Database Info

[Q] at&t ripping off unlimited internet customers......

is anyone here else having problems with an unlimited data plan now if you go over certain gigabytes your now having your connection speed limited to almost unworkable levels of internet speed??? When you call and complain about it they say they're not limiting your internet plan actually they are limiting you because if you go over a certain amount of data they limit your connection speed! in any english language or english dictionary if they say there is a limit on yourdata plan internet speed, that means there is a limit on your plan.... Does it not???
Sent from my Samsung Infuse 4 g

What speeds were you getting before you supposedly went over?

Well I live in orlando florida in my speech before that I would load this actual web page in about a couple of seconds now 15 maybe almost 60- 40 seconds to load the full page if it even load the images it all

Download speedtest app
Sent from my HTC Vision using XDA App

How much data did u use before this happened??
Sent from my SGH-I997 using XDA App

I work at att and just curious what it took to get limited.
Sent from my SGH-I997 using XDA App

MikeyFTL said:
What speeds were you getting before you supposedly went over?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And they stated to me directly that if you are considering be in the top 5 percent bracket of your internet usage in your area you will automatically I have your internet speed interupted because you're causing more server congestion!!! But they say if you get a tiered 4 gigabyte plan you wont have a cap on your internet speeds.

Keltisch WerWolf said:
And they stated to me directly that if you are considering be in the top 5 percent bracket of your internet usage in your area you will automatically I have your internet speed interupted because you're causing more server congestion!!! But they say if you get a tiered 4 gigabyte plan you wont have a cap on your internet speeds.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Of course they aren't going to cap speed in a tiered plan, hell I bet they boost those with tiered plans so they have a greater chance of accidentally going over. Tiered plans, unlimited plans with limited speeds, all a bunch of bs, tours why I don't care if we ever get lte, whats the use of all that speed when you can't even freaking use it.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App

WIRELESS CUSTOMER AGREEMENT
6.2 What Are The Intended Purposes Of The Wireless Data Service?Print this section | Print this page
Except as may otherwise be specifically permitted or prohibited for select data plans, data sessions may be conducted only for the following purposes: (i) Internet browsing; (ii) email; and (iii) intranet access (including access to corporate intranets, email, and individual productivity applications like customer relationship management, sales force, and field service automation). While most common uses for Internet browsing, email and intranet access are permitted by your data plan, there are certain uses that cause extreme network capacity issues and interference with the network and are therefore prohibited. Examples of prohibited uses include, without limitation, the following: (i) server devices or host computer applications, including, but not limited to, Web camera posts or broadcasts, automatic data feeds, automated machine-to-machine connections or peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing; (ii) as a substitute or backup for private lines, wireline s or full-time or dedicated data connections; (iii) "auto-responders," "cancel-bots," or similar automated or manual routines which generate excessive amounts of net traffic, or which disrupt net user groups or email use by others; (iv) "spam" or unsolicited commercial or bulk email (or activities that have the effect of facilitating unsolicited commercial email or unsolicited bulk email); (v) any activity that adversely affects the ability of other people or systems to use either AT&T's wireless services or other parties' Internet-based resources, including "denial of service" (DoS) attacks against another network host or individual user; (vi) accessing, or attempting to access without authority, the accounts of others, or to penetrate, or attempt to penetrate, security measures of AT&T's wireless network or another entity's network or systems; (vii) software or other devices that maintain continuous active Internet connections when a computer's connection would otherwise be idle or any "keep alive" functions, unless they adhere to AT&T's data retry requirements, which may be changed from time to time. This means, by way of example only, that checking email, surfing the Internet, downloading legally acquired songs, and/or visiting corporate intranets is permitted, but downloading movies using P2P file sharing services, redirecting television signals for viewing on Personal Computers, web broadcasting, and/or for the operation of servers, telemetry devices and/or Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition devices is prohibited. Furthermore, plans (unless specifically designated for tethering usage) cannot be used for any applications that tether the device (through use of, including without limitation, connection kits, other phone/smartphone to computer accessories, BLUETOOTH® or any other wireless technology) to Personal Computers (including without limitation, laptops), or other equipment for any purpose. Accordingly, AT&T reserves the right to (i) deny, disconnect, modify and/or terminate Service, without notice, to anyone it believes is using the Service in any manner prohibited or whose usage adversely impacts its wireless network or service levels or hinders access to its wireless network, including without limitation, after a significant period of inactivity or after sessions of excessive usage and (ii) otherwise protect its wireless network from harm, compromised capacity or degradation in performance, which may impact legitimate data flows. You may not send solicitations to AT&T's wireless subscribers without their consent. You may not use the Services other than as intended by AT&T and applicable law. Plans are for individual, non-commercial use only and are not for resale. AT&T may, but is not required to, monitor your compliance, or the compliance of other subscribers, with AT&T's terms, conditions, or policies.
http://www.wireless.att.com/cell-ph...TheIntendedPurposesOfDataServ&q_subTitle=What Are The Intended Purposes Of The Wireless Data Service%3F

That's retarded when your phone comes with YouTube and Netflix but whatever AT&T says....
Sent from my SGH-I997 using XDA App

But seriousley how much data did you use? I have a friend who has taken it up as a personal challange to get himself throttled lol, and if you could run some speed tests I would love to know how much they slowed you down!

Keltisch WerWolf said:
is anyone here else having problems with an unlimited data plan now if you go over certain gigabytes your now having your connection speed limited to almost unworkable levels of internet speed??? When you call and complain about it they say they're not limiting your internet plan actually they are limiting you because if you go over a certain amount of data they limit your connection speed! in any english language or english dictionary if they say there is a limit on yourdata plan internet speed, that means there is a limit on your plan.... Does it not???
Sent from my Samsung Infuse 4 g
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The amount of data, not the speed.
If you're DLing a hundred gigs a month, how can you expect to NOT be throttled?

Att will warn you of excessive data use before they throttle you.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using XDA App

I think its 5GB but can you confirm this??
Sent from my SGH-I997 using XDA App

vmatt said:
Att will warn you of excessive data use before they throttle you.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
X2, somehow I get a feeling that you're speeds weren't throttled but rather are just running slow and some fool just assumed u got throttled. I get this feeling because it sounds as if you didn't expect this or know why it happened to you, and I would like to think the top 5% know who they are...
Edit: no offense meant to the o.p. if you really are throttled as I said, I just would like to think the top 5% know who they are
Sent from my SGH-I997 using xda premium

maxjivi05 said:
I think its 5GB but can you confirm this??
Sent from my SGH-I997 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's supposed to be the top 5% on the unlimited plan.
Sent from my SGH-I997 using xda premium

qouted my self instead of editing my bad...

theraffman said:
Of course they aren't going to cap speed in a tiered plan, hell I bet they boost those with tiered plans so they have a greater chance of accidentally going over. Tiered plans, unlimited plans with limited speeds, all a bunch of bs, tours why I don't care if we ever get lte, whats the use of all that speed when you can't even freaking use it.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
lol! i bet you are 100%correct

