro-consumer in its total effects. In particular, it could mean customers who would never use tethering wind up paying incrementally more, because all plans now include that capability, and Verizon still has sufficient pricing power make up the loss from tethering fees with other incremental fee increases.
- sankara 14y agoHow does it matter if I use data for my phone or my computer? To some extent I agree that this would end up costing higher when the carrier has unlimited data. But even there, if more people start "misusing" the connection (download songs, movies?) the price is going to go up and you don't need tethering to do that. To give you a perspective: Tethering is available in India with every single connection. You just need a supporting phone (USB or WiFi). The plans are all capped there but so are most plans here. You guys seriously have to wake up and realise that you are severely restricted on everything from which phones you can buy to how you use your phone and what apps are installed. I mean, seriously!
- DamnYuppie 14y agoWhile I don't disagree that carriers will find new ways to bleed consumers dry I don't think that is a reason to not be ecstatic about this decision. If we held on to your logic it would enable companies to disregard laws or contracts they entered into for their sole benefit.
- drewcrawford 14y agoThis analysis holds up to "unlimited" plans where "tethering" is really a (poor) proxy for "using a lot of data." But if you have usage-based pricing (which Verizon does), it doesn't matter whether that 4GB originates from an iPhone or a MBP. A packet is a packet and it costs the same to route. I suppose you could argue that Verizon incurs some additional support burden for tethering. I question whether or not this support burden outweighs the costs of supporting people who call in expecting to be able to tether now.
- 14y ago
- delinka 14y agoI'm on the fence on this one because it doesn't prevent going up on all data plans. Which will just increase Verizon's revenue and probably not cost them much. However, I'm not advocating price controls. But I know how to solve this. Someone needs to become the defacto wireless network that focuses on the network (reliability, bandwidth) and doesn't deal with consumers. Instead they resell to companies who deal with consumers. Wonder if I could do a KS campaign...
- SwellJoe 14y agoHas a Kickstarter campaign ever raised $4 billion? Because I suspect that's what it would take to begin building a network from scratch. There are resellers that focus on data, however...Clear is one. They aren't great (they share the Sprint Network, which is very bad in some places, and fair to middling in most), and they reportedly throttle some high usage customers (I've not run into this, though the times when I've needed a lot of data, Clear couldn't provide it anyway, even without throttling), but they don't regulate what you run on the network. All my devices, including phone, connect through it when I'm on the road.
- bengl3rt 14y agoI've had pretty good experience with Clear everywhere except Manhattan, where the service is horrible.
- SwellJoe 14y agoIt's pretty good/fast along highways, but not in cities. It's also got much broader 2G and 3G, in middle of nowhere places, than T-mobile, which is my cell provider. Since I can't work without some kind of connectivity, I'm willing to pay for both. T-Mobile is really fast in bigger cities, but it's easy to find places with not data at all. Clear in Austin is horrible, in particular, but T-Mobile is crazy fast.
- mistercow 14y ago>I'm on the fence on this one because it doesn't prevent going up on all data plans. It doesn't, but simple economics will prevent the price going up on all data plans as much as Verizon was charging for tethering.
- RexRollman 14y agoCharging for tethering is stupid anyway, as people are just using the bandwidth they are paying for. The only thing I detest more is that AT&T forces me to pay for text messages that I didn't even want.
- JoeAltmaier 14y agoAgreed. So is Apple's charging for media feeds on an iPhone that I read over my own bandwidth, on my own device, from a 3rd party I have a private relationship with. Yet that stands somehow.
- kyrra 14y agoWhat feeds are you talking about?
- JoeAltmaier 14y agoAny subscription content.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- matwood 14y agoWhat stands? If the purchase doesn't originate within an app then Apple doesn't get a cut. They have put rules in place basically saying that the private relationship must have formed outside the app (no linking to buy pages), but that is different than what you're complaining about.
- JoeAltmaier 14y agoWhat difference does it make that the purchase originated in an app? That MY app, using my bandwidth on my device etc. Same argument. The reason they do it is, of course, that they can. I call it a shakedown, but lawyers may have another name.
