T-Mobile going after data 'thieves' who abuse unlimited data

[Snaeb_aka_Beans]

They don't invest nearly that much in their own networks. The fact that they would have 35% downtime with true unlimited, is evidence of that alone.

According to their financials last year, they invested just over 10% of their gross income of 65 billion into their network.  So yes they do.

[Trik'Stari]

According to their financials last year, they invested just over 10% of their gross income of 65 billion into their network.  So yes they do.

.....right, and congress always does what's best for the country.

 

Have you never heard of lying? Have you never heard of lawyers? Have you never heard of accountants?

 

Hint: When lawyers and accountants get together, terrible things happen.

[TroubleKlef]

.....right, and congress always does what's best for the country.

 

Have you never heard of lying? Have you never heard of lawyers?

 

since when did it become guilty until proven innocent? If the books show that they did, we have no other proof to say that they didn't update their infrastructure. Unless there was an investigation that showed that T-Mobile lied about their books then I believe them.

[Trik'Stari]

since when did it become guilty until proven innocent? If the books show that they did, we have no other proof to say that they didn't update their infrastructure. Unless there was an investigation that showed that T-Mobile lied about their books then I believe them.

......Your naivety astounds me

 

As for guilty until proven innocent, that started in regards to corporations, when they started paying off congressmen to pass laws in their favor, ignore the currently existing laws, and buying up online news websites then forbidding them from reporting on anything that might make them look bad.

 

Seriously, what rock are you living under?

[boboman342]

the problem I see here is that they have to go through these work arounds to get unlimited data.

 

2TB of data is ridiculous.  However, if you call it unlimited, let it be unlimited...  wasn't t mobile the ones that were running that ad campaign a while ago that their "unlimited" data is actually unlimited? or was that sprint?

I think I recall on one of the WAN shows that they talked about how T-Mobile and other carriers were doing these things and talked about how sprint was just kind of sitting off in the corner not offending anyone lol.

[GzeroD]

I think I recall on one of the WAN shows that they talked about how T-Mobile and other carriers were doing these things and talked about how sprint was just kind of sitting off in the corner not offending anyone lol.

Lets be fair their definition of high speed LTE offends many people. 

[GeTecknics]

sucks that they are getting butthurt over unlimited data users using their plan. Given how cheap their unlimited plan is though i can see why they would get angry. I just signed up with tmobile over Cspire my old carrier and this bullshit but it was a lot worse 1 their plan was more expensive and 2 they told me i was an abusive user because i used to much data but it wasnt 2tb it was 21gb and changed my plan and charged me data overages all without notifying me yeah so while it sucks what tmobile is doing it could be alot worse personally tmobile is one of the better companies to deal with as far as carriers go

[shirokado]

I guess T-Mobile doesn't understand what the word unlimited means. Read a dictionary assholes

No, Tmobile offers unlimited mobile data and 5GB of tethering. It probably wouldn't matter if you somehow used 200tb on your mobile device(how would you even do that)what the abusers are doing is bypassing the tethering limit, therefore are abusing their data plan.

[Misanthrope]

If you did, you'd have literally no leg to stand on, unless you happened to be one of the extremely few that are Grandfathered into the "Unlimited Mobile + Tethering" plans they offered for a very very short amount of time.

 

When you order the Unlimited plan, it's literally pasted like 7 different times on the order page how Tethering has a 7GB limit (before speed reductions). It's quite impossible to order Unlimited without seeing the Tethering limitations, unless you wilfully try not to look at the screen.

 

The order page is quite clear. There's no ambiguity - no fine print (It says the 7GB Tethering limit in large, clear font).

 

But the burden of proof to confirm you were tethering is on them, not you. As I mentioned and luckily a few others have, it is quite possible to use up to 2tb of data legitimately with just a cell phone: Constant non stop video streaming would get you there, video out 4k streaming will get you there, connecting usb drives and usb hard drives to a cellphone via usb otg would get you there, etc.

