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

[really fascinating]

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

 

[jdm627]

XDA The uncrackable bootloader for the Xperia X10 has been successfully bypassed to allow custom kernel flashing on the device

 

[kodiak799]

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.

 

[kodiak799]

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....

 

[UNC]

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.

 

[Jakeworld]

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.

I find it interesting how some of you keep performing mental gymnastics to justify the supposed "right" of the carrier to lay claim to artificial services as carrying some sort of value.

Your analogy the HBO channels is simply flawed. When you subscribe to a premium channel service, you are subscribing to certain features, that would otherwise be unattainable unless you subscribe to them. If you were able to access channels from a higher tier without paying for them, that would be a form of stealing. However, if I chose to watch the channels I paid to access on a device other than my television, how is that stealing? The signal is sent through a receiver, and is distributed through a household. If I access the signal on my television, on my computer, or my phone, I am still accessing the same data. I am not in any way accessing channels to which I have not paid to access, and in no way receiving "free HBO".

Tethering is NOT theft of data. The phone still acts as the host for which to transmit the data. There is no data that is unaccounted for, no data that is somehow leaked through the phone onto one's computer. The data is transferred no faster than what the phone is capable of receiving. In fact, due to losses, it's probably even slower than on the host device receiving the initial signal. If one is to assume that tethering is a form of theft, then so is using your bluetooth device. The phone acts as the host, while the bluetooth transmitter sends the signal to another device, be it an earpiece or a computer, to wireless communicate without interfacing with the phone directly. The only difference between the services is that one violates a ToS, while the other does not. Ultimately, tethering is a practical solution to wirelessly using an external display, much like how a bluetooth earpiece is a wireless and hands-free means of transmitting audio.

You can attempt to justify the carriers' artificial service, in which through a ToS, they exclude different means of accessing the same data, which still is sent through the same host device, as a way of charging an additional fee to access that data; the reality is, however, that they're engaging in logical fallacies themselves in order to convince their consumers their offering a tangible service through tethering. They're merely offering a service that would have otherwise been included to begin with in any data plan. Through a contract, they're including restrictions, so they can charge you for an artificial service that lets you circumvent the ToS. In layman's terms, I would call this "bull". However, to each his/her own. I can't change your opinion; I can only provide reason.

 

[UNC]

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.

I find it interesting how some of you keep performing mental gymnastics to justify the supposed "right" of the carrier to lay claim to artificial services as carrying some sort of value.

Your analogy the HBO channels is simply flawed. When you subscribe to a premium channel service, you are subscribing to certain features, that would otherwise be unattainable unless you subscribe to them. If you were able to access channels from a higher tier without paying for them, that would be a form of stealing. However, if I chose to watch the channels I paid to access on a device other than my television, how is that stealing? The signal is sent through a receiver, and is distributed through a household. If I access the signal on my television, on my computer, or my phone, I am still accessing the same data. I am not in any way accessing channels to which I have not paid to access, and in no way receiving "free HBO".

Tethering is NOT theft of data. The phone still acts as the host for which to transmit the data. There is no data that is unaccounted for, no data that is somehow leaked through the phone onto one's computer. The data is transferred no faster than what the phone is capable of receiving. In fact, due to losses, it's probably even slower than on the host device receiving the initial signal. If one is to assume that tethering is a form of theft, then so is using your bluetooth device. The phone acts as the host, while the bluetooth transmitter sends the signal to another device, be it an earpiece or a computer, to wireless communicate without interfacing with the phone directly. The only difference between the services is that one violates a ToS, while the other does not. Ultimately, tethering is a practical solution to wirelessly using an external display, much like how a bluetooth earpiece is a wireless and hands-free means of transmitting audio.

You can attempt to justify the carriers' artificial service, in which through a ToS, they exclude different means of accessing the same data, which still is sent through the same host device, as a way of charging an additional fee to access that data; the reality is, however, that they're engaging in logical fallacies themselves in order to convince their consumers their offering a tangible service through tethering. They're merely offering a service that would have otherwise been included to begin with in any data plan. Through a contract, they're including restrictions, so they can charge you for an artificial service that lets you circumvent the ToS. In layman's terms, I would call this "bull". However, to each his/her own. I can't change your opinion; I can only provide reason.

I will provide some logic... Don't agree with the TOS, don't sign the contract... Simple...