Tomdg07 said:
WIRELESS CUSTOMER AGREEMENT
6.2 What Are The Intended Purposes Of The Wireless Data Service?Print this section | Print this page
Except as may otherwise be specifically permitted or prohibited for select data plans, data sessions may be conducted only for the following purposes: (i) Internet browsing; (ii) email; and (iii) intranet access (including access to corporate intranets, email, and individual productivity applications like customer relationship management, sales force, and field service automation). While most common uses for Internet browsing, email and intranet access are permitted by your data plan, there are certain uses that cause extreme network capacity issues and interference with the network and are therefore prohibited. Examples of prohibited uses include, without limitation, the following: (i) server devices or host computer applications, including, but not limited to, Web camera posts or broadcasts, automatic data feeds, automated machine-to-machine connections or peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing; (ii) as a substitute or backup for private lines, wireline s or full-time or dedicated data connections; (iii) "auto-responders," "cancel-bots," or similar automated or manual routines which generate excessive amounts of net traffic, or which disrupt net user groups or email use by others; (iv) "spam" or unsolicited commercial or bulk email (or activities that have the effect of facilitating unsolicited commercial email or unsolicited bulk email); (v) any activity that adversely affects the ability of other people or systems to use either AT&T's wireless services or other parties' Internet-based resources, including "denial of service" (DoS) attacks against another network host or individual user; (vi) accessing, or attempting to access without authority, the accounts of others, or to penetrate, or attempt to penetrate, security measures of AT&T's wireless network or another entity's network or systems; (vii) software or other devices that maintain continuous active Internet connections when a computer's connection would otherwise be idle or any "keep alive" functions, unless they adhere to AT&T's data retry requirements, which may be changed from time to time. This means, by way of example only, that checking email, surfing the Internet, downloading legally acquired songs, and/or visiting corporate intranets is permitted, but downloading movies using P2P file sharing services, redirecting television signals for viewing on Personal Computers, web broadcasting, and/or for the operation of servers, telemetry devices and/or Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition devices is prohibited. Furthermore, plans (unless specifically designated for tethering usage) cannot be used for any applications that tether the device (through use of, including without limitation, connection kits, other phone/smartphone to computer accessories, BLUETOOTH® or any other wireless technology) to Personal Computers (including without limitation, laptops), or other equipment for any purpose. Accordingly, AT&T reserves the right to (i) deny, disconnect, modify and/or terminate Service, without notice, to anyone it believes is using the Service in any manner prohibited or whose usage adversely impacts its wireless network or service levels or hinders access to its wireless network, including without limitation, after a significant period of inactivity or after sessions of excessive usage and (ii) otherwise protect its wireless network from harm, compromised capacity or degradation in performance, which may impact legitimate data flows. You may not send solicitations to AT&T's wireless subscribers without their consent. You may not use the Services other than as intended by AT&T and applicable law. Plans are for individual, non-commercial use only and are not for resale. AT&T may, but is not required to, monitor your compliance, or the compliance of other subscribers, with AT&T's terms, conditions, or policies.
http://www.wireless.att.com/cell-ph...TheIntendedPurposesOfDataServ&q_subTitle=What Are The Intended Purposes Of The Wireless Data Service%3F
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So do you work for AT&T??????

Not to mention that, Im a Commercial Driver, and I listen to my siruis/xm app all day ( on the road ) not at home, and thats how I get such high usage,well up to last month it wasnt an issue and now it is, based on the statement by ATT in my area so if I cant connect to my cell tower (which is less than 2 miles away and can be seen in the distance with a clean view) cause I have no signal in my apt, how am I in the top 5% of my tower area???? here is the screenshot of previous question
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}

Simpel moblie lies and they are fake

Hi every one I have the sk4g but with simpel mobile any ways when you think of unlimited you think texts web talk well I get this text the other day and they siad I w2as at risk to have my date turn off because I did not fallow ther trems and condishons sorry if miss spell but unlimited should be on unlimeited no hind lies well I would like thos who are with simple mobile to protest agines them wright them tell them how its fake advertisemet
Sent from my SGH-T839 using xda premium

Yeah that's messed up dude, were you using the tmobile tether app or something? I wonder why they would say that...

No I was useing phone my pc and utorrent but still it lies how a phone company can be so fake
Sent from my SGH-T839 using xda premium

No wonder they sent you a message, you were tethering to your PC using utorrent and other PC stuff. If you abuse the system, they're gonna end you.
Taken from the Terms and Conditions page.
15. Misuse of Service or Device. You agree not to misuse the Service or Device, including but not limited to: (a) reselling or rebilling our Service; (b) using the Service or Device to engage in unlawful activity, or in conduct that adversely affects our customers, employees, business, or any other person(s), or that interferes with our operations, network, reputation, or ability to provide quality service, including but not limited to the generation or dissemination of viruses, malware or "denial of service" attacks; (c) using the Service as a substitute or backup for private lines or dedicated data connections; (d) tampering with or modifying your Simple Mobile Device; (e) "spamming" or engaging in other abusive or unsolicited communications, or any other mass, automated voice or data communication for commercial or marketing purposes; (f) reselling Simple Mobile Devices for profit, or tampering with, reprogramming or altering Simple Mobile Devices for the purpose of reselling the Simple Mobile Device; (g) using the Service in connection with server devices or host computer applications, including continuous Web camera posts or broadcasts, automatic data feeds, automated machine-to-machine connections or peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing applications that are broadcast to multiple servers or recipients, "bots" or similar routines that could disrupt net user groups or email use by others or other applications that denigrate network capacity or functionality; (h) accessing, or attempting to access without authority, the information, accounts or devices of others, or to penetrate, or attempt to penetrate, Simple Mobile's or another entity's network or systems; (i) running software or other devices that maintain continuously active Internet connections when a computer's connection would otherwise be idle, or "keep alive" functions (e.g. using a Data Plan for Web broadcasting, operating servers, telemetry devices and/or supervisory control and data acquisition devices); or (j) assisting or facilitating anyone else in any of the above activities. Unless authorized by Simple Mobile, you agree that you won't install, deploy, or use any regeneration equipment or similar mechanism (for example, a repeater) to originate, amplify, enhance, retransmit or regenerate a transmitted RF signal. You agree that a violation of this section harms Simple Mobile, which cannot be fully redressed by money damages, and that Simple Mobile shall be entitled to immediate injunctive relief in addition to all other remedies available.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You can't be reckless with tethering, use it in moderation.

Yea simple mobile doesn't allow tethering, it is in the TOA and on the website's QnA
burrr from my glacier

I'm on Wind up in Canada. I get unlimited calling, unlimited long distance, unlimited texting worldwide, unlimited data, and tethering to my hearts content. All for $45 tax in. Now that's what unlimited should mean!

Jax184 said:
I'm on Wind up in Canada. I get unlimited calling, unlimited long distance, unlimited texting worldwide, unlimited data, and tethering to my hearts content. All for $45 tax in. Now that's what unlimited should mean!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Agreed. I wouldn't mind paying an extra $15 bucks for that in the states. Right now I'm on the unlimited text and web (first 5gb is 4G speed) and 100 minutes plan for $30.

I dont have that problem because I don't tether. They made it nice and sparkling clear to not tether... I think its a fair bargain for the price I pay for service to be honest. Try talking with them about paying extra for tethering or go to a different carrier.
Sent from my SGH-T839 using XDA App

How did anyone understand enough of that garbage to respond?

jkusmc said:
How did anyone understand enough of that garbage to respond?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I must have been drunk or something... no I remember now... I was on the ****ter at work and the fumes must have gotten to me. I got drunk when. I got home.
Sent from my SGH-T839 using XDA App

[Q] Denied Tethering, Privacy, and the Law . . .

