DroidForums.net is the original Verizon Android Forum! Registered Users do not see these ads. Please Register - It's Free!
Page 11 of 113 FirstFirst ... 9 10 11 12 13 21 61 111 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 1130
Like Tree2Likes

Thread: P3Droid: Some Food for Thought - Bootloaders, Rooting, Manufacturers, and Carriers

  1. Junior Droid
    Jakeworld's Avatar
    Member #
    128277
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    22
    Phone
    DROID X
    Quote Originally Posted by UNC View Post
    Tethering is stealing. There's no way you can justify it. If you think its wrong that you can't tether then you shouldn't have signed the contract that clearly says tethering is a violation of TOS. That contract ends all debate about it. Don't like it, dont sign.
    Some of you may need a serious reality check here.

    Claim:
    Tethering is stealing

    Proof:
    Violation of ToS

    Reality:
    Tethering is fundamentally not a service. Neither product, nor service are provided outside of the existing plan. It's merely a (financed) license to use the data in a way that does not violate a ToS.

    A breach of contract or ToS != theft. You subscribe to a data plan, which is presented as "unlimited". Regardless of the terms and conditions that may contradict this description, ultimately, you are accessing data. By restricting the means in which your consumer accesses said data, you are artificially creating an additional product/service. In of itself, tethering carries no intrinsic value, with exception to the arbitrary value you have assigned to it through its exclusion from the ToS.

    Consider the following pertinent example:
    Since we're talking about data, let's consider a topic with which many of us are familiar. When we purchase music, whether that takes the form of a physical medium (e.g. CD/DVD) or a virtual medium (e.g. digital tracks), we are subscribing to a license to access the music data associated with a particular album or track. We do not in fact own the track; merely, we own the rights to access the data as we see fit. Can you imagine if record companies proceeded to restrict the types of devices in which we could access this data? Say, if you purchased music from Sony BMG, you could only listen to said music on a Sony device, or only on a certain number of devices, or only a certain number of times? Let's say you would have to pay an additional fee to access your music data on an additional device or for additional replays. Tell me, if such restrictions were in place, how then would it be stealing? Because you're denying the potential for an additional avenue from which to profit? Let me reiterate what I stated before. By restricting the means in which your consumer accesses data, you are artificially creating an additional product/service. Remember, you're not purchasing the data, you're purchasing a license. The license to access the music carries no intrinsic value. Instead, it carries an arbitrary value that enables you to access the data in a way that does not violate their terms of service.

    Truth be told, record companies have attempted this approach in the past. Does DRM ring a bell? Sure, it worked for a while, since many consumers felt they had no alternative to accessing music, short of piracy. Then something miraculous happened. The free market prevailed. Stores such as Amazon began offering DRM-free tracks, digital companies started offering various types of monthly/annual music subscriptions, and some artists have even opted to remove the middleman and offer their music for a more reasonable price or as donationware. The point is, the market created alternatives. Choice is a powerful concept. The interests of consumers are ephemeral. In order to stay relevant, companies must seek to appeal to those interests if they hope to survive. DRM has taken a back seat and is unlikely to ever be as restrictive or as prevalent as it once had been.

    Digital products will always remain a gray area in the legal space, especially since when we're considering data, it encompasses vague laws and acts that frankly are no longer relevant or explicit. The ways in which we access our data is continually evolving, and companies are taking advantage of unclear legal language to concede as little into the consumer rights domain as possible. By creating an artificial product, they are able to negotiate a means of retaining the upper hand on their service. Essentially, they are biting the hands that feed them. If you want to believe that tethering is stealing, then so is playing the radio in public, or copying a CD for archival purposes. It's ultimately relative and a matter of perspective. From a legal standpoint, it's simply unclear. When you sell a service that guarantees access to data, why should it matter the means with which I use to gain that access? If you're concerned about excessive consumption, then define a limit, and don't call it "unlimited". In no part of the definition for the aforementioned word does it imply that restrictions are inclusive. Not only does that pertain to amount, that also pertains to means of access. A violation of contract is a civil matter, and in this case does not necessitate stealing, especially when the good/service in question is one that is artificially created by exclusion from what would otherwise be an inclusive service.