Oh, but wait... You want them to honor their part of the contract but not you??? So if Verizon just decided "screw the contracts, phones just won't work on Tuesdays" you'd be ok with that? I'm just curious, because you seem to care very little about contracts... Or honoring them.

 

[freezyfreaky]

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.

I find it interesting how some of you keep performing mental gymnastics to justify the supposed "right" of the carrier to lay claim to artificial services as carrying some sort of value.

Your analogy the HBO channels is simply flawed. When you subscribe to a premium channel service, you are subscribing to certain features, that would otherwise be unattainable unless you subscribe to them. If you were able to access channels from a higher tier without paying for them, that would be a form of stealing. However, if I chose to watch the channels I paid to access on a device other than my television, how is that stealing? The signal is sent through a receiver, and is distributed through a household. If I access the signal on my television, on my computer, or my phone, I am still accessing the same data. I am not in any way accessing channels to which I have not paid to access, and in no way receiving "free HBO".

Tethering is NOT theft of data. The phone still acts as the host for which to transmit the data. There is no data that is unaccounted for, no data that is somehow leaked through the phone onto one's computer. The data is transferred no faster than what the phone is capable of receiving. In fact, due to losses, it's probably even slower than on the host device receiving the initial signal. If one is to assume that tethering is a form of theft, then so is using your bluetooth device. The phone acts as the host, while the bluetooth transmitter sends the signal to another device, be it an earpiece or a computer, to wireless communicate without interfacing with the phone directly. The only difference between the services is that one violates a ToS, while the other does not. Ultimately, tethering is a practical solution to wirelessly using an external display, much like how a bluetooth earpiece is a wireless and hands-free means of transmitting audio.

You can attempt to justify the carriers' artificial service, in which through a ToS, they exclude different means of accessing the same data, which still is sent through the same host device, as a way of charging an additional fee to access that data; the reality is, however, that they're engaging in logical fallacies themselves in order to convince their consumers their offering a tangible service through tethering. They're merely offering a service that would have otherwise been included to begin with in any data plan. Through a contract, they're including restrictions, so they can charge you for an artificial service that lets you circumvent the ToS. In layman's terms, I would call this "bull****". However, to each his/her own. I can't change your opinion; I can only provide reason.

Verizon is not charging you for accessing your data. They are charging you for the data that is transmitted on their wireless network. The tangible service Verizon is charging you for tethering is allowing another device to connect to their network using your phone.

 

[jstafford1]

They aren't charging so much for data as the extra use of their network. Tethering uses much more data than your phone alone can, so tethering puts more of a burden on the network.

While not the best analogy its pretty close. Its similar to ATM charges from different banks. Doesn't really cost them to let you use their ATM, but its a noncustomer putting a burden on their system so you pay extra for it.

Sent from somewhere...

 

[Jakeworld]

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.

Way to answer my post. Subsidizing a device does not entail a right to call all the shots. A person signs a contract, and they agree to abide by these ridiculous restrictions imposed by the service provider. Why? Perhaps consumers are ambivalent. Perhaps they're ignorant. Perhaps they're complacent. It's convenient to call a service unlimited, marketing your service as offering a sense of freedom, while at the same time, burying restrictions into your ToS. Thus, turning a service that would otherwise be inclusive into something that is exclusive, as a means of generating additional revenue. Turning this into an industry standard sounds pretty anti-competitive to me. Some might protest that the service provider is providing a tangible service through Mobile Hotspot. This merely prevents people from accessing the same technology which could be obtained for free using an independent program (i.e. Wireless Tether). That would be like your local ISP forcing you to pay for a proprietary browser (some ISPs also subsidize routers/modems mind you), rather than using Firefox or Google Chrome.

Tethering imposes no direct additional overhead or strain on their network, other than offering a more convenient and desirable means to access that data, which may (and likely will) lead to more overhead. Correlation != causation. The point is, don't call something unlimited then contradict yourself, subsidized hardware or not. Do cable companies prevent you from using your digital tuner (which is leased, subsidized, or lent) on your computer as opposed to your television? Not if they intend to expect your continued subscription. Cellular companies need to evolve with their consumers, unless we have truly generated a society which is willing to be proverbially raped by the companies whom we support.

 

[knivesout]

Also, when you're at Verizon renewing your contract, do they take the time to go over everything that you're actually signing to? When I initially got a smartphone, the rep kept pushing "unlimited data for only $29.99". There wasn't any mention of tethering or what you can and cannot do with your "unlimited" data. They get your money and tell you to sign on the machine without going over the contract or telling you what you're signing. Honestly how many of us actually read the contract and ToS before signing them?