READ THE UPDATE AT THE BOTTOM
IS T-MOBILE IN VIOLATION CITIZEN'S PRIVACY AND POSSIBLY THE LAW​
Recently it has come to attention that T-mobile is blocking tethering based on the type of browser that you use.
HOW THE OLD HACK WORKED​
T-Mobile tethering can usually be subverted with a "rooted" phone by freezing or uninstalling the Tethering Manager app that usually prevents tethering unless you pay for it. Basically, the On/Off switch was in the users handset. Many users were using this trick and gaining tethering without paying for it until recently.
WHAT CHANGED ? ? ? ​
Apparently, T-Mobile decided to fix this by intelligently eavesdropping on all web communications of its customers looking for the field of data in your request which identifies the type of browser that you use.
Then based on your web browser (if you use a browser identified as one that does not generally run on a mobile device) they deny access by redirecting you to their page where the advertise their additional tethering service.
PRETTY SOLID EVIDENCE​
So the question is how this can be proven. Simple grab one of those "rooted" phones that used to work, and tether them to one another them using wireless. Since the the phones are both is using a mobile browser, (the same browser) then T-Mobile wont be able to tell the difference so you can tether all you want. You are now using one phones internet connection through the other.
Now tether to a P.C. using wireless and use Chrome . . . if it works it will be for only a little while before you are denied service and redirected to T-Mobiles page advertising tethering services.
THE SIGNIFICANT QUESTIONS AT HAND​
So now that we know that T-Mobile is monitoring our web communications what are the social and ethical implications. Their basically saying since your using our service we will look at what your doing when ever we want.
Really?
-What else are you looking at and logging T-Mobile?
-What does the law say about this?
-In the U.S. what does the F.C.C. have to say about this?
-Is this a moral practice?
-How do customers feel about being spied on by their trusted service provider?
-Why would we pay to unblock something that we have already purchased?
WHAT HAS T-MOBILE ACHIEVED BY DOING THIS​
Its not like T-Mobile will actually achieve anything for long (A few days at most before a wide spread workaround). People smart enough to root their phones are also smart enough to get around this, as I will discuss this is not even an obstacle.
T-MOBILES GREAT UNSPOKEN ANNOUNCEMENT​
All that T-Mobile achieved by doing this is tell the world a little more about how deeply they are watching what their beloved customers are doing at all times.
THE WORKAROUND​
Please bear with me if you are technically inclined, I am trying to make this simple so it could be understood by all.
A simple app that intercept the request of the tethered device and intelligently scans and strips the field of data identifying the requesting browser as anything other that the stock authorized android browser then replaces this data to make it appear that is was the authorized stock mobile browser making the request.
The app would then make the appropriate changes to the data received for the request and make the appropriate changes for the tethered browser to understand and route if over to that browser.
That's it, undetectable tether again ! ! !
I'm looking forward to hearing your answers.
Thanks
* * * * * * * U P D A T E * * * * * * *
I have posted some easy workarounds from my posts below for easy access.
This is not meant for, or in any way advocating violating your TOS. This is to get third party browsers, Browsers running in Virtual Machienes on your phone . . . to work. However I cannot tell you what to do; so use your judgment. I am not responsible for any misuse of this information.
​
Method 1 Changing the User Agent String of your browser:
This plugin allows you to change the UAString on Chrome:
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/djflhoibgkdhkhhcedjiklpkjnoahfmg <-Updated the dead link
A second option (In case you have issues with FireFox) would be:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/fir...gent-switcher/
And apparently, Opera has a Built in UAString changer:
http://www.davidtan.org/how-to-chang...-agent-string/
If you use Internet Exploiter (excuse me) Explorer for some unknown reason:
http://www.enhanceie.com/ietoys/uapick.asp
Please note:
If you change your UAString to an Android Browser UAstring, then you will usually only get the Mobile versions of the web pages you view. For most people changing the UAString to the standard FireFox UAString seems to work fine.
Method 2 Using a VPN:
Many programs are available which provide VPN (Virtual Private Network) access to your home network. Using these tools an encrypted connection between your phone and home network will be established. As a result T-Mobiles eavesdropping techniques will not be able to decipher the data between you and your home network. Once a connection has been established with your home network, then your Internet requests can be relayed through your home Internet connection . . . If you don not have a home Internet connection, then there are many services available that provide an Internet gateway for you to VPN into.
Some of the available options include:
Using your home PC or MAC as your own VPN server:
http://www.openvpn.net
Using a power efficient home router as a VPN server, using either the factory firmware, and if unsupported using a custom firmware:
The Linksys WRT-54G Router, an affordable classic:
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias=aps&field-keywords=wrt+54g
A powerful custom firmware supporting many routers:
http://www.dd-wrt.com/site/index
*******List of Issues As Reported by Many Customers*******​​​
1. Many third party browsers and many browsers running in a virtualised operating system are being blocked and the innocent user is being accused of tethering,in some reported cases, even the ICS web browser.
2. T-mobile refuses to fix this by stating that the Web Browser is not supported (3rd party) when one of their main selling points is Multimedia and apps and a Working TCP / IP interface for applications and is seemingly deliberately casting blame on the third party app when in fact it is T-Mobile that is spoofing and redirecting the application due to overly paranoid, ineffective,abusive and despotic counter measure aimed at people who break TOS via tethering.
3. The privacy of the user is violated due to intelligent packet sniffing on their wireless internet communications. Furthermore, the scope of monitoring is unknown, and there are many privacy concerns such as why System Manager continues to run in the background even when the user opts out of Carrier IQ and how deep it is capable of monitoring.
4. Many people who signed contracts for data plans claim they never agreed to pay any extra fee for tethering and claim that they are no longer bound to T-Mobile's contract due to this violation.
5. People on prepay plans are now denied tethering when the allowance of tethering implied continued tethering service.
6. Some prepay customers claim they purchased a month of service, or perhaps more and were provided with tethering for only part of their service period before T-mobile stopped providing part of the service (tethering) that they had already sold without refunding the customers for the nonexistent service the had payed for.
7. It has been reported that when T-Mobile throttles users ,who have gone over their high speed bandwidth allowance, to 3G speeds customers are not throttled to the ITU spec 3G speed. Instead most people report being limited to an average of about 119kbps.
8. It is further reported that throttling seems to discriminate against users who purchase more high speed data allowance and have reached their limit. For instance, A customer who purchases 2GB of high speed data and has uses it all up may be capped to about 119kbps in contrast to a customer who purchased 5GB of data who may be capped to a much lower and nearly unusable speed. Many people have reported this sort of discriminatory throttling. So, it seems that the more you pay T-Mobile and buy services, then commit the horrible act of using the service that you have paid for, you are punished.
Of interest:​
da-pharoah has brought to our attention a free app that is supposed to bypass tethering restrictions with no need for root access, proving once more that T-Mobile's measures were frivolous, and ineffective. Their measures don't prevent people who want to tether from doing so; that has been proven over and over again. Their methods only hurt and shame their valued innocent customers who are accused of tethering.
The app is called Foxfi and its free
Thank you da-pharoah
This test shows that T-Mobile may be trying to punish people who purchase higher bandwidth and actually use it.​
The following screenshot is from a phone that is running a stock firmware and has deliberately, and legitimately used the full 5GB high speed allowance for the month.
​
As you can see on a throttled 5GB plan the connection seems to be, at best, about 60kbps. Please note that this is with a pretty good connection. Most people claim an average of about 119kbps on a throttled 2GB plan. Since this seems to be the case, this shows that T-Mobile is discriminating against their higher paying customers and is punishing them for using the full amount of bandwidth the purchased. It seems that the more you purchase and use the more you are punished.
It was reported by a customer care representative, that the throttling should bring a customer down to a speed, much less than 60kbps regardless of the type of plan, and that those experiencing higher speeds should feel "lucky."
The problem is that this 60k seems to only be acquired with an optimal signal level and while stationary. It is reported that most of the time the speed drops down so low and the latency becomes so high that almost all internet requests are timed out.
The aforementioned scenario would make the advertised unlimited internet access, in actuality, very limited, and the user of a throttled 5GB plan would then not be receiving the service that was advertised, or that they payed for. At that point the internet service is quite useless and nearly nonexistent, when in fact a working low speed internet service is advertised for those who have reached their high speed data cap.
UPDATE
This document is for information purposes only. I do not advocate violating your contract terms or any illegal activity. you assume full liability and responsibility for the use of this information.​
Many people have reported to me that their tethering no longer works even after killing the tethering manager.
Many have asked me to look into this, here are my findings:
It seems that T-Mobile has implemented a new hidden APN in their ROMs. When you activate tethering, your connected devices seem to be routed through a different APN than your phone uses which is where the block is, if you have not paid the tax.
The answer:
A. For users:
Create a new APN name called "Tethering" and copy the information from your T-Mobile APN to it. There is no need to activate this APN. Immediately after doing so you should regain your full connection. Tested on a SGH-T989 (T-Mobile SGS 2) and reported to work.
B. Mostly for ROM authors:
Edit the appropriate configuration files and change all APNs (usually "epc.pcweb.com") to "epc.tmobile.com" or any other working APN such as MVNO APNs ("simple" . . .)
All test reports submitted to me report this is working and that my theory was accurate.
from: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?p=33287279

Threads like this have a sad history of going absolutely nowhere. On a side note, you need to become more familiar with the subject (no, those questions in Networking+PM were not enough)
The technologically inept usually (always) cry about privacy issues when it comes to similar topics. While ISPs and cell carriers have a habit of not caring at all about your privacy, tethering detection does not require a breach of anything you would consider private. Websites you visit get the same information - it's what gets you redirected to a "mobile" website.
To put it in simple terms, when you don't pay for tethering, this happens: Cell carriers look at the type of your browser's data request (user agent, in the case of T-Mobile USA). If it's a desktop browser, you get forwarded to the upsell page or you get a text message about it.
Your app idea is actually unnecessary as it's already possible to spoof user agent strings - but it's done by modifying the browser itself. Capturing every packet sent, checking for UAstring and modifying it would be completely unrealistic.

luftrofl said:
Threads like this have a sad history of going absolutely nowhere. On a side note, you need to become more familiar with the subject (no, those questions in Networking+PM were not enough)
The technologically inept usually (always) cry about privacy issues when it comes to similar topics. While ISPs and cell carriers have a habit of not caring at all about your privacy, tethering detection does not require a breach of anything you would consider private. Websites you visit get the same information - it's what gets you redirected to a "mobile" website.
To put it in simple terms, when you don't pay for tethering, this happens: Cell carriers look at the type of your browser's data request (user agent, in the case of T-Mobile USA). If it's a desktop browser, you get forwarded to the upsell page or you get a text message about it.
Your app idea is actually unnecessary as it's already possible to spoof user agent strings - but it's done by modifying the browser itself. Capturing every packet sent, checking for UAstring and modifying it would be completely unrealistic.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have been a UNIX system administrator for over 15 years. During this time I have come across many diffident people and opinions.
I personally think that packet inspection in any form is a violation of the consumers rights.
Furthermore, I don't care to tether at all. The issue surfaced when my Firefox browser in Ubuntu running on my smart phone began falsely claiming that I was tethering.
Further, many people who use ICS are reporting being redirected to the same website and accused of tethering.
Running an app in the phone to change the user agent string is also very feasible. There are already apps that do that, but they don't support wireless connections, just USB. If a linksys router from the year 2000 can do it with its limited processing power, then a low power phone by todays standards has no problem.
Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