 

It would be as difficult as the torrent cases where you have to prove that you were downloading AND redistributing AND it wasn't just someone else hijacking your IP and such.

[Misanthrope]

sucks that they are getting butthurt over unlimited data users using their plan. Given how cheap their unlimited plan is though i can see why they would get angry. I just signed up with tmobile over Cspire my old carrier and this bullshit but it was a lot worse 1 their plan was more expensive and 2 they told me i was an abusive user because i used to much data but it wasnt 2tb it was 21gb and changed my plan and charged me data overages all without notifying me yeah so while it sucks what tmobile is doing it could be alot worse personally tmobile is one of the better companies to deal with as far as carriers go

 

The lesser of all evils is still fundamentally evil though and there's no justification for basically saying Unlimited and then "but not really" unless you call your plan that. Simple stuff as I said: do not call it unlimited, call it whatever, "Cellphone super fun" (I'm sure LMG wouldn't pursue trademark action though you never know) and say that it gives you "An incredible speed and virtually everything you want!" and you're still offering basically all you can eat data while keeping your stupid tethering restrictions

 

Anything but calling it "unlimited" and basing a lot of your marketing an name on it when well, it's fucking not.

[Ekpyrosis]

But the burden of proof to confirm you were tethering is on them, not you. As I mentioned and luckily a few others have, it is quite possible to use up to 2tb of data legitimately with just a cell phone: Constant non stop video streaming would get you there, video out 4k streaming will get you there, connecting usb drives and usb hard drives to a cellphone via usb otg would get you there, etc.

T-mobile claims "We have developed technology that can detect people who deliberately choose to break our terms and conditions."

They are not going after people just because they use a high amount of data. Every statement and every article made clear that this is only about bypassing tethering limits. That's also why this whole "but you could use that much data legitimately" talk is irrelevant. They are not pushing people out of the unlimited plan because of how much data they use, but because they violate the ToS. They only mentioned the 2TB/month to illustrate why they enforce this ToS violation.

 

It would be as difficult as the torrent cases where you have to prove that you were downloading AND redistributing AND it wasn't just someone else hijacking your IP and such.

This is not a court judgement, they're not suing anyone. If they have found out that someone was misusing their service associated with a device or one of their simcards, they are pushing them to a limited plan.

[Jimbillroo Digital]

Who uses 2 TB a month?

[GeTecknics]

The lesser of all evils is still fundamentally evil though and there's no justification for basically saying Unlimited and then "but not really" unless you call your plan that. Simple stuff as I said: do not call it unlimited, call it whatever, "Cellphone super fun" (I'm sure LMG wouldn't pursue trademark action though you never know) and say that it gives you "An incredible speed and virtually everything you want!" and you're still offering basically all you can eat data while keeping your stupid tethering restrictions

 

Anything but calling it "unlimited" and basing a lot of your marketing an name on it when well, it's fucking not.

true but people have to come to expect this out of companies my 2 isps AT&T and Suddenlink both say enjoy unlimited high speed internet but in reality they both have a 250gb cap their only ""unlimited"" plan  is a business plan that has crap speed and service compared to their consumer one that still cuts you off at 5tb. I understand what you mean but its just how it is alot of companies do this with other products and services michelin rates their tires at 90k miles when in reality it probably wont last 50k before dry rotting its just something that we have to accept from these companies now and unfortunately there is nothing we can do about it

[LAwLz]

T-mobile claims "We have developed technology that can detect people who deliberately choose to break our terms and conditions."They are not going after people just because they use a high amount of data. Every statement and every article made clear that this is only about bypassing tethering limits. That's also why this whole "but you could use that much data legitimately" talk is irrelevant. They are not pushing people out of the unlimited plan because of how much data they use, but because they violate the ToS. They only mentioned the 2TB/month to illustrate why they enforce this ToS violation.

But how can they do that? How can they be allowed to tell users what they can and can't do with the data they have downloaded. I think the idea of having "tethering limits" is just stupid and should be illegal. Imagine if Google Fiber said:

No data caps! You can use however much you want!*

*only applies to your router. For data sent from your router to the internal network there is a 50GB cap."