 

[freezyfreaky]

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.

Way to answer my post. Subsidizing a device does not entail a right to call all the shots. A person signs a contract, and they agree to abide by these ridiculous restrictions imposed by the service provider. Why? Perhaps consumers are ambivalent. Perhaps they're ignorant. Perhaps they're complacent. It's convenient to call a service unlimited, marketing your service as offering a sense of freedom, while at the same time, burying restrictions into your ToS. Thus, turning a service that would otherwise be inclusive into something that is exclusive, as a means of generating additional revenue. Turning this into an industry standard sounds pretty anti-competitive to me. Some might protest that the service provider is providing a tangible service through Mobile Hotspot. This merely prevents people from accessing the same technology which could be obtained for free using an independent program (i.e. Wireless Tether). That would be like your local ISP forcing you to pay for a proprietary browser (some ISPs also subsidize routers/modems mind you), rather than using Firefox or Google Chrome.

Tethering imposes no direct additional overhead or strain on their network, other than offering a more convenient and desirable means to access that data, which may (and likely will) lead to more overhead. Correlation != causation. The point is, don't call something unlimited then contradict yourself, subsidized hardware or not. Do cable companies prevent you from using your digital tuner (which is leased, subsidized, or lent) on your computer as opposed to your television? Not if they intend to expect your continued subscription. Cellular companies need to evolve with their consumers, unless we have truly generated a society which is willing to be proverbially raped by the companies whom we support.

So did you know that there was no tethering included in the unlimited data plan when you signed the contract? Or did you read the contract and signed anyways?

 

[DyMiC]

Wow. I didn't mean to cause such a ruckus. LOL!

Anyway. Here's something I posted over at Project Bootloader Freedom.... It was just an idea that streamed through my head.

I know nothing about writing code, or anything developer-wise. I've barely been with Android for almost a year. Rooting and ROMing are about the extent of my knowledge.

But from what I've just read here on these forums and whatnot.... this is what I've gathered.

There has to be some way to hack the hardware of the phone to find out the information needed to crack the bootloader. If all the drivers are signed, and the HARDWARE (the phone itself) looks for that signature, then isn't there some way of getting into that hardware, and rewriting the programming stored in the hardware to where it doesn't even bother to look for a signature/key, therefore making it to where we can but any bootloader we want on, and therefore making the whole phone unlocked?

It's just an idea. Like I said, I really have no clue what I'm talking about at all. I'm just reading and thinking.

 

[freezyfreaky]

Also, when you're at Verizon renewing your contract, do they take the time to go over everything that you're actually signing to? When I initially got a smartphone, the rep kept pushing "unlimited data for only $29.99". There wasn't any mention of tethering or what you can and cannot do with your "unlimited" data. They get your money and tell you to sign on the machine without going over the contract or telling you what you're signing. Honestly how many of us actually read the contract and ToS before signing them?

A life lesson that every person should learn is before you hand over your hard-earned money, make sure you know what you are getting back in return, and make sure it is in writing. Never hand off this responsibility to somebody else unless you are willing to get burned.

 

[Jakeworld]

So did you know that there was no tethering included in the unlimited data plan when you signed the contract? Or did you read the contract and signed anyways?

You are misunderstanding my point. I am perfectly aware of the limitations and restrictions imposed by the ToS and contract. I just find it hypocritical for one party to contradict their claim of "unlimited", which in my eyes, detracts from the arrangement, while the other party is subjugated to the former's conditions. We really have no room for compromise. It's an all or nothing approach that otherwise leaves the consumer empty-handed. We don't have any other viable alternatives, especially if this is becoming an industry-wide practice. My problem is out of the principle, and that alone. Is it practical for me to be so utterly rebellious as to reject every carrier out of principle? Probably not, but I dislike the direction that these companies are headed, and I also dislike some consumers' willingness to accept that. The issue of tethering is not a matter of theft; it's a lost opportunity and a breach of contract. Semantics? Perhaps, but I would seriously advise you all to step back and approach carriers' claims with skepticism. Just because they claim it's wrong, doesn't mean we should bend to their will and support their claims. Do we really have a choice? As of this time, probably not, but please refrain from the need to demonstrate some sort of claim to moral superiority. It's simply a matter of opinion. I am justifying my claims, and all that I ask is that you do the same.