Sprint to disable tethering in Android 2.2

[clownberg]

Sprint May Disable Tethering in HTC EVO 4G Android 2.2 Froyo Update | CoolTechZone.com

 

[DesertSilver#AC]

Sprint disabling the default Froyo tethering should already be assumed by everyone due to the hotspot addon you can add to your Sprint plan. Google did state during IO that it could be disabled by the carrier.

 

[Jerry Hildenbrand]

Might want to change your article to ALL carriers

 

[BigRick10]

this article says otherwise

Sprint says it will allow PDAnet tethering on EVO 4G, suggests it will also allow built-in Wi-Fi mobile hotspot capability in 2.2 'Froyo' update for Android | TECHNOLOGY Blog | dallasnews.com

Who should we believe lol

 

[Brett636]

Sprint will allow it only as long as they can monitor when its being used so that wifi hotspot fee can be tacked on. If it can't be monitored or controlled by Sprint then its going to be disabled.

 

[apexi350z]

Quoting from the article:
So I asked Crystal Davis, my official contact at Sprint, about both those issues, and it sounds like good news all around for EVO buyers:

There's a difference between tethering (which the PDAnet app provides) and Mobile Hotspot (which HTC EVO 4G provides without needing to download an app). The PDAnet app requires a connection with either a USB cable or Bluetooth, so it can only provide connectivity for one device at a time. Therefore, the app wouldn't be a solution for someone who wants connectivity for multiple devices at once. In contrast, the 3G/4G Mobile Hotspot provides WiFi connectivity, so it can support multiple devices (up to 8) at once, without a need for a USB or Bluetooth connection.

In regards to Froyo 2.2, it has not been released yet, so we can['t] make any assessments on that particular application. Sprint has always communicated to its customers that it does not block apps. We want our customers to be able to get access to what they want and enjoy a true Web experience on their mobile device, although we cannot guarantee the performance a customer will experience with third-party applications.

===============
She said they can't make assessments at this time, and Sprint doesn't block apps. They also can't guarantee the performance, so for them to guarantee the performance, that's where the $30 charge come in..

I think they will block it, and make us pay for it. The only way to get it is either pay, or root the device.

 

[Holsum]

Well sprint wont have a choice from my perspective. They block it, i root it and do it anyway.

 

[DesertSilver#AC]

Since Sprint would have the choice of disabling Froyo's hotspot functionality, there's 0% possibility that Sprint would either give you the choice to use default Froyo hotspot for free or Sprint hotspot for $30.

I can, and really hope, Sprint gets rid of their hotspot fee and allow Froyo hotspot by default, but I don't see that happening. Sprint had to have NDA information from Google on Froyo way in advance and they wouldn't have started the $30 hotspot fee if they planned to get rid of it so soon.

 

[Raptor]

Since Sprint would have the choice of disabling Froyo's hotspot functionality, there's 0% possibility that Sprint would either give you the choice to use default Froyo hotspot for free or Sprint hotspot for $30.

I can, and really hope, Sprint gets rid of their hotspot fee and allow Froyo hotspot by default, but I don't see that happening. Sprint had to have NDA information from Google on Froyo way in advance and they wouldn't have started the $30 hotspot fee if they planned to get rid of it so soon.

I'll be the adult in the conversation ... providing the multi user hotspot feature without charging for would be a BAD thing! Yes, I said it, a BAD thing! I do not want cell service on a network so overburdened with hotspot use that you'd get better/faster service with two paper cups and some string!

What part of this equation escapes people?


Brian

 

[Holsum]

I'll be the adult in the conversation ... providing the multi user hotspot feature without charging for would be a BAD thing! Yes, I said it, a BAD thing! I do not want cell service on a network so overburdened with hotspot use that you'd get better/faster service with two paper cups and some string!

What part of this equation escapes people?


Brian

The part of the equation that on sprint u have 3g/4g/wifi options. When you are on 3g on sprint, which 99% of the nation only has, you cant talk and tether at the same time. On att this is part of the issue. Many people talk/text/browse at the same time destroying bandwith. You also have to remember that ATT has a BOATLOAD more customers then Sprint and their network ALREADY sucked BEFORE the iphone with dropped calls/latency/etc.

 

[Fitz1015]

I'm happy just using PDAnet. really cant see paying for the hotspot when i might only use it 5 time a year. PDAnet works just fine for me

 

[Mitalis]

I'll be the adult in the conversation ... providing the multi user hotspot feature without charging for would be a BAD thing! Yes, I said it, a BAD thing! I do not want cell service on a network so overburdened with hotspot use that you'd get better/faster service with two paper cups and some string!