No... That would be bullshit, and this is the same thing. I downloaded the data on my unlimited mobile data plan, but for some reason I am not allowed to then send that info along to another device? Shouldn't I be free to do whatever I want with the data once I have downloaded it?

[Snaeb_aka_Beans]

Comcast has been known to shut people off abusing their consumer based Internet packages for hosting file servers and businesses. It's in the fine print. I am really bothered by how entitled so many people are. "Data caps should be illegal" "unlimited is unlimited". Mobile Internet is far more finite than wired internet. I used over a 1tb for 3 months and was told by Comcast to knock it off. Technically I was downloading gta 5 and a few other games on PCs I was selling. While it's classified as a hobby I make money so it's a business. So I was actually in the wrong over that. Company's are in business to make money. Many of these company's (Version and Comcast) ISPs and carriers pay very well. I know I make great money. So your claims would actually be affecting my paycheck.

[XxKINGxX40]

The point John Legere is trying to make is that there's a fine line between legit and abusive customers. 2TB of data in 1 month is ridiculous.

Yeah it's technically 'unlimited' but that doesn't mean you can go to a buffet, eat until you throw up and take home a bunch more food for other family/friends.

[TheUzu]

Well in the UK, three does a All-you-can-eat data plan that I pay £15 a month for, it has 4GB of tethering and like with T-Mobile everything is clearly shown, anyone who is complaining about not being able to break TOS because 'unlimited' needs to be less entitled.

[dalekphalm]

But the burden of proof to confirm you were tethering is on them, not you. As I mentioned and luckily a few others have, it is quite possible to use up to 2tb of data legitimately with just a cell phone: Constant non stop video streaming would get you there, video out 4k streaming will get you there, connecting usb drives and usb hard drives to a cellphone via usb otg would get you there, etc.

 

It would be as difficult as the torrent cases where you have to prove that you were downloading AND redistributing AND it wasn't just someone else hijacking your IP and such.

And hence this news topic - they are cracking down on those who circumvent T-Mobile's standard Tethering Monitoring methods. They're developing new methods to tell that the user was in fact tethering.

 

It would not be as difficult as a Torrent Case. Not to mention that the burden of proof is on the accuser. In the hypothetical court case, the accuser is the user, not T-Mobile. That means that the accuser would have to Prove that T-Mobile unjustly terminated their service. They would have to prove that they were not Tethering.

 

But how can they do that? How can they be allowed to tell users what they can and can't do with the data they have downloaded. I think the idea of having "tethering limits" is just stupid and should be illegal. Imagine if Google Fiber said:

No data caps! You can use however much you want!*

*only applies to your router. For data sent from your router to the internal network there is a 50GB cap."

No... That would be bullshit, and this is the same thing. I downloaded the data on my unlimited mobile data plan, but for some reason I am not allowed to then send that info along to another device? Shouldn't I be free to do whatever I want with the data once I have downloaded it?

That's a false equivalent and you damn well know it. There's a huge difference between Wired Internet and Wireless Mobile Data. With Wired, you run out of network capacity? You simply install more nodes, up the bandwidth, etc.

 

With Wireless, there are certain hard limits with Bandwidth and the spectrum you are using. Those limits can be increased with evolving technology, but that technology doesn't evolve that fast. Simply installing a "second" Cell Tower in a congested area wouldn't alleviate the congestion automatically, since the two towers would be competing for the same limited amount of spectrum.

 

Mobile carriers either need to buy more spectrum (Which is carefully controlled by the FCC) or wait for new technologies to develop that are more efficient with a given spectrum.

 

Furthermore, what you download on your router, is expected to be used by multiple devices. The ISP provides you with a WIFI router that has 4 ports on it, they expect that you will use multiple devices. In this case, they QUITE CLEARLY (eg: Not hidden or confusing in the slightest) state that your PHONE has unlimited mobile data, and TETHERING has a limit.