    Carriers may be headed in this direction, to push as far into the consumer rights domain as possible, and this is exactly why we as consumers need to end our subscription to these contracts. The subsidized price of a phone may be attractive, but is shady and contradictory business practice a fair price to swallow? As with the case of music distribution, the market will ultimately decide the direction consumers will follow. Only time will tell what avenues will open.
    Last edited by Jakeworld; 04-04-2011 at 12:51 AM.
  2. Master Droid
    jdm627's Avatar
    Member #
    84417
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    474
    Phone
    Motorola Droid
    Big expeculation only for GB with X! but how many devices out of droid are using tethering and woking with data free out of contract?
    Think about it, and please donīt lose the time we need a new rom for our X.



    Favorite Rom DX: I killed my X D1: MIUI!!! DINC: Sense
  3. phillyboydroid's Avatar
    Member #
    99737
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    94
    Phone
    MOTO DROID
    Contemplating the Iphone after reading this. I mean IOS and MIUI are pretty much the same right

    Sent from my Droid using DroidForums App
  4. Droid
    aristoid's Avatar
    Member #
    112210
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    61
    Phone
    Motorola D1
    I started my cell phone experience on Qwest. Gave that up after a couple years because coverage stunk - cities only. Then I went to Alltel. After their merger with Cellular One, I changed to verizon. On alltel, I had the same dumb flip phone for four years. Two on my account, and two on my work account.

    I started Verizon with a hand-me-down dumb phone that I used for almost five years before the battery gave up the ghost. I still have the dumb phone I got for free when signing up for Verizon as a back up.

    When I switched to the D1 last summer, I did so with every intention of keeping it until true EOL (not just tech EOL - when it physically died). So in the last 10 years, verizon has gotten about $200 from me for phones, but much much more in my monthly fees. With my early termination amount equal to about two months of my normal bill, I would now gladly terminate early to save a few hundred dollars on the newest, bestest phone out there!!

    How does this make verizon money if they do not recoup the cost of the phone well within a two year contract? Why would they push us into the newest/bestest phone if that was the case? They make their money (and ROI) on us continuing to use our current devices as I have in the past - for years past end of contract.

    I realize I may be a bit unusual in this crowd with my phone cycle, but far more people around here have used the same phone for years until it finally dies. And most of the folks I know are jumping on the smartphone bandwagon, and with that, much higher monthly bills. It has to be a win for Big Red to keep us in our current phones as long as possible. (and any carrier for that matter)

    If they do not make any money from a contract for close to the life of the contract because of the cost of the hardware, why would any carrier enact rules that would encourage people to jump from carrier to carrier just to have the newest hardware? It used to be competition based on plan features and pricing. I cannot believe it would change to hardware focused competition. Why would they push for one year contracts if they were unable to recover the cost of the phone in that amount of time? They make six times as much in a year if I stay with them, than if I choose the early termination option!! I still get the phone, they get no more money, it just doesn't make sense.

    Carrier options are limited where I live, but in most metropolitan areas, I would be gone at the first sign of reduced services. It makes more sense to offer the great service that have kept many people happy for years and years, rather than to start cutting the loyal customers off at the knees.

    Again, my $.02 - better be careful, it's gonna be a nickle soon ;-o
    "...definitely have to be back in two hours."


    Fingers to Phone to . . .
  5. Droid
    DyMiC's Avatar
    Member #
    105141
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Page, AZ
    Posts
    69
    Phone
    Motorola Droid X
    I wish there were some way of buying a phone directly from the manufacturer without having to worry about the bloatware, security lockdowns, blah blah blah. A totally unlocked phone, but with the carrier's radio of your choice. So, for example, if I wanted a Motorola Droid on AT&T, I could order one directly from Moto with the radio. And if I wanna tear the firmware apart and make it do all this crazy ish, I should be able to. I understand the WiFi Tethering stuff, though. We are kinda Sh*ts for doing it. But why the hell are you gonna charge 10 bucks more for it when I'm already paying for unlimited data? I can easily rack up 5 GB a month without using tethering. This whole thing is stupid. P3 is right. It's all about the money. And it's sickening. The thing is, there's only so many of us that are into modding/deving. And the big corps are looking at the mainstream. Most people don't know or even care about the capabilities of the device. All they care about is that they can make calls, text, and surf the web.

    And with the kids nowadays (and I"m talking in general, because I know there's gotta be a few of your teenagers out there that are actually smart enough to figure out how to do this stuff and you're reading this RIGHT NOW) getting more stupid as the days pass, and the educational system trying to dumb things down so the kids don't have to try so hard, it's only a matter of time before we get wiped out.

