Jailbreaking a Verizon iPhone to Tether With Unlimited Data

[DayThyme]

Is the app Tether available for iPhone? If so, give that a look. I used Tether on my BlackBerry for 5 years with unlimited data plan. Never had an issue. And I used a lot of data for a BlackBerry.

the problem is that iOS has been configured by Apple not to allow these apps to work. So you have to jailbreak to get them to work.

 

[iOS Gravity]

This is still going?

Galaxy, you're arguing ethics rather than law.

i7. You're focusing on Terms and Conditions. You're ignoring the ability to enforce them. If the clause in the T&C isn't legal, it can't be enforced. Bringing up the T&C is irrelevant if they're not enforceable. Simply pointing back to them doesn't negate the argument stating the clause isn't legal. This is where you two are at such an impasse.

Keith, everyone in this discussion has been bordering on Forum Guidelines, you and me included. It'd be a bit dishonest to punish anyone individually.

Regardless, I'd like i7 to explain to me how he views this as stealing. Ignore all legal interpretations. Tell me in your own ideas how you view it as stealing. If someone pays for unlimited data, wouldn't Verizon be stealing from the consumer by forcing them to use Verizon's methods to tether in order to use the data? If they're charged for the data, why would they be in a position to decide how you use it? Would they also be justified to offer unlimited data with a 20MB cap on app downloads and require a monthly fee to be allowed to download more than that 20MB? If that's not justified, why is it ok in your mind for them to only allow you to use their tethering app and no others? If it is justified, what does "unlimited data" mean to you? Also, you spend a lot of time in the jailbreak forums. Are you here to antagonize or are you here because you jailbreak? If you jailbreak, do you view violating Apple's T&C to be as nefarious as you do violating Verizon's? If not, why are Verizon's worthwhile while Apple's are not?

I was doing that before but I guess you are right.

 

[i7guy]

Is the app Tether available for iPhone? If so, give that a look. I used Tether on my BlackBerry for 5 years with unlimited data plan. Never had an issue. And I used a lot of data for a BlackBerry.

Do you remember the posts on cb where people complained verizon charged them overages where there was no tether plan on the accounts of hacked blackberrys?

 

[i7guy]

@natasftw

Does verizon have the ability to enforce its t and c? Why don't you bring your jail broken phone to Apple for repair? You know why.

Verizon doesn't limit or throttle the lte band but does that mean you can resell their bandwidth by providing tethering services? I do agree unlimited is unlimited as it applies to your phone, but it's a different story when your phone is used as a pass-through for data. There terms and conditions specify a fee for users with unlimited data plans, circumventing said fee amounts to stealing.

If verizon didn't protect themselves with the t and c you could set up a for profit kiosk and resell their lte bandwidth through your iPhone via wifi tethering. Essentially our armchair lawyer friend would have no compunction about doing so, cause according to him verizon can't regulate usage of the lte spectrum at all.

Utter b/s. That's the extreme case based on extreme views.

 

[natasftw]

Does verizon have the ability to enforce its t and c? Why don't you bring your jail broken phone to Apple for repair? You know why.

You're looking at two different questions there. One was asking if you view violating Apple's T&C as theft.

Let me try to explain the other piece. My last college job tried to force me to drive a couple of hours round trip to sign a couple paperwork items before they'd release my last paycheck. Their justification was the initial employee handbook included a clause agreeing to that and showed me the handbook with my signature saying I agreed to abide by the handbook. The clause violated both state and federal law. Needless to say, the paperwork was never signed and I collected my paycheck. After dealing with both sets of government attorneys, they decided they might want to change their policy as well. They couldn't enforce the contract because the clause violated the law.

In Verizon's case, they have several bands. The most common two these days are their 3G and LTE. The LTE bands include specific restrictions. The 3G bands do not. They include a clause in their T&C that limit your ability to use their 3G band. They've run into legal issues trying to transfer the same restriction to their LTE band. That creates a new mess for them to deal with.

Verizon doesn't limit or throttle the lte band but does that mean you can resell their bandwidth by providing tethering services? I do agree unlimited is unlimited as it applies to your phone, but it's a different story when your phone is used as a pass-through for data. There terms and conditions specify a fee for users with unlimited data plans, circumventing said fee amounts to stealing.

Who ever said anything about reselling the data? Before we get into the idea of "stealing," let's look at two scenarios. One includes a student that spends most of their time either at home or in class with wifi. Once in a while