- 14y ago
- tkahn6 14y agoThis is a no-brainer. As others have pointed out, this is a wholly artificial fee. You still have to pay for the data. They're just charging you for how you access the data. Basically it's extortion. Here's something that congress should do. Telecom companies are government-granted monopolies. Why not acknowledge that it's already not a free market situation and cap the profit margin that these companies are allowed to operate at (like they're doing with health insurance now)? It's insane that 5GB bandwidth/month is $50. It's insane that text messages are so expensive. It's insane that the fee to enter into a new 2-year discounted phone contract isn't proportional to the amount of money the company has recouped on the original phone.
- Steko 14y agoTethering charges came out of corporate and at the time tethering often significantly increased the data usage of the device. And no you didn't always pay for data per KB plans often included tethering while "unlimited" plans charged extra.
- ryanisinallofus 14y agoI don't place wireless data access on the same level as health coverage. I use Sprint which has unlimited data and unlimited data is a very good sign that competition still exists in the wireless market. Once it goes, perhaps it will be time to start thinking about even more regulation. I'm not some free open market type either. I'm pissed off about "Obamacare" only because it doesn't go far enough.
- nilsbunger 14y agoThey do it to segment their customers. A lot of us startups do it too when we offer one plan for $9 per month, another for $19 per month. The delta isn't necessarily because our costs are different, but rather because the value to the consumer is different. You could argue that cellular networks should only be allowed to be dumb pipes because they are a government-granted monopoly (of spectrum). That would put them in a similar place as a utility like your electric company, sort of quasi-private but heavily regulated. That makes sense, but OTOH utilities are notorious for stupid bureaucracy and being slow to evolve... So would they still deploy new stuff like LTE quickly? Would they still subsidize phones? I'm not sure of the answer, but I think that's what the real debate should be if you don't want them creating "artificial fees", ie segmenting customers by value.
- unoti 14y agoWhen I try to activate tethering on my Verizon Android, it's still telling me it wants the $30/month. I suppose it's a little soon for this change to already be implemented, but I'm sure ready!
- JangoSteve 14y agoI'm guessing they'd have to send out an OTA update to the OS to remove that message. Depending on your device, as we've seen, that could take years. Install the Foxfi app, it's free and gives you wifi tethering on Verizon Android devices.
- danellis 14y agoI expect so, because, IIRC, they had to send out an OTA update to enable the restriction. > Depending on your device, as we've seen, that could take years. The FCC should decide on a reasonable timeframe, and fine them for every day over that that they still charge for it. Verizon can argue that the updates come from the handset manufacturers, but the restriction was put there at Verizon's behest, so they can really only blame themselves.
- nomolurcin 14y agoJust get the app FoxFi -- it allows you to tether for free, even on a non-rooted device.
- topherjaynes 14y agoWhat's a good iOS app for this?
- RedwoodCity 14y agoWoot!
- juiceandjuice 14y agoThe most important reason why this is a no-brainer is because of the 700Mhz spectrum auction. The open device restriction (or lack of restrictions really) was a key provision that google pushed for. I'm sure some people are going to say the government is overstepping their authority, but in fact, they aren't. Verizon was overstepping their authority in this case. Everybody has google to thank for this.
- juiceandjuice 14y agoOf note... Verizon could theoretically still charge a tethering fee so long as no data was routed through the 700Mhz spectrum.
- nilsbunger 14y agoVerizon's LTE is only on 700MHz. They could charge a tethering fee on their old CDMA network, but that seems like it wouldn't work when their LTE network won't have a fee.
- Steko 14y agoWas this a separate deal from the one where Google and Verizon screwed over wireless net neutrality?
- ars 14y agoUm, they didn't? What are you talking about?
- huxley 14y agoYes they certainly did: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/08/google-verizon-netneutrality/ https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/08/google-verizon-netneut...
- nl 14y agoYou'll note that document is divided into Good, Interesting, Troubling and Fail sections. It certainly is less than ideal, but I guess that is true of most compromises.