    I'm starting to make Deving/Modding sound like a cult, but it really sort of is. And without further educating our friends, families, etc.... we WILL die. So preach! Preach our cult!

    But yeah. Money talks, BS walks. And that's the only thing ringing in Moto/Google/VZW's heads right now.
    Motorola Droid X
    MIUI DefX 2012.5.12
    OCed and UVed.
    My Baby (until the next beast comes along)
  6. Senior Droid
    really fascinating's Avatar
    Member #
    165799
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    droidtown,usa
    Posts
    132
    Twitter
    @margaret41081
    Phone
    DrOId X
    It is stealing maybe by a slim margin(if that makes you feel better)but still stealing, it is basically using a sservice that Verizon offers at a fee -3g mobile hot spot (20 a month) and not paying last time I checked that is stealing. The unlimited data Verizon is providing is meant to to be used on the device which they are providing service to.

    And go ahead and end your services with Verizon as mentioned before this is something that all carriers are planning on doing. Good luck I hope your track phone offers what Verizon can.

    Sent from my DROIDX using DroidForums
    Last edited by really fascinating; 04-04-2011 at 01:13 AM.
    I did it on em with ma Droid x
  7. Master Droid
    jdm627's Avatar
    Member #
    84417
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    474
    Phone
    Motorola Droid
    XDA The uncrackable bootloader for the Xperia X10 has been successfully bypassed to allow custom kernel flashing on the device



    Favorite Rom DX: I killed my X D1: MIUI!!! DINC: Sense
  8. Droid Sensei
    kodiak799's Avatar
    Member #
    39354
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,714
    Liked
    403 times
    Phone
    HTC Rezound
    Quote Originally Posted by DyMiC View Post
    I can easily rack up 5 GB a month without using tethering.
    We all COULD, but who would really want to? The whole point with tethering is you put that data on a device you would actually consume the data on, so your usage spikes. I COULD watch 5 hours of Netflix (just an example) on my Droid, but I probably won't. Now, tether so I can watch it on my plasma tv and then I might really watch 5 hours.

    VZW understands this, and it's why the mobile broadband plans are capped. They are not intending for their 3G/LTE to be home internet replacements. Never have.

    I mean, why are there different tiers of cable? I can only watch one channel at a time, and I pay to watch as much as I want. So why is it wrong to have a device that would give me free HBO? I think people intuitively understand you pay for a package of channels. I don't get why people keep trying to justify tethering as seeing that as somehow different. It's not a service you're paying for and it's not included with your unlimited data.
  9. Droid Sensei
    kodiak799's Avatar
    Member #
    39354
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,714
    Liked
    403 times
    Phone
    HTC Rezound
    Quote Originally Posted by jdm627 View Post
    XDA The uncrackable bootloader for the Xperia X10 has been successfully bypassed to allow custom kernel flashing on the device
    Yeah, Sony will just sit back and ignore that. Yep. I'm sure they will fully support hacking their phones just like they do with the PS3....
  10. UNC
    UNC is offline
    Droid Ninja
    UNC's Avatar
    Member #
    26618
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fayettenam,NC
    Posts
    1,359
    Liked
    4 times
    Phone
    A855/ vPhone4
    Quote Originally Posted by Jakeworld View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by UNC View Post
    Tethering is stealing. There's no way you can justify it. If you think its wrong that you can't tether then you shouldn't have signed the contract that clearly says tethering is a violation of TOS. That contract ends all debate about it. Don't like it, dont sign.
    Some of you may need a serious reality check here.

    Claim:
    Tethering is stealing

    Proof:
    Violation of ToS

    Reality:
    Tethering is fundamentally not a service. Neither product, nor service are provided outside of the existing plan. It's merely a (financed) license to use the data in a way that does not violate a ToS.

    A breach of contract or ToS != theft. You subscribe to a data plan, which is presented as "unlimited". Regardless of the terms and conditions that may contradict this description, ultimately, you are accessing data. By restricting the means in which your consumer accesses said data, you are artificially creating an additional product/service. In of itself, tethering carries no intrinsic value, with exception to the arbitrary value you have assigned to it through its exclusion from the ToS.