Your best bet would be to look at your TOS and read it closely. ISPs of all kinds reserve the right to monitor all data traffic on their net work. If tethering is not offered on the plan you have Legally you are in breach of your contract and can be sued. ATT does the same thing and this has been talked about to death.

zelendel said:
Your best bet would be to look at your TOS and read it closely. ISPs of all kinds reserve the right to monitor all data traffic on their net work. If tethering is not offered on the plan you have Legally you are in breach of your contract and can be sued. ATT does the same thing and this has been talked about to death.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thank you. I agree, but the issue is that this does not really prevent people (root users) from tethering, instead it prevents third party Web browsers from properly resolving DNS. Full blown browsers in ICS and virtualized machines are mistaken as tethered systems.
T-mobile's excuse is there is something wrong with the third party app and that the third party app is not supported or their responsibility.
The reality is that T-mobile's responsibility is to provide an industry standard TCP/IP connection for our third party apps, and there is nothing wrong with the app, their system is spoofing the app due to paranoid programming.
They did not sell us Android phones with the google play market because they don't support it. Why do they advertise access to apps, but once they sell you the phone, if its not going their way they all the sudden don't support compatibility.
I could understand not sporting a third party app but they can't use this as an ecxcuse to not support their own platform and justify messing up compatibility with Android apps due to their paranoia of people bypassing their tethering manager.
Further, what are the laws regarding packet inspection?
Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

Easy Workarounds
Disclaimer
This is meant to help those with issues they may be having running third party browsers on their phones. This information is not meant for the subversion of tethering detection by your service provider, and or the violation of your terms of service.
As was pointed out the User Agent String (UAString can be easily changed on the browser of choice. Although, a plugin is needed on chrome.
Apparently most versions of FireFox and Opera work fine, perhaps the UAStrings are the same as on the mobile versions?
This plugin allows you to change the UAString on Chrome:
Download link: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...XUjalz&usg=AFQjCNED4rpi3tE0I2o90jlPHLkCKbHjtA
A second option (In case you have issues with FireFox) would be:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/user-agent-switcher/
And apparently Opera has a Built in UAString changer:
http://www.davidtan.org/how-to-change-opera-user-agent-string/
If you use Internet Exploiter (excuse me) Explorer for some unknown reason:
http://www.enhanceie.com/ietoys/uapick.asp
Please note:
If you change your UAString to an Android Browser UAstring, then you will usually only get the Mobile versions of the web pages you view. For most people changing the UAString to the standard FireFox UAString seems to work fine.
I hope this help everyone out.

Another option to avoid thethering detection is using VPN. As long as your phone sends all data encrypted over the VPN, they won't be able to detect it.
Downside is, you need a VPN endpoint. This means you need to have a always-on device at home that can handle this OR you need to pay for a VPN account somewhere.

I was getting blocked untill i stopped using chrome.
No chrome = no block. Tmobile identifies the user agent string chrome uses.

Fludizz said:
Another option to avoid thethering detection is using VPN. As long as your phone sends all data encrypted over the VPN, they won't be able to detect it.
Downside is, you need a VPN endpoint. This means you need to have a always-on device at home that can handle this OR you need to pay for a VPN account somewhere.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There is open source firmware for low power linksys routers that provides VPN functionality.
Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

I wonder where the lines between illegal wiretapping and packet inspection are drawn.
On another note, I had my dolphin browser on my phone redirected to their ads because of the string I was using (iPad). They're doing a pretty shabby job of intercepting traffic accurately.
Vpn> I'd probably consider taxing them via exploiting data usage until I get them to sever the contract too.
All this is an effort to keep customers from using what they pay for, "unlimited" data.
We should probably answer back with a more serious response as a group, namely a coordinated effort to use every last byte of data transfer we're paying for each month. Frame the argument in terms consumers all understand. How much data/money are you wasting/giving away to Tmobile every month? You paid for it, be sure to use it! Tmo will love that.
Sent from Scott LaRock's TR808

Agreed. I think if enough of us are verbal about their methods we might be able to get something resolved.
Any suggestions?
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus

you don't need a plugin to change the user agent on desktop chrome, you can do it from developer tools. this is how to do it on mac:
view->developer->developer tools->little settings icon on the bottom-right of the window->override user agent

I understand that there many methods of changing the UserAgenyString, but the whole point is the poor consumer who has paid for service and is not tethering is getting screwed for using a third party browser which is by no means a violation of the service agreement. We need something simple. An app . . . Something that someone with limited knowledge can use to keep from being ripped off.
All this because the phone company is paranoid someone will hook up hardware that THEY PAID FOR to ANOTHER DEVICE THAT THEY OWN and UTILIZE THE BANDWIDTH THEY BOUGHT without paying an extra 15 dollars tax.
What is the 15 dollar tax for? Does T-mobile power your phones processor? If so why do you pay a power bill? Does T-mobile preform voodoo to enable the phone THAT YOU OWN to route packets? Nooooo ! ! !
Its like back in the old days when the phone company used to make you pay for the phones you use and fine you if you had additional or "unauthorized" handsets plugged in.
This move is flat out, FRIVOLOUS ! ! ! RIDICULOUS ! ! ! ASININE ! ! ! and TYRANIC ! ! !
We- as consumers must come up with methods to use our third party browsers . . . Without being accused of tethering and as a result blocked, blamed, and shamed by a company were paying for service.
Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

shnn2011 said:
I understand that there many methods of changing the UserAgenyString, but the whole point is the poor consumer who has paid for service and is not tethering is getting screwed for using a third party browser.
All this because the phone company is paranoid someone will hook up hardware that THEY PAID FOR to ANOTHER DEVICE THAT THEY OWN and UTILIZE THE BANDWIDTH THEY BOUGHT without paying an extra 15 dollars tax.
What is the 15 dollars for? Does T-mobile power your phones processor? If so why do you pay a power bill? Does T-mobile preform voodoo to enable your phone THAT YOU OWN route packets? Nooooo ! ! !
Its like back in the old days when phone companies used to make you pay for the phones you use and fine you if you had additional our "unauthorized" handsets.
This move is flat out, FRIVOLOUS ! ! ! RIDICULOUS ! ! ! ASININE ! ! ! and TYRANIC ! ! !
The whole point is to come up with a method to help consumers use their third party browsers . . . Without being accused of tethering and as a result blocked, blamed, and shamed.
Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The easiest thing would e for the browser developers to fix the issue. As long as it reports as a desktop client then they will see it as such and assume you are breaking your TOS. If the browsers reported it properly then it would not be an issue.
In the end what I have a feeling will happen is that data plans will increase in cost and have built in tethering. Even if you dont use tethering.

zelendel said:
The easiest thing would e for the browser developers to fix the issue. As long as it reports as a desktop client then they will see it as such and assume you are breaking your TOS. If the browsers reported it properly then it would not be an issue.
In the end what I have a feeling will happen is that data plans will increase in cost and have built in tethering. Even if you dont use tethering.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Many new mobile browsers are fullblown browsers and for this reason there are complications. I am told that even the full blown ICS browser is being blocked.
The browsers are reporting their User Agent String properly. T-mobile is interpreting the User Agent Strings with ignorance.
Prices should go down as technology progresses. I think that eventually providers will drop the frivolous taxing of tethering.
Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

All this because the phone company is paranoid someone will hook up hardware that THEY PAID FOR to ANOTHER DEVICE THAT THEY OWN and UTILIZE THE BANDWIDTH THEY BOUGHT without paying an extra 15 dollars tax.
To true... ^^

S1mSyo said:
All this because the phone company is paranoid someone will hook up hardware that THEY PAID FOR to ANOTHER DEVICE THAT THEY OWN and UTILIZE THE BANDWIDTH THEY BOUGHT without paying an extra 15 dollars tax.
To true... ^^
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No they are worried that you will hook up a device and use the bandwith for a device that it was not intended for. I see posts like this all the time and no one bothers to read the TOS when they sign the contract. The TOS states that all data is for the device on the contract and no other with out a tethering plan.

