Goodbye illegal tethering

[turficus]

Actually "illegal" is a term commonly used by large companies for things in conflict with their policies as a means to deter people from violating their policies through fear.

So it's not too uncommon for people to take it literally, as that is why its worded that way.

Granted, most people know better. But I always ask for clarification when people use the term, because it's one of those ugly little tool words that get taken out of context

~*Sent from a Galaxy far, far away*~

You've got it right. Illegal just is a reference to something that is prohibited. It is not illegal per the law, but it is per their legal contract.

 

[ilikemoneygreen]

Actually "illegal" is a term commonly used by large companies for things in conflict with their policies as a means to deter people from violating their policies through fear.

So it's not too uncommon for people to take it literally, as that is why its worded that way.

Granted, most people know better. But I always ask for clarification when people use the term, because it's one of those ugly little tool words that get taken out of context

~*Sent from a Galaxy far, far away*~

I believe and this is just an *i believe* when Verizon updates their policies they post it publicly and and inform you that policy has changed. You then have a certain period that you may cancel your contract because they altered the signed agreement. After that without a response the contract with the new policy is what VZ goes by. My mom does all the cell phone stuff so i don't know if this is for sure but i'm pretty sure i read that somewhere.

 

[Inverse]

Do they have the capacity to modify a contract you signed for? Do they have loopholes where they can say "Yeah, we're going to change your contract to this and this, you're going to have to pay that and that~ and you're just going to have to grin and bear it."?

Can they actually do that?

What stops them from legally saying "Oh~ by the way next month we're going to force you to pay 1000 dollars a month because, well~ we're bored."?

 

[jaycemiskel]

Do they have the capacity to modify a contract you signed for? Do they have loopholes where they can say "Yeah, we're going to change your contract to this and this, you're going to have to pay that and that~ and you're just going to have to grin and bear it."?

Can they actually do that?

What stops them from legally saying "Oh~ by the way next month we're going to force you to pay 1000 dollars a month because, well~ we're bored."?

Yeah they can change your contract but if they do so you have a certain amount of time to cancel without having to pay an ETF. ilikemonkeygreen is correct.

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

 

[ilikemoneygreen]

Do they have the capacity to modify a contract you signed for? Do they have loopholes where they can say "Yeah, we're going to change your contract to this and this, you're going to have to pay that and that~ and you're just going to have to grin and bear it."?

Can they actually do that?

What stops them from legally saying "Oh~ by the way next month we're going to force you to pay 1000 dollars a month because, well~ we're bored."?

I guess they could potentially change the policy to force customers to pay 1000 dollars a month but like i stated their is a certain period in which you can not agree to the contract amendment and cancel. You'd have to grin and bear it after the certain period....but i guess thats not forcing someone to grin and bear it because you have a choice in the matter. If your notified of the change and given a reasonable amount of time to respond then i think its as the same as if you were agreeing to the contract. If Vz changed it to 1000 dollars a month lots of people would be canceling their contracts. Haha my mom would be moving to T mobile or something. Im kinda with you though, Assuming to me is not proper. To assume on something as big as a contract isn't cool. It would be better if they notified you but required a sign of approval other than taking nothing as approval. I guess that silence is approval saying is the golden rule here.

 

[Vyvid]

I truly don't believe I'm in violation when I tether, as my contact doesn't mention it.

Now, being that I'm well out of my contact term, I'm sure that vzw could require I stop or they could stop providing me with service.

But I'm pretty sure I'm not on the radar anyway.

I've worked in the legal dept. for one of the major companies discussed here, and in my experience, in situations like this it sorta goes like this...

1.) Big Co sends scary but friendly sounding warning

2.) Big Co either adds service or charges.

3.) (and this step usually determines the outcome) Consumer either accepts, disputes the right way, or acts angry and cocky and disputes.

4. Company determines if it's worth their while to pursue.

Most large companies don't want to actually take what they consider small issues to litigation, OR to the media for matter. However, they have very comprehensive legal teams who know how to scare people into backing off. Or if the other party won't pay they simply refer to a collections dept or company. However, if you truly believe you are in the right and you are willing to be persistant, many times the consumer can come out on top.

However, many of us have been "trained" by these policies to be complacent.

***individual results may vary***

~*Sent from a Galaxy far, far away*~

 

[Vyvid]

Also, I don't think they really care when a few of us nerds use our phones how we want, it's when we start educating the public and dipping into their uber profits when they start to get a little hot under the collar

~*Sent from a Galaxy far, far away*~

 

[forum8417]

this is bogus. they are so greedy they are trying everything possible to make as much money. we already pay for data let us use it how we wish. im glad i dont have at&t and if verizon does this im going to sprint.

 

[czerdrill]

I truly don't believe I'm in violation when I tether, as my contact doesn't mention it.

Now, being that I'm well out of my contact term, I'm sure that vzw could require I stop or they could stop providing me with service.

But I'm pretty sure I'm not on the radar anyway.

I've worked in the legal dept. for one of the major companies discussed here, and in my experience, in situations like this it sorta goes like this...

1.) Big Co sends scary but friendly sounding warning

2.) Big Co either adds service or charges.

3.) (and this step usually determines the outcome) Consumer either accepts, disputes the right way, or acts angry and cocky and disputes.

4. Company determines if it's worth their while to pursue.

Most large companies don't want to actually take what they consider small issues to litigation, OR to the media for matter. However, they have very comprehensive legal teams who know how to scare people into backing off. Or if the other party won't pay they simply refer to a collections dept or company. However, if you truly believe you are in the right and you are willing to be persistant, many times the consumer can come out on top.

However, many of us have been "trained" by these policies to be complacent.