What part of this equation escapes people?


Brian

Brian/Raptor, (whatever)

You have to remember that everybody getting the EVO 4G is already paying an additional $240 on a 2yr contract for true (uncapped) "unlimited" data, despite Sprint's offering the same plans for their other phones. Frankly if there's anybody to blame for this, it's Sprint...

Even on the cheapest plan possible with the EVO 4G, $70/month is way MORE then what the average household pays for (faster) internet access at home... Sprint damn well better have preparations in place for their network with the release of 4G... Whether customers tether or not.

 

[dastrey]

Brian/Raptor, (whatever)

You have to remember that everybody getting the EVO 4G is already paying an additional $240 on a 2yr contract for true (uncapped) "unlimited" data, despite Sprint's offering the same plans for their other phones. Frankly if there's anybody to blame for this, it's Sprint...

Even on the cheapest plan possible with the EVO 4G, $70/month is way MORE then what the average household pays for (faster) internet access at home... Sprint damn well better have preparations in place for their network with the release of 4G... Whether customers tether or not.

$70 for internet? Why are you including the cost of the phone service? Yes, customer's will be paying $240 more on a 2 year contract, but that is the reason the phone is only $199. When this phone was first announced many people were guessing it would be $300+ after rebate. Considering that you will be able to root the phone, you will essentially be able to use your phone as a hot-spot(uncapped) for only $10 a month. I am paying $40 a month for my ISP, so I am looking to save about $30 a month. Over the course of 2 years I will be saving $720. Not too shabby.

 

[Raptor]

The part of the equation that on sprint u have 3g/4g/wifi options. When you are on 3g on sprint, which 99% of the nation only has, you cant talk and tether at the same time. On att this is part of the issue. Many people talk/text/browse at the same time destroying bandwith. You also have to remember that ATT has a BOATLOAD more customers then Sprint and their network ALREADY sucked BEFORE the iphone with dropped calls/latency/etc.

Texting and most emails eat almost no bandwidth with neither averaging more than about 1KB and often much less. Voice is more bandwidth intensive and now pure data has eclipsed voice. Downloading that 850MB lesbian porno is kind of new for cell phones but with 4G speeds and a 4.3 inch display you are going to see a lot more data use. If any significant fraction of users find a way to use the hotspot without paying I'll be looking for another carrier as I will not tolerate slow service.

No matter what service you have, be it 3G or 4G, there is a limited pipe for each cell tower and if the average user is eating up a huge amount of bandwidth because they are sharing there hotspot with 7 friends on the train, then it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the pipe will clog. Again, what part of the equation don't you get?


Brian

 

[Raptor]

Brian/Raptor, (whatever)

You have to remember that everybody getting the EVO 4G is already paying an additional $240 on a 2yr contract for true (uncapped) "unlimited" data, despite Sprint's offering the same plans for their other phones. Frankly if there's anybody to blame for this, it's Sprint...

Even on the cheapest plan possible with the EVO 4G, $70/month is way MORE then what the average household pays for (faster) internet access at home... Sprint damn well better have preparations in place for their network with the release of 4G... Whether customers tether or not.

You can not compare, apples to apples, cell service internet with cable internet. With cable the signal is largely confined to the cable and multiple cable can be run side-by-side. In addition, the bandwidth of even a single coax cable is much higher than even 4G service. If I had to ballpark the difference in cost to deliver a MB of data I'd guestimate that 4G cell is at least 4X the cost as cable. Oh, and one more thing ... how's that cable internet working for you when you're away from home?


Brian

 

[DesertSilver#AC]

You can not compare, apples to apples, cell service internet with cable internet. With cable the signal is largely confined to the cable and multiple cable can be run side-by-side. In addition, the bandwidth of even a single coax cable is much higher than even 4G service. If I had to ballpark the difference in cost to deliver a MB of data I'd guestimate that 4G cell is at least 4X the cost as cable. Oh, and one more thing ... how's that cable internet working for you when you're away from home?


Brian

You're making the assumption that if tethering was free, there will be a majority of users in a particular area, on the same tower, using high bandwidth constantly that would negatively affect your personal web experience, correct?

I admit that I may be wrong, but my assumption is that even if it is free, hotspot tethering would be utilized by a very minute percentage of the user base.