- faded_giant 14y agoWhat about the other carriers like Spring and AT&T?
- nathan_long 14y ago>> Telecom companies are government-granted monopolies. Why not acknowledge that it's already not a free market situation and cap the profit margin Why not remove the monopoly?
- Steko 14y agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_management http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_management http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_allocation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_allocation
- jessriedel 14y agoMy understanding is that the finite bandwidth of the spectrum puts a limit (for a given level of technology) on the total data capacity of the network, not on the number of service providers. Could we not have more providers for the same number of users by divvying the spectrum into more chunks? Instead, I think the number of providers is limited by the huge entry costs of building towers. It's the low marginal cost of operating these towers (compared to their build costs) which leads to monopolies. I would love clarification.
- russell 14y agoEntry is also limited by multi-billion dollar spectrum auctions. Evenid. Google couldnt win with their $pi B bid.
- robomartin 14y agoOne small step for man... The next would be to somehow abolish the per-device data fee structure. We have seven iOS devices. Only three are actively online. Even at that, when at home, office or near wifi cellular data does not get used much if a all. Still, we have to pay 3x the cellular data monthly fee, which is insanity. I do understand the technical and business issues here, but this cuts both ways: I know that we are not using these connections anywhere near capacity. And, I also know that ATT is double charging us because our DSL services (office and home) are with them...yet we don't get a discount when the iOS devices use the network for data as opposed to cellular. In other words, they get to charge us for something that we don't use or, seen another way, we pay twice for the same data capacity. Not sure what the solution might look like, but today's plans are starting to smell bad.
- wmf 14y agoIn theory they now have pooled data plans, but in reality they're not cheaper so you probably don't care. Also, I've heard that a 3G PDP context costs money, so seven devices using 5GB total does cost more than one device using 5GB, although probably not as much as they charge. we don't get a discount when the iOS devices use [Wi-Fi] for data as opposed to cellular Sure you do; that data doesn't eat into your cellular cap. Effectively cellular is ~$6/GB and DSL is <$1/GB.
- maxerickson 14y agoI guess bundling would be nice, but I don't really see the logic to placing requirements on how the providers structure device plans. I think the furthest I would go in that direction would be to require companies that control a large percentage of nationwide spectrum to sell access to their towers at regulated rates.
- vacri 14y agoDo you also complain that your cable TV isn't used to capacity because you're not watching all channels 24 hours a day? It seems so peculiar that people complain that they're not using their internet account to saturation when they don't make the same complaint about other things.
- agrover 14y agobut do we geta refund??? Doesn't look likely.
- thetabyte 14y agoWhile this is wondeful, ZDNet misses something huge picked up on Ars. "The FCC concedes that Verizon may charge $20 per month for customers who retain grandfathered unlimited data plans." http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/07/tethering-apps-must-be-allowed-fcc-tells-verizon/ http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/07/tethering-apps-must-b... So I won't be benefitting from this. The most ridiculous, bullshit part of all of this is that unlimited plans aren't unlimited anyway. They have "Fair Access Policy" data caps (5GB for Verizon IIRC) that are just like the modern plans with a tad higher caps. They just advertise differently. It's the same damn thing. And I don't get free tethering. Ridiculous.
- mey 14y agoI always wondered if it'd be worth it to start a class lawsuit over "unlimited" data plans.
- vampirechicken 14y agoClass action lawsuits only ever really benefit the plaintiff counsel.
- mey 14y agoWhile I doubt cash rewards would be possible, simply removing the data cap would be an impressive victory.
- vampirechicken 14y agoI'm more interested in seeing that the new plans don't raise my costs for capped plan that provides the amount of bandwidth I need. If I use 2.5gb a month on my unlimited for 29.99 plan. if my wife uses 1.5gb, then the new shared everything plan raises my bill by ~20 dollars without adding any real value. I don't need unlimited talk and text.