zelendel said:
No they are worried that you will hook up a device and use the bandwith for a device that it was not intended for.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How is this worrisome? Seems to me they're more worried about the extra bucks they could be leeching from you by arbitrarily categorizing tethering data differently from other data.

thebobp said:
How is this worrisome? Seems to me they're more worried about the implications of such use.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Think about it for a min. Most people are on Limited data plans. Then they tether to say a laptop (cause they saw they could on sites like this.) The laptop eats their data away in the blink of an eye. When he bill comes in the people are pissed and call the company to complain. They spend hours on the phone yelling at someone and making threats for something that was their fault. Then just to shut them up a manager may remove the charges. All of this cost the company money. Not to mention puts the company employees in a tuff spot. Either keep the Cx happy and remove the charges with risk of losing their job, or deal with someone that is pissed off enough though they have no right to be.
I have been in just that position many times over the past few years. Now I tell everyone. If you want to tether then get a plan for it.

zelendel said:
The laptop eats their data away in the blink of an eye.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're either kidding or severely exaggerating (unless you're referring to one of those tiny, tiny plans, which are designed to try to make you go over and get charged overages anyway).
Computer browsers may use more data than mobile browsers, but not by that many orders of magnitude. The fact that some mobile browsers even identify themselves as computer browsers is testament to this.
If you're talking about people going haywire by tethering and downloading gigabytes, then 1) they kinda deserve it, but 2) [and much more importantly] they can do it on the phone anyway, as demonstrated by the guy who legitimately used 150GB in a month.

{Official} Net neutrality for India! We will make trai aware of our rights.