    Consider the following pertinent example:
    Since we're talking about data, let's consider a topic with which many of us are familiar. When we purchase music, whether that takes the form of a physical medium (e.g. CD/DVD) or a virtual medium (e.g. digital tracks), we are subscribing to a license to access the music data associated with a particular album or track. We do not in fact own the track; merely, we own the rights to access the data as we see fit. Can you imagine if record companies proceeded to restrict the types of devices in which we could access this data? Say, if you purchased music from Sony BMG, you could only listen to said music on a Sony device, or only on a certain number of devices, or only a certain number of times? Let's say you would have to pay an additional fee to access your music data on an additional device or for additional replays. Tell me, if such restrictions were in place, how then would it be stealing? Because you're denying the potential for an additional avenue from which to profit? Let me reiterate what I stated before. By restricting the means in which your consumer accesses data, you are artificially creating an additional product/service. Remember, you're not purchasing the data, you're purchasing a license. The license to access the music carries no intrinsic value. Instead, it carries an arbitrary value that enables you to access the data in a way that does not violate their terms of service.

    Truth be told, record companies have attempted this approach in the past. Does DRM ring a bell? Sure, it worked for a while, since many consumers felt they had no alternative to accessing music, short of piracy. Then something miraculous happened. The free market prevailed. Stores such as Amazon began offering DRM-free tracks, digital companies started offering various types of monthly/annual music subscriptions, and some artists have even opted to remove the middleman and offer their music for a more reasonable price or as donationware. The point is, the market created alternatives. Choice is a powerful concept. The interests of consumers are ephemeral. In order to stay relevant, companies must seek to appeal to those interests if they hope to survive. DRM has taken a back seat and is unlikely to ever be as restrictive or as prevalent as it once had been.

    Digital products will always remain a gray area in the legal space, especially since when we're considering data, it encompasses vague laws and acts that frankly are no longer relevant or explicit. The ways in which we access our data is continually evolving, and companies are taking advantage of unclear legal language to concede as little into the consumer rights domain as possible. By creating an artificial product, they are able to negotiate a means of retaining the upper hand on their service. Essentially, they are biting the hands that feed them. If you want to believe that tethering is stealing, then so is playing the radio in public, or copying a CD for archival purposes. It's ultimately relative and a matter of perspective. From a legal standpoint, it's simply unclear. When you sell a service that guarantees access to data, why should it matter the means with which I use to gain that access? If you're concerned about excessive consumption, then define a limit, and don't call it "unlimited". In no part of the definition for the aforementioned word does it imply that restrictions are inclusive. Not only does that pertain to amount, that also pertains to means of access. A violation of contract is a civil matter, and in this case does not necessitate stealing, especially when the good/service in question is one that is artificially created by exclusion from what would otherwise be an inclusive service.

    Carriers may be headed in this direction, to push as far into the consumer rights domain as possible, and this is exactly why we as consumers need to end our subscription to these contracts. The subsidized price of a phone may be attractive, but is shady and contradictory business practice a fair price to swallow? As with the case of music distribution, the market will ultimately decide the direction consumers will follow. Only time will tell what avenues will open.
    When the RIAA starts subsidizing music then it might be "pertinent". Anyway a cd or MP3 is not an ongoing service that continually cost the record company money... That was a lot of typing for you. Your attempts at justifying costing us higher bills and restricted service should be lauded.
    Last edited by UNC; 04-04-2011 at 01:58 AM.
    You call me names, I call your Mom!!
Page 11 of 113 FirstFirst ... 9 10 11 12 13 21 61 111 ... LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 01-14-2011, 03:16 PM
  2. Now that HTC phones will have locked bootloaders and prevent rooting...
    By droidXpert in forum Android General Discussions
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-08-2010, 01:03 PM
  3. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-23-2010, 01:57 PM
  4. Which car manufacturers?
    By pjo1966 in forum Android Accessories
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 04-28-2010, 05:06 PM
  5. I had a thought... wait... ummm... yah I had a thought!
    By Where'sMyCoffe? in forum Android General Discussions
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 02-11-2010, 03:46 PM

Search tags for this page

@p3droid
,
android-asset/html/fa/tethering-help.html
,
bootloaders, rooting, manufacturers, and
,
file:///android asset/html/fa/tethering help.html
,
food news forums
,
how to root samsung galaxy precedent by straight talk
,

p3droid

,
p3droid droid 3
,
p3droid verizon tether
,
track a rooted android phone
Click on a term to search our site for related topics.

Tags for this Thread

Find us on Google+