 

It's not bullshit at all, because with mobile internet, you're not expected to connect a whole damn house via a hotspot to your device and use it as a replacement for your normal internet.

 

Mobile carriers take a lot of shit for their bad practices - rightfully so. But this is not one of them. T-Mobile is 100% in the right, both legally and ethically.

[Misanthrope]

And hence this news topic - they are cracking down on those who circumvent T-Mobile's standard Tethering Monitoring methods. They're developing new methods to tell that the user was in fact tethering.

 

It would not be as difficult as a Torrent Case. Not to mention that the burden of proof is on the accuser. In the hypothetical court case, the accuser is the user, not T-Mobile. That means that the accuser would have to Prove that T-Mobile unjustly terminated their service. They would have to prove that they were not Tethering.

 

That's different, and on those terms I'd agree with you: terminating the service is actually not that big of a deal: most people will be able to get back on under someone else's name if needed and there's plenty of competition it might hurt the consumer but most wouldn't bother to sue. From his language he sounded a lot more like he intended to have T-Mobile seek legal action against this people not just suspend/terminate their services.

[LAwLz]

That's a false equivalent and you damn well know it. There's a huge difference between Wired Internet and Wireless Mobile Data. With Wired, you run out of network capacity? You simply install more nodes, up the bandwidth, etc.

 

With Wireless, there are certain hard limits with Bandwidth and the spectrum you are using. Those limits can be increased with evolving technology, but that technology doesn't evolve that fast. Simply installing a "second" Cell Tower in a congested area wouldn't alleviate the congestion automatically, since the two towers would be competing for the same limited amount of spectrum.

 

Mobile carriers either need to buy more spectrum (Which is carefully controlled by the FCC) or wait for new technologies to develop that are more efficient with a given spectrum.

 

Furthermore, what you download on your router, is expected to be used by multiple devices. The ISP provides you with a WIFI router that has 4 ports on it, they expect that you will use multiple devices. In this case, they QUITE CLEARLY (eg: Not hidden or confusing in the slightest) state that your PHONE has unlimited mobile data, and TETHERING has a limit.

 

It's not bullshit at all, because with mobile internet, you're not expected to connect a whole damn house via a hotspot to your device and use it as a replacement for your normal internet.

 

Mobile carriers take a lot of shit for their bad practices - rightfully so. But this is not one of them. T-Mobile is 100% in the right, both legally and ethically.

I know very well what the limitations of cellular data are. No need to lecture me about it. I still disagree with T-Mobile here. If they are selling me an unlimited data plan, why shouldn't I be allowed to forward packets between my own devices on a local network? In the end that's what they are doing. They are telling their customers what they can and can't do on their own local networks.

 

When I download things on my phone I am expected to forward it to other devices too. That's why Android has a built in tethering capability (both through USB as well as with a WiFi hotspot). They expect me to want to use my phone as a router. It might not be the primary use case, but it was a big enough use case that it was included as a feature in stock Android.

Or how about the feature Samsung has built into their tablets where you can screenshare your phone. If you happen to have a webpage open on your phone when you start screensharing, should you be punished for that? I mean, you are in fact using your phone's mobile connection to transfer a web page to your tablet.

Am I allowed to transfer screenshots of web pages from my phone to my tablet? If that's allowed, am I allowed to fetch a website with wget on my phone and then transfer that to my tablet with for example FTP? If that's allowed, am I allowed to write a script that does it automatically whenever I enter the URL of a website on my tablet?

I don't see where you should draw the line if you don't allow tethering.

 

 

I don't have anything against data caps on cellular connections. What I have a problem with is companies trying to sell you "unlimited" data plans and then they go after the customers saying "you're not allowed to do this and that on your own local network if you use our service".

If you want to avoid people exploiting your "unlimited" service then add data caps. It's as simple as that.

 

 

Edit:

And I do believe that this breaks net neutrality.

Net neutrality was meant to ensure the equal treatment of all traffic. No discrimination allowed. This is clearly discrimination against traffic that is being forwarded on your local network. T-Mobile is basically saying "you can listen to Spotify on your phone, but you can't listen to Spotify on your tablet unless you pay us extra first".