This message is only for people who live or vote in India. If you are not such a person, please forward it to someone who is.
What is net neutrality?
The principle that all traffic on internet should be treated the same.
No site will be sped up.
No website will be slowed down (throttling).
----------
So what's happening now?
TRAI consultation paper (open to comments till April 24) is the first step in potentially allowing operators to discriminate internet traffic.
----------
How does this impact me?
1. Your internet bill could go up.
2. Apps you love may no longer work.
ISPs and Telcos could charge you more. When you buy a 1 Gb data pack, you can use it for anything you wish. Without neutrality, you could be forced to buy a Skype pack for Skype calls, a video pack to watch YouTube and dailymotion.
Or you could be charged a different rate for each service. 4p/10 KB if you are browsing, but 10p/10 KB for VoIP calls. That would be like your milkman telling you 30 Rs/L if you make tea, but 75 Rs/L if you make milkshake.
You could be denied service as well. Telcos could decide that WhatsApp or Viber is eating into their sms revenue and block them completely.
Or Airtel could block gaana, saavn, hungama, rdio etc and allow access only to wynk (owned by airtel)
----------
Hmm.. I want to know more.
Sure follow the links here:
Well written article: http://www.firstpost.com/politics/b...trai-trying-screw-internet-users-2193321.html
A video explanation: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_G-OagxdCws
Another cool video: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mfY1NKrzqi0
Another video: https://youtu.be/uQjkCziopLA
Take some Action: http://www.savetheinternet.in/
----------
OK. Got it. What can I do?
Let TRAI know that you hate this idea. Go to http://www.savetheinternet.in/ and follow the instructions to email TRAI letting them know of your displeasure.
----------
Anything else I can do?
Yes. Inform family and friends about net neutrality and TRAI's attempts to kill it (under pressure from telcos probably).
You can also protest on https://www.change.org/p/rsprasad-t...e-how-they-want-to-use-internet-netneutrality
Contact your mp today http://j.mp/MailMyMP if there is no net neutrality, we will have to pay to use WhatsApp, Facebook, hike, Google, YouTube, etc.
Hashtag revolution #NetNeutralityIndia , #SaveTheInternet , #wewantnetneutrality and #TRAIDontevenTry
---------
Why do we need net neutrality?
India is a developing country. If there is no net neutrality, we cant develop ourselves.
Poor people; instead of getting onto the internet would stop using it completely as they wont be able to pay
Answers to those 20 questions (thanks to savetheinternet.in)
To the Chairman, TRAIThank you for giving me this opportunity to share my views on the consultation paper published by TRAI on March 27, 2015 titled "Regulatory Framework For Over-the-Top (OTT) Services”. I am worried that this consultation paper makes sweeping assumptions about the Internet, and does not take a neutral and balanced view of the subject of Internet Licensing and Net Neutrality. Any public consultation must be approached in a neutral manner by the regulator, so that people can form an informed opinion.I strongly support an open internet, for which I believe it is critical to uphold net neutrality and reject any moves towards licensing of Internet applications and Web services. I urge TRAI to commit to outlining measures to protect and advance net neutrality for all Indians. Net neutrality requires that the Internet be maintained as an open platform, on which network providers treat all content, applications and services equally, without discrimination. The TRAI must give importance to safeguarding the interests of our country’s citizens and the national objective of Digital India and Make In India, over claims made by some corporate interests.I request that my response be published on the TRAI website alongside other comments filed, in line with past practice regarding public consultations. I urge that TRAI issue a specific response to user submissions after examining the concerns raised by them, and hold open house discussions across India, accessible to users and startups before making any recommendations.
Question 1: Is it too early to establish a regulatory framework for Internet/OTT services, since internet penetration is still evolving, access speeds are generally low and there is limited coverage of high-speed broadband in the country? Or, should some beginning be made now with a regulatory framework that could be adapted to changes in the future? Please comment with justifications.
No new regulatory framework in the telecom sector is required for Internet services and apps - and no such regulation should come into effect in future either.This question incorrectly presumes that regulation of the Internet is absent and there is a need to create it. Additionally, the technical language of “Over-the-Top” applications used in the consultation paper fails to convey that it is truly referring to the online services and applications which make today’s Internet which we all use; Facebook, Ola, Zomato, Paytm, WhatsApp, Zoho and Skype etc. The Internet is already subject to existing law in India - any extra regulatory or licensing regime will only be detrimental to the customer and to Indian firms developing online services and apps.Under the current regulatory framework, users can access the internet-based services and apps either for a low fee or for free where the application owners make money by selling advertisements based on user data. With additional regulations and licenses, it will make it expensive for these services to reach out to their customers eventually leading to higher prices and undesirable levels of advertising - which is against the public interest and counterproductive.It appears that the telecom companies are shifting goalposts. Many telecom companies have earlier argued in the consultation paper floated by TRAI on mobile value added services (MVAS) that it was not necessary to regulate these value added services. They said MVAS are already governed by general laws under the Indian legal system and comply with the security interests as they operate on the networks of legitimate telecom license holders. Internet platforms also are regulated and governed by general laws in addition to specialised laws such as the Information Technology Act, and the same treatment should be extended to them as well.As TRAI said previously in its recommendations after consulting on MVAS regulation:“The Authority preferred least intrusive and minimal regulatory framework and thus no separate category of licence for value added services is envisaged. After second round of consultations, the Authority is also not favoring registration of Value Added Service Providers (VASPs) or content aggregators under the “Other Service Provider (OSP)” category.”“Content shall be subject to relevant content regulation and compliance of prevailing copyrights including digital management rights and other laws on the subject (para 3.12.2). The content is subjected to content regulation/ guidelines of Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Information Technology Act, 2000, Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995, Indian Copyright Act etc., as amended from time to time. The content regulation shall be as per law in force from time to time. There should be consistency in the treatment of content across all kinds of media including print, digital/multimedia to avoid any discrimination. (para 3.13.3):”
Imposing a licensing and regulation regime carry significant risks of destroying innovation. Launching new services and features will take more time and will make it difficult for new startups with low cash reserves to enter the market. It will basically ring the death knell for the country's fast-growing digital media sector.
Question 2: Should the Internet/OTT players offering communication services (voice, messaging and video call services through applications (resident either in the country or outside) be brought under the licensing regime? Please comment with justifications.
Firstly, there is no need for licensing of internet based communication service providers. To suggest such a move further points towards the TRAI consultation being tilted in favour of telecom operators.
Secondly, fundamentally both Internet-based communication services and non-communication services are the same. They sit on top of the network provided by telecom operators. And the spectrum that telecom operators utilise to offer this network on pipe is already licensed, hence there is no need for additional licensing.
This issue also needs to be looked at from another perspective. Many non-communication services on the Internet also offer real-time chat or video interaction features for the benefit of customers, which will be affected by bringing such services under a licensing regime.
The extent of innovation we have witnessed over the years has been greatly aided by the low cost of entry. Any form of regulation or licensing will increase the entry cost, thereby hindering innovation and equal opportunity to startups to establish themselves in the market. Behind every Zoho, WhatsApp and Skype there are numerous failures. Licensing will essentially increase the cost and likelihood of failure - and greatly discourage innovation.
Question 3: Is the growth of Internet/OTT impacting the traditional revenue stream of Telecom operators/Telecom operators? If so, is the increase in data revenues of the Telecom Operators sufficient to compensate for this impact? Please comment with reasons.
There is no evidence of data revenues cannibalizing revenues from voice or SMS. In fact, data usage is soaring and it is driving the demand for telecom networks.
The question fails to acknowledge that revenue from data services also fall under the traditional revenue streams category as per the Unified Access License Agreement
[http://www.dot.gov.in/access-services/introduction-unified-access-servicescellular-mobile-services]. So, to assume that data services are impacting the growth of “traditional revenue streams” is wrong.
Services such as Skype and WhatsApp have specific use cases. They are not, and should not be, considered as substitutes to voice calling or SMS. For instance, calls made using VoIP don’t have the same clarity that we have on voice calls. Moreover, services such as WhatsApp are used for real-time chatting as opposed to SMS. Voice and SMS have their own benefits and use cases, so do VoIP and internet messaging. Customers should be free to pick and choose among these.
There is still no concrete evidence suggesting that the decline in the revenues from messaging and voice calling is due to the growth of revenues from data services, and statements from experts and industry experts appear to in fact point to there being no cannibalization of revenues.
Gopal Vittal, CEO, Airtel
“There is still no evidence that suggests that there is cannibalization,” he said when asked about whether data is cannibalizing Airtel’s voice business. On internet messaging cannibalizing SMS revenues, he said: “At this point in time is very, very tiny. And so it is not really material as we look at it.”
[http://www.medianama.com/2015/02/22...tion-of-voice-airtel-india-ceo-gopal-vittal/]
Vittorio Colao, CEO, Vodafone
“Growth in India has accelerated again (October-December), driven by data” [http://computer.financialexpress.com/columns/india-high-on-3g/9462/]
The company’s India unit grew by 15%, going past its counterparts during the quarter ending December as customers used its data services. [http://articles.economictimes.india...ervice-revenue-vittorio-colao-vodafone-india]
Question 4: Should the Internet/OTT players pay for use of the Telecom Operators network over and above data charges paid by consumers? If yes, what pricing options can be adopted? Could such options include prices based on bandwidth consumption? Can prices be used as a means of product/service differentiation? Please comment with justifications.
Internet-based services and apps don’t pay for telecom operators for using the network, and it should remain the same going forward. Forcing Internet-based services to pay extra for using a particular network negatively impact consumers and harm the Indian digital ecosystem. As mentioned in the above answer, data revenues of Indian telecom operators is already on an upswing and is slated to increase rapidly over the next few years, hence the argument for creating a new revenue source is not justified.
Charging users extra for specific apps or services will overburden them, which in turn will lead to them not using the services at all. It is also akin to breaking up the Internet into pieces, which is fundamentally against what Net Neutrality stands for. Also, the Internet depends on interconnectivity and the users being able to have seamless experience - differential pricing will destroy the very basic tenets of the Internet.
Question 5: Do you agree that imbalances exist in the regulatory environment in the operation of Internet/OTT players? If so, what should be the framework to address these issues? How can the prevailing laws and regulations be applied to Internet/OTT players (who operate in the virtual world) and compliance enforced? What could be the impact on the economy? Please comment with justifications.
There is no regulatory imbalance in the environment in which the internet services and applications operate. In fact, the word “regulatory imbalance” is incorrect here. Telecom operators holds licenses to spectrum which is a public resource. Internet services and applications don’t have to acquire licenses. Moreover, there is a clear distinction between services provided by telecom operators and internet platforms—so no additional regulation is required.
Also, internet services and applications are already well-covered under the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Indian Penal Code, 1860. More importantly, internet services are intermediaries that allow a communication system for their users—and intermediaries cannot be held responsible for the acts of their users as per Section 79 of the IT Act, 2000. Our Supreme Court has recently ruled on this area in the Shreya Singhal versus Union of India case, holding that Internet content is protected by our Constitution’s right to free expression and setting out the acceptable limits for government regulation.
Question 6: How should the security concerns be addressed with regard to OTT players providing communication services? What security conditions such as maintaining data records, logs etc. need to be mandated for such OTT players? And, how can compliance with these conditions be ensured if the applications of such OTT players reside outside the country? Please comment with justifications.
The internet services and apps are well-covered under the existing laws and regulations. These include the Code of Criminal Procedure, Indian Telegraph Act, Indian Telegraph Rules, and the Information Technology Act and its different rules pertaining to intermediaries and interception. These different regulations allow the Indian government and law enforcement agencies to access the data stored by internet platforms when deemed legally necessary. Any additional regulations carry grave risk of breaching user privacy and would also require constitutional review - especially since the Government is still working on a proposed Privacy Bill.
The government and courts also have the power to block access to websites on the grounds of national security and public order. It has taken similar steps in the past and has been widely reported by the media. The transparency reports periodically published by major internet companies suggests Indian government routinely requests for user data and blocking of user accounts. Between July 2014 and December 2014, Indian authorities had 5,473 requests for data, covering 7,281 user accounts from Facebook and the company had a compliance rate of 44.69%. Google had a compliance rate of 61% with respect to the requests made by different government agencies across India.
Question 7: How should the OTT players offering app services ensure security, safety and privacy of the consumer? How should they ensure protection of consumer interest? Please comment with justifications.
Although user privacy and security is of paramount importance, additional regulation carries the inherent risk of breaching user privacy which is not in the consumer’s interest. The Information Technology Act, 2000 already addresses the security concerns of the user. But more importantly, any criminal act committed using these platforms can be tried under the Indian Penal Code. So, there is no need to burden the internet platforms with additional regulations.
Also, it is worth noting that many telecom companies in India have not made information publicly available as to whether and how they comply with regulations that guarantee security, privacy and safety of the customer. TRAI’s current paper fails to articulate why the internet services and apps should be brought under similar regulations.
Question 8:
In what manner can the proposals for a regulatory framework for OTTs in India draw from those of ETNO, referred to in para 4.23 or the best practices summarised in para 4.29? And, what practices should be proscribed by regulatory fiat? Please comment with justifications.
ETNO is similar to India’s COAI which makes it an industry lobby group. Understandably, the suggestions made by ETNO heavily favor the telecom companies and will be detrimental to customers if India refers to their suggestions.
ETNO’s stand have been widely criticized in the past. Europe’s own group of government regulators [Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communication (BEREC)]
http://berec.europa.eu/files/document_register_store/2012/11/BoR_(12)_120_BEREC_on_ITR.pdf ETNO’s proposals could jeopardize the “continued development of the open, dynamic and global platform that the Internet provides” which will “lead to an overall loss of welfare”. Additionally, the international free expression group Article 19 says ETNO’s proposal “would seriously undermine net neutrality.
According to Access Now, ETNO’s recommendations would have meant higher data charges for customers while from an entrepreneur’s standpoint, it will limit their ability to reach out to a wider market. For a small but fast growing startup and digital media sector in India, this can potentially ring the death knell. ETNO’s suggestions on this subject so far have failed to have been accepted by any government agency - including the regulators in their own host countries. It is therefore especially troubling that TRAI is choosing to make one of their proposals a pillar of this public consultation here in India.
Question 9: What are your views on net-neutrality in the Indian context? How should the various principles discussed in para 5.47 be dealt with? Please comment with justifications.
Net Neutrality, by definition, means no discrimination of traffic flowing on the internet with respect to speed, access and price. Chile and Brazil, which are developing countries just like India, have passed laws supporting net neutrality. This is in addition to government commitments to implement net neutrality legislation in the United States and European Union.
India has 1 billion people without internet access and it is imperative for our democracy to have an open and free internet where users are free to choose the services they want to access—instead of a telecom operator deciding what information they can access.
Internet apps and services are expected to contribute 5% to India’s GDP by 2020. That will only happen of entrepreneurs, big and small, have a level playing field that encourages innovation and non-preferential treatment—something that net neutrality ensures.
Assuming there is no net neutrality, only the big players will be able to strike deals with telcos while the smaller players remain inaccessible, which will go against the principles of net neutrality as listed below:
No blocking by TSPs and ISPs on specific forms of internet traffic, services and applications.
No slowing or “throttling” internet speeds by TSPs and ISPs on specific forms of internet traffic, services and applications.
No preferential treatment of services and platforms by TSPs and ISPs.
It is also worth noting that the proposed framework will give too much power in the hands of the telecom companies, which is not healthy for the ecosystem.
Question 10: What forms of discrimination or traffic management practices are reasonable and consistent with a pragmatic approach? What should or can be permitted? Please comment with justifications.
This question assumes that traffic discrimination is necessary and is a norm. Rather, traffic discrimination should be an exception as it is against the principles of net neutrality.
In such exceptional cases, telecom companies need to have the permission of TRAI or other competent government agency through public hearing to carry out “traffic management” to ensure transparency in the entire process. Further, it should be kept in mind that such steps shouldn’t interfere with the access, affordability and quality of the services.
More importantly, https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda.../Traffic Management Investigation BEREC_2.pdf jointly by BEREC and the European Commission suggest that the propensity of the telecom operators to restrict access of internet services is high. The report noted that telecom operators were most inclined to block and throttle P2P services on mobile as well as fixed line networks. VoIP, on the other hand, was blocked mostly on telecom networks.
Keeping this in mind, TRAI needs to ensure that instances of discrimination of traffic should be few, far between and, above all, transparent