Yes, comparing cell data to cable internet is not apples to apples but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that there is exponentially more users feeding off cable data in a given neighborhood (yes, I realize the bandwidth cap is higher) than there would be tethering from a particular cell phone in a given area. Should I cancel my cable internet service with the assumption that everyone in my neighborhood is utilizing a large chunk of the bandwidth at the very same time, causing me to have a less-than-satisfactory service? And yes, cable can run side-by-side, but we're not talking about a separate cable running from the "data center" to each neighborhood in a city.

And I realize that this argument is nil because Sprint has the charge that I don't envision them getting rid of. And we'll all need to agree to disagree.

 

[Raptor]

You're making the assumption that if tethering was free, there will be a majority of users in a particular area, on the same tower, using high bandwidth constantly that would negatively affect your personal web experience, correct?

I admit that I may be wrong, but my assumption is that even if it is free, hotspot tethering would be utilized by a very minute percentage of the user base.

Yes, comparing cell data to cable internet is not apples to apples but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that there is exponentially more users feeding off cable data in a given neighborhood (yes, I realize the bandwidth cap is higher) than there would be tethering from a particular cell phone in a given area. Should I cancel my cable internet service with the assumption that everyone in my neighborhood is utilizing a large chunk of the bandwidth at the very same time, causing me to have a less-than-satisfactory service? And yes, cable can run side-by-side, but we're not talking about a separate cable running from the "data center" to each neighborhood in a city.

And I realize that this argument is nil because Sprint has the charge that I don't envision them getting rid of. And we'll all need to agree to disagree.

It wouldn't take the majority of users sharing the multi-user hotspot to have a huge impact. If 15% did so that could result in a doubling of demand over a fixed capacity pipe.

The bandwidth of cable is much higher ... most cable internet is piggyback on the same cable as the TV and HDTV. However the cable you connect to may NOT be the same cable as the guy across the street even if you both use the same cable company. That was my point about being able to run more than one cable. With RF the spectrum is defined and the bandwidth limited so there is no way to pump more data into a given area -- with cable you can just run more cable because the bandwidth of one cable does not have to be shared with that of another cable.

In practice, cable internet is not purely cable. Often the main line(s) are fiber and then the final mile is cable. The amount of bandwidth you can pump into an area with cable can be millions of times, even trillions of times great than cell spectrum RF. The business model the cable companies have is that they can live off of the TV/HDTV user with internet access being another way to profit from more-or-less the same network they have for TV alone. The incremental cost to provide internet is pretty small.


Brian

 

[sYnOnYx]

I'd be happy with just pdanet.

Either way, im sure someone will hack it so we can use hotspot or something similar for free...

 

[Holsum]

Texting and most emails eat almost no bandwidth with neither averaging more than about 1KB and often much less. Voice is more bandwidth intensive and now pure data has eclipsed voice. Downloading that 850MB lesbian porno is kind of new for cell phones but with 4G speeds and a 4.3 inch display you are going to see a lot more data use. If any significant fraction of users find a way to use the hotspot without paying I'll be looking for another carrier as I will not tolerate slow service.

No matter what service you have, be it 3G or 4G, there is a limited pipe for each cell tower and if the average user is eating up a huge amount of bandwidth because they are sharing there hotspot with 7 friends on the train, then it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the pipe will clog. Again, what part of the equation don't you get?


Brian

Clearly you have NO IDEA what you are talking about. 4g is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT network then 3g. the 4g network is strictly for data. if you think that user came even come close to bogging it down you are really ignorant. IF you think that MMS has no impact on network you are wrong. the day that ATT released MMS on the iphone it brought down the backbone for the weekend.


P.S. since Clear is a fairly new company i am assuming that they would use anything less then an OC48 "limited pipe" if you have no idea what that is, you might want to educate yourself.

 

[Raptor]

Clearly you have NO IDEA what you are talking about. 4g is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT network then 3g. the 4g network is strictly for data. if you think that user came even come close to bogging it down you are really ignorant. IF you think that MMS has no impact on network you are wrong. the day that ATT released MMS on the iphone it brought down the backbone for the weekend.


P.S. since Clear is a fairly new company i am assuming that they would use anything less then an OC48 "limited pipe" if you have no idea what that is, you might want to educate yourself.

The Sprint implementation of 4G separates the voice and data -- so what? All this does is unburden the data network from handling voice. The net effect is an increase in total bandwidth of, wait for it ... about 25%!

Texting and emails that are text only have little impact on bandwidth requirements on a per message/email bassis but there are a lot of people that text a lot. When you send an email with an attachment the text portion might only amount to 200 bytes whereas the attachment could be in the MB's.

When ATT/Apple added MMS and it brought the system down did it do so by increasing the bandwidth? If so, how come it's working now? You sir are clueless!


Brian