***individual results may vary***



~*Sent from a Galaxy far, far away*~

I dont know why you keep insisting its not in your contract haha......it is. It doesn't matter if it was when you signed (and I'm sure it was), the point is it is now. If you have a data plan with Verizon, you cannot tether according to the TOS without a Mobile Broadband plan. As people have mentioned, VZW can amend the contract and give you time to back out if you want. That's not the case here. I'm 100% certain that the tethering thing has been in there before the android influx even started. If you don't believe me you can call VZW and ask them if you can tether per your contract without a Mobile Broadband plan, and they'll tell you no. Tell them specifically that you have not renewed your contract since the eris, and they'll tell you what everyone here is telling you. Trust me...you can't do it per the contract. Not sure why you think that you are allowed to tether on VZW without a Mobile Broadband plan and no one else is...

To your other point, I agree that its simply not worth it for VZW to go after tether-ers unless like people have mentioned it gets to the point where the whole network comes to a standstill. However, like I mentioned if they wanted to, they could and its in the contract. Simple as that. You're 100% correct. All they can do, from a practical standpoint, is try to scare you. Scare tactics is exactly what AT&T is employing. We're not going to see AT&T take hundreds of its customers to civil court for damages because they tethered. We won't see that with VZW either. But that's not the point. The point is that they can do it if they wanted to, and I don't agree with your assessment that the consumer can come out on top in this case. The only semblance of the customer "winning" would be a settlement (which is obviously what would happen), and I wouldn't consider that winning by any stretch. VZW, if they chose to, could easily get back damages from every customer who "illegally" tethers whether its for 1/2 MB or 50GB.

VZW is not going to go after people who tether 1GB, 2GB, maybe not even 5GB. But I find it hard to believe that they'll just sit back and let people replace their ISPs with LTE without signing up for the Mobile Broadband and use 30+GB/month. The fact that they're going towards tiered plans is an indication that they don't want that happening....

 

[czerdrill]

this is bogus. they are so greedy they are trying everything possible to make as much money. we already pay for data let us use it how we wish. im glad i dont have at&t and if verizon does this im going to sprint.

you paid for mobile data on your cellphone for use only on your cellphone, not tethering. It's two completely different things (as far as VZW is concerned) I will never understand why that's so hard for people to comprehend.

this is bogus! i paid for my food at this restaurant and they want to charge me for my drinks! the nerve of them!!

 

[ilikemoneygreen]

Also, I don't think they really care when a few of us nerds use our phones how we want, it's when we start educating the public and dipping into their uber profits when they start to get a little hot under the collar

~*Sent from a Galaxy far, far away*~

... Im not quite sure what your saying here. Your saying that the new tos doesnt apply to your old contract but they are trying to scare us into making it apply? "I truly don't believe I'm in violation when I tether, as my contact doesn't mention it" Im pretty sure it does go over amending the contract actually. Are you sure youve read the TOS fully? They are a big company and im sure they would love to c=scare us but i think legally, like in court, the amending of contracts does apply. You did sign a contract before, but it has since been amended to newer terms and conditions... Since im fairly certain you havent canceled, my bet is they are assming your going with the newer TOS, not the older one. "However, many of us have been "trained" by these policies to be complacent. " Imo, i don't think i've been trained to be complacent like your saying.

 

[huskur]

AT&T people are actually using a app that can be monitored (even though jailbroken). Android users (most) are using "root" and google code wifi apk which looks to VZW as you are using your mobile device when you are indeed tethering

 

[Vyvid]

Cz... I think you just answered your own question. They see it as data is data. People get angry because they are like "who cares whether I'm downloading that vid on my phone, or on my comp? Costs them the same."

Yes, it is a way for companies to make more money, as is the nature of large companies. But like you said, with no restrictions, why would anyone even bother with an ISP, then none of us would be able to do crap because the poor network would be in overload.

~*Sent from a Galaxy far, far away*~

 

[czerdrill]

Cz... I think you just answered your own question. They see it as data is data. People get angry because they are like "who cares whether I'm downloading that vid on my phone, or on my comp? Costs them the same."

Yes, it is a way for companies to make more money, as is the nature of large companies. But like you said, with no restrictions, why would anyone even bother with an ISP, then none of us would be able to do crap because the poor network would be in overload.

~*Sent from a Galaxy far, far away*~

It doesn't "necessarily" cost them the same though. If one person is using 50 persons worth of bandwidth, sure it may not affect the network overall, but it is costing VZW some money even if its negligible, and the more people that do it the less negligible it gets. I don't blame them for wanting to charge for tethering, although I wish they would make it a reasonable price instead of $20 for 2GB, but that's their choice. I also, as mentioned, wouldn't blame them if they came after me for the probably 20MB of tethering I've used in the year+ I've had my phone. They have every right to if they want to. It's their company not ours. They can set prices as they please. The point is they have to protect their assets and their network. Letting people replace their ISP with LTE is not something they'd want even if data is data and it was costing the same (which its not).

 

[Vyvid]

Money, I didn't say everyone was trained, but many people don't even question things anymore. I bet if ATT or VZW added 2 bucks to everyones bill, a very small percentage would question it.

And you are right about contract ammendments. I was waiting for that response

I apologize, I should be more direct in a thread where I can't fluctuate tone, or indicate a scenario.

I'll often "argue" from someone elses point of view to fish for clarity or understanding of the position of the person I'm "arguing with.

Odd way to gauge someones point of view, but you'd be surprised at what you can learn verses being direct.

Sorry if I annoyed anyone

I owe you dinner...

But the drinks are sold separately

~*Sent from a Galaxy far, far away*~