Continued
Question 11: Should the TSPs be mandated to publish various traffic management techniques used for different OTT applications? Is this a sufficient condition to ensure transparency and a fair regulatory regime?
The question is based on the premise that publishing various traffic management techniques for Internet services will ensure a fair regulatory regime and therefore such discrimination is permissible. As I have repeatedly said in the above answers, discrimination of services will not bring about a fair regime for users.
Further, a recent study [http://bit.ly/1D7QEp9] in the UK has pointed out that merely publishing data on traffic management will not translate into a fair regime. The study found that most consumers did not understand traffic management or use it as a basis for switching operators. Those who did do so comprised a group perceived to be small or insignificant enough that most network operators did not seek to factor them into their product decisions, despite some consumers’ complaints about traffic management. In India where awareness and activism on issues of net neutrality is considerably less, it is unlikely to play the critical role that the Consultation Paper suggests.
Question 12: How should a conducive and balanced environment be created such that TSPs are able to invest in network infrastructure and CAPs are able to innovate and grow? Who should bear the network upgradation costs? Please comment with justifications
The underlying assumption of the question suggests that currently there is an imbalance in the environment within which telecom operators and internet services operate. However, as I have pointed out it my previous answers, no such imbalance exists. Telecom firms and internet services have distinct functions. The former has to provide the infrastructure to access content and the latter has to provide the platforms for users to create content. As financial results of the telecom operators and analysis by various independent agencies have shown that revenues from data are soaring. So, it makes logical sense for the telecom operators to invest to upgrade and improve their network infrastructure.
On the contrary, I would argue that there is no incentive for the telecom firms to invest to upgrade their networks if they charge the CAP instead of charging the customer for data. They would seek to further increase its revenues coming from the CAPs, a move that will be disastrous for India's telecommunications industry.
Question 13: Should TSPs be allowed to implement non-price based discrimination of services? If so, under what circumstances are such practices acceptable? What restrictions, if any, need to be placed so that such measures are not abused? What measures should be adopted to ensure transparency to consumers? Please comment with justifications.
Discrimination of services in any form is detrimental for the growth of the telecom industry itself and there should be no circumstance for a telecom operator to do so. Given the diverse nature of the Internet, telecom operators should not be allowed to determine what type of service should get more priority. For example, a consumer in India probably relies on VoIP calls to keep in touch with people abroad and if there is throttling of these services, it infringes on the user’s fundamental right of freedom of expression. An Internet service that a telecom operator thinks which could lead to traffic congestion, might be vital to consumers. Further, a telecom operator might use throttling to further a service promoted by them and induce consumers into using them, thereby eliminating choice.
Transparency alone will not bring about a fair regime for users, and it is crucial that TSPs be prohibited from discriminating between services
Question 14: Is there a justification for allowing differential pricing for data access and OTT communication services? If so, what changes need to be brought about in the present tariff and regulatory framework for telecommunication services in the country? Please comment with justifications.
As I have argued in my previous answers, there should be no differential pricing for data access and internet services. Therefore, the need for a change in the tariff and regulatory framework is not required.
It is important to note that nearly one billion people still don't have internet access in India - which means telecom companies stand to gain substantially from their data services in the near future. Moreover, different pricing is tantamount to discrimination which goes against net neutrality.
As stated before, customers should be charged on the basis of volume of data used and not on the basis of the internet services they are accessing.
Question 15: Should OTT communication service players be treated as Bulk User of Telecom Services (BuTS)? How should the framework be structured to prevent any discrimination and protect stakeholder interest? Please comment with justification.
Treating OTT communication service players as Bulk User of Telecom Services again amounts to discrimination of data services and hence it should not be allowed. The question also further assumes that the stakeholders are only the telecom operators and not the consumers. If only the interests of the telecom operators are protected by treating services which compete with their traditional services differently rather than innovating themselves, it would lead to a situation of anti-competitiveness. Telecom companies have an interest in imposing their control over information and communication networks, but the price of that would mean stifling competition, increased barriers for innovation and business and eventually infringe on the fundamental rights of Indian citizens.
Question 16: What framework should be adopted to encourage India-specific OTT apps? Please comment with justifications.
A recent Deloitte report titled Technology, Media and Telecommunications India Predictions 2015 predicted that paid apps will generate over Rs 1500 crore revenues in 2015 (http://bit.ly/1alhH5S). Increased acceptance of paid apps can only be possible if there’s Network Neutrality. In fact, Deepinder Goyal, the founder and CEO of the highly successful app Zomato recently commented "Couldn’t have built Zomato if we had a competitor on something like Airtel Zero"
The moment an app developer/company is forced to tie-up with a telecom operator to ensure that users opt for it, an artificial prohibitive barrier will be created. All app developers and the companies behind them need to be provided an even playing field.
We also need more reports on the Indian app economy, to understand, firstly, how the adoption and usage of apps is changing and, secondly, to comprehend its impact on the Indian economy.
Question 17: If the OTT communication service players are to be licensed, should they be categorised as ASP or CSP? If so, what should be the framework? Please comment with justifications.
The question of categorising doesn’t even arise, because as mentioned earlier any extra regulations or licensing is going to be detrimental to the end user. Requiring licensing of online services and mobile apps under the current telecom framework in India will have enormous negative consequences. The impossibly onerous burdens imposed by such licensing would results in many such globally developed services and apps not being launched in India - and our own startup efforts to develop local versions of such apps being killed in their early stages. The net results would be decreased consumer benefit and a massive slowdown in innovation and reduced “Make in India” efforts due to the regulatory cost of doing business becoming very high.
Question 18: Is there a need to regulate subscription charges for OTT communication services? Please comment with justifications.
Subscription charges for such apps need to be allowed to evolve as it would in a pure market economy. The subscribers (buyers) would want to pay the lowest possible price, and the app developers/companies (sellers) would want to charge as much as possible, eventually leading to a fair price.
Subscription charges for such Internet-based services have remained, more or less, quite low in India, especially because the cost of switching from one service provider to another is also quite low: This competition will ensure that charges remain fair, without the need to regulate them, going forward as well. As noted in response to earlier questions, existing Indian law also applies to online services - which would include the Consumer Protection Act and other regulations meant to prevent cheating or other illegal pricing issues.
Question 19: What steps should be taken by the Government for regulation of non-communication OTT players? Please comment with justifications.
As mentioned earlier, irrespective of what an OTT app is used for (communication, online shopping, etc) they’re all essentially Internet-based services, and hence there is no question of creating new regulatory measures.
Question 20: Are there any other issues that have a bearing on the subject discussed?
Here are the additional steps that I urge the TRAI to undertake in the interest of the public:
- Due to the absence of any formal regulations on net neutrality, TRAI should issue an order or regulation preventing network neutrality violations by telecom service providers. Some telecom companies have shown scant respect for the issues presently under consideration and despite its questionable legality have rolled out various services which violate network neutrality. Any delay in forming regulations or preventing them in the interim till the process is complete is only likely to consolidate their status. This is not only an affront to the Internet users in India but also to the regulatory powers of the TRAI.
- TRAI is requested to publish all the responses and counter responses to the consultation, including any other additional material, on its website.
- For better public involvement and awareness, open house debates should be held in major Indian cities after the consultation process is over.
In the US, there was a time when you had to pay for tethering. Imagine if it would happen in India

Verizon to Push AppFlash to gather all the datas!