The amount of traffic going through T-Mobile's network is the same, so why is one allowed and the other isn't?

[Snaeb_aka_Beans]

I know very well what the limitations of cellular data are. No need to lecture me about it. I still disagree with T-Mobile here. If they are selling me an unlimited data plan, why shouldn't I be allowed to forward packets between my own devices on a local network? In the end that's what they are doing. They are telling their customers what they can and can't do on their own local networks.

When I download things on my phone I am expected to forward it to other devices too. That's why Android has a built in tethering capability (both through USB as well as with a WiFi hotspot). They expect me to want to use my phone as a router. It might not be the primary use case, but it was a big enough use case that it was included as a feature in stock Android.

Or how about the feature Samsung has built into their tablets where you can screenshare your phone. If you happen to have a webpage open on your phone when you start screensharing, should you be punished for that? I mean, you are in fact using your phone's mobile connection to transfer a web page to your tablet.

Am I allowed to transfer screenshots of web pages from my phone to my tablet? If that's allowed, am I allowed to fetch a website with wget on my phone and then transfer that to my tablet with for example FTP? If that's allowed, am I allowed to write a script that does it automatically whenever I enter the URL of a website on my tablet?

I don't see where you should draw the line if you don't allow tethering.

I don't have anything against data caps on cellular connections. What I have a problem with is companies trying to sell you "unlimited" data plans and then they go after the customers saying "you're not allowed to do this and that on your own local network if you use our service".

If you want to avoid people exploiting your "unlimited" service then add data caps. It's as simple as that.

Edit:

And I do believe that this breaks net neutrality.

Net neutrality was meant to ensure the equal treatment of all traffic. No discrimination allowed. This is clearly discrimination against traffic that is being forwarded on your local network. T-Mobile is basically saying "you can listen to Spotify on your phone, but you can't listen to Spotify on your tablet unless you pay us extra first".

The amount of traffic going through T-Mobile's network is the same, so why is one allowed and the other isn't?

Because you can do much more on a server or desktop. The issue is the plan clearly states 7gb of tethering data. That is what you sign up for and when you circumvent that there is legal issues. People are running file servers and businesses off of the tethering and getting rid of their home services. People are trying to be cheap because infrastructure costs are still higher on the wireless spectrum then wired spectrum. And now that they were caught everyone's mad.

[LimpCurve]

"T-Mobile already offers a 7GB limit for tethering purposes through its $80 unlimited data plan, following which speeds are throttled. However, there are apps available that give users the ability to conceal tethering activity. A few users have been taking advantage of the workarounds to obtain unlimited tethering bandwidth."

 

If people actually bothered reading the article, you'd see why the users are at fault.

[LAwLz]

Because you can do much more on a server or desktop. The issue is the plan clearly states 7gb of tethering data. That is what you sign up for and when you circumvent that there is legal issues. People are running file servers and businesses off of the tethering and getting rid of their home services. People are trying to be cheap because infrastructure costs are still higher on the wireless spectrum then wired spectrum. And now that they were caught everyone's mad.

So stop calling it unlimited and put a limit on it then. Don't tell people what they can and can't do on their local networks.

[TroubleKlef]

So stop calling it unlimited and put a limit on it then. Don't tell people what they can and can't do on their local networks.

 

I don't think T-Mobile is telling people what they can or can't do with their local networks. Stream AirPlay to your AppleTV? Don't think they care. Run a network storage off an offline connection? Don't care. T-Mobile is cracking down on users abusing T-Mobile network by concealing their tethering activity. AFAIK, they don't care if you stream YT from your phone 24/7 but concealed tethering and things like it is what's bothering T-Mobile.

[Misanthrope]

I don't think T-Mobile is telling people what they can or can't do with their local networks. 

 

LAwLz explained this, you disagree and we get it: move on since you're basically just dragging this into a circular argument. Most of you are in fact.