- Ixiaus 14y agoVerizon is ending the grandfathered in unlimited plans though... (can't find the press release ATM)
- jcromartie 14y agoThank goodness for some sense around telecom companies. Finally!
- awolf 14y agoGreat. So now they'll just raise their data prices. Woohoo!
- lucian303 14y agoIn 2006, one Verizon store tried to charge me for tethering. Another confirmed that at that time, there was no extra ($19.99) charge for tethering. I've been sent to credit agencies for bills I had paid on more than one occasion for the same paid bills and my accounts have been switched with other family members by Verizon on purpose taking over 20 calls and hours to resolve. tl;dr: Verizon's service has always been shit. The FCC and our government need to step it up. Hard to do when you're in Verizon's pockets.
- DannyBee 14y agoI read the order and press release (http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0731/DOC-315501A1.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012... and http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0731/DA-12-1228A1.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012...) , and I don't see how it says what zdnet claims. What it really says is: 1. They can't block devices that offer free tethering 2. They can't block free tethering applications This doesn't say "they can't charge for wi-fi tethering". Just that they can't stop others from offering it for free. In fact, it specifically allows them to continue to charge folks on unlimited usage plans for tethering (though folks can terminate that plan without a termination fee) The zdnet quote that says verizon no longer charges is just a note in the order.
- degenerate 14y agoThis is so funny. I just moved into my new place today; downloaded a tethering android application and got online by tethering through my Verizon phone. First website I open? HN. First article I see (on top)? This one. The point is that I wasn't quite sure if I would be charged for this or not -- guess not!
- panthera 14y agoThank god the government is here to tell private companies what they can and cannot do. The FCC spent $336M of your money last year on such activities. > During the last two decades, the FCC has manufactured the idea that the electromagnetic spectrum used by wireless devices is scarce. Spectrum auctions became another way to restrain trade. Deep pocket operators, like AT&T and Verizon Wireless, overbid for spectrum and then pass along high costs to the consumer in the form of $40 monthly fees and cryptic calling plans. It's a longer conversation, but with the right network architecture, smart devices can be programmed to share huge swaths of spectrum without interfering with other users. If we do it with Wi-Fi for data, we can certainly do it for phone calls. online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704594804575649141727853232.html
- beedogs 14y agoThe amount of utter bullshit US phone companies get away with is staggering. How and why did they think this would fly?
- javert 14y agoFirst they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.
- sodafountan 14y agoSo why are they still allowed to do this: https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/620389_3978258648735_1903704690_o.jpg https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/620389_397825864...
- ComputerGuru 14y agoI genuinely do wonder whether or not this will change anything for (current) Apple customers. As the iPhone/iPad are non-LTE, CDMA-only devices; I don't foresee this ruling impacting the current restrictions that bar the entry-level 2GB data plans from having tethering support.
- AngryParsley 14y agoFor the most part, you're right. There is one exception: The Verizon 3rd-gen iPads have LTE. The cheapest prepaid plan is $20/month for 1GB of data, and it comes with tethering.
- ComputerGuru 14y agoThanks for the correction.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- martingordon 14y agoI was unaware that Verizon couldn't charge for tethering over LTE, but I did find it strange that the Verizon iPad has tethering included in any data plan and the AT&T version does not. I ended up canceling my AT&T order and ordering a Verizon iPad once I discovered that fact. That said, it's been almost six months since the new iPad came out and AT&T has yet to include tethering, so I don't think they see tethering to iPad that huge a selling point. (in fact, I don't think they even have a way of letting you pay for tethering if you're on an iPad's prepaid data).
- thekevan 14y agoSo will Verizon just disallow tethering instead of allowing it for free?
- runjake 14y agoI've just noticed on my iPhone 4S on Verizon I can enable personal hotspot and not get some warning about being charged anymore. But I very much doubt any changes have gone into effect this quickly. Some questions: Has anyone contacted Verizon Wireless to get official word if the free tethering has gone into effect? Has anyone gotten official word from Verizon Wireless if CDMA tethering will be free, also? Note: I am aware these are 700mhz restrictions. Note my use of "official word" above.