What absolute [email protected]
So... how do we get around this?
The First Horseman of the Privacy Apocalypse Has Already Arrived: Verizon Announces Plans to Install Spyware on All Its Android Phones
Within days of Congress repealing online privacy protections, Verizon has announced new plans to install software on customers’ devices to track what apps customers have downloaded. With this spyware, Verizon will be able to sell ads to you across the Internet based on things like which bank you use and whether you’ve downloaded a fertility app.
Verizon’s use of “AppFlash”—an app launcher and web search utility that Verizon will be rolling out to their subscribers’ Android devices “in the coming weeks”—is just the latest display of wireless carriers’ stunning willingness to compromise the security and privacy of their customers by installing spyware on end devices.
The AppFlash Privacy Policy published by Verizon states that the app can be used to
“collect information about your device and your use of the AppFlash services. This information includes your mobile number, device identifiers, device type and operating system, and information about the AppFlash features and services you use and your interactions with them. We also access information about the list of apps you have on your device.”
Troubling as it may be to collect intimate details about what apps you have installed, the policy also illustrates Verizon’s intent to gather location and contact information:
“AppFlash also collects information about your device’s precise location from your device operating system as well as contact information you store on your device.”
And what will Verizon use all of this information for? Why, targeted advertising on third-party websites, of course:
“AppFlash information may be shared within the Verizon family of companies, including companies like AOL who may use it to help provide more relevant advertising within the AppFlash experiences and in other places, including non-Verizon sites, services and devices.”
In other words, our prediction that mobile Internet providers would start installing spyware on their customers’ phones has come true, less than 48 hours after Congress sold out your personal data to companies like Comcast and AT&T. With the announcement of AppFlash, Verizon has made clear that it intends to start monetizing its customers’ private data as soon as possible.
What are the ramifications? For one thing, this is yet another entity that will be collecting sensitive information about your mobile activity on your Android phone. It’s bad enough that Google collects much of this information already and blocks privacy-enhancing tools from being distributed through the Play Store. Adding another company that automatically tracks its customers doesn’t help matters any.
But our bigger concern is the increased attack surface an app like AppFlash creates. You can bet that with Verizon rolling this app out to such a large number of devices, hackers will be probing it for vulnerabilities, to see if they can use it as a backdoor they can break into. We sincerely hope Verizon has invested significant resources in ensuring that AppFlash is secure, because if it’s not, the damage to Americans’ cybersecurity could be disastrous.

AppFlash is just a custom bloated version of the Google Search Bar with intense focus on data mining. This is essentially a widget, which belongs to a package, which should be able to be disabled/uninstalled depending on its implementation. You may need a rooted phone to fully remove it from the system - but time will tell. Either way, this will end up in my pile of other Verizon 'Services/Apps' that are either uninstalled or frozen.
the_rev said:
But our bigger concern is the increased attack surface an app like AppFlash creates. You can bet that with Verizon rolling this app out to such a large number of devices, hackers will be probing it for vulnerabilities, to see if they can use it as a backdoor they can break into. We sincerely hope Verizon has invested significant resources in ensuring that AppFlash is secure, because if it’s not, the damage to Americans’ cybersecurity could be disastrous.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I find this comment amusing - eluding that 'hackers' don't probe every single aspect of a system and it's software, but now that this application is going to be pushed you better worry!

Calm down. The sky isn't falling yet.
"UPDATE: We have received additional information from Verizon and based on that information we are withdrawing this post while we investigate further. Here is the statement from Kelly Crummey, Director of Corporate Communications of Verizon: "As we said earlier this week, we are testing AppFlash to make app discovery better for consumers. The test is on a single phone – LG K20 V – and you have to opt-in to use the app. Or, you can easily disable the app. Nobody is required to use it. Verizon is committed to your privacy. Visit www.verizon.com/about/privacy to view our Privacy Policy.""
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/...e-has-already-arrived-verizon-announces-plans
Oh, and what can you do about it? You can vote every single individual in Congress that voted for repealing these protections out of office. Be vocal about this with friends and family. The general population does not understand this issue. I have answered so many questions like "So, if I clear my browser history this doesn't matter, right?" lately that it makes me sick to my stomach.

Averix said:
Oh, and what can you do about it? You can vote every single individual in Congress that voted for repealing these protections out of office. Be vocal about this with friends and family. The general population does not understand this issue. I have answered so many questions like "So, if I clear my browser history this doesn't matter, right?" lately that it makes me sick to my stomach.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This. Vote out every single person who voted to repeal what we've spent years fighting for. They let their own monetary gains guide their decisions and not what's best for the people, which is what their job is.
It's absolutely baffling to me how many people just don't give 2 fks about having companies mine personal and sensitive information about them. The classic "If you don't have anything to hide, then what does it matter" argument instantly enrages me.
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge using XDA Labs

just calm down.. I've been telling everyone about this for past 4 years.its not just this app.but hard bedded in every device..the only way to get rid of any of it is educate yourself on removing it. .as for the comment about hackers knowing the weaknesses​.hes absolutely right...the good amd bad hackers.not all of us are bad.

All of this concern over potential "spyware" on our devices is laughable because some of you may be missing the big picture here. Regardless of carrier-introduced data capturing apps or malware, etc on the device itself, carriers already store all user data and wireless data transmissions, texts, etc. This data is accessed by whomever has the "authority" to access it. If you are a suspect in a homicide for example, the homicide detectives will get a quick signature from a judge to retrieve all of you phone records including gps, tower pings, internet, incoming & outgoing texts, etc. Who's to say who phone carriers share your regular data with? You can't prove if they do or don't.
Within the last few hours of Obama's presidency, he did the unthinkable by legalizing the sharing of intelligence and sensitive data between numerous intelligence agencies so they can all share sensitive data between one another at their whims. The obvious reason for this was to better mask the source of the information and blur the lines of responsibility for the data retrieved. Data not only from citizens, but from anyone in the government, FBI, CIA, NSA, etc is able to be retrieved at any time and used for legal purposes and even illegal purposes if you have been paying attention lately. We now get to enjoy complete invasion of privacy in our daily lives. Not just with our cell phones. I find this topic useless at this point. So I have to say... unless you're doing something illegal, you have nothing to be concerned about and electronic privacy is non-existent these days so don't let that fool you. Someone posted that my last sentence instantly infurates them... well this is the facts so be infurated my friend because it's the truth. Nobody is able to defeat the electronic data that is stored and accessed by those who have the "authority" to access it. Get over it.
As for defeating ads and stuff like that, well that's a different topic all together.

tx_dbs_tx said:
All of this concern over potential "spyware" on our devices is laughable because some of you may be missing the big picture here. Regardless of carrier-introduced data capturing apps or malware, etc on the device itself, carriers already store all user data and wireless data transmissions, texts, etc. This data is accessed by whomever has the "authority" to access it. If you are a suspect in a homicide for example, the homicide detectives will get a quick signature from a judge to retrieve all of you phone records including gps, tower pings, internet, incoming & outgoing texts, etc. Who's to say who phone carriers share your regular data with? You can't prove if they do or don't.
Within the last few hours of Obama's presidency, he did the unthinkable by legalizing the sharing of intelligence and sensitive data between numerous intelligence agencies so they can all share sensitive data between one another at their whims. The obvious reason for this was to better mask the source of the information and blur the lines of responsibility for the data retrieved. Data not only from citizens, but from anyone in the government, FBI, CIA, NSA, etc is able to be retrieved at any time and used for legal purposes and even illegal purposes if you have been paying attention lately. We now get to enjoy complete invasion of privacy in our daily lives. Not just with our cell phones. I find this topic useless at this point. So I have to say... unless you're doing something illegal, you have nothing to be concerned about and electronic privacy is non-existent these days so don't let that fool you. Someone posted that my last sentence instantly infurates them... well this is the facts so be infurated my friend because it's the truth. Nobody is able to defeat the electronic data that is stored and accessed by those who have the "authority" to access it. Get over it.
As for defeating ads and stuff like that, well that's a different topic all together.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The main issue is the blatant disregard by our government to even acknowledge the American people's privacy. Of course this all comes down to money and corruption as usual. For a simpler solution to a lot of these issues is remove all of the lobbyists, but I digress.

Look at it this way people. No one is pointing a gun at your head making you use cell phones social media, etc. If you don't want to be spied on buy a house in the mountains with no outside connections and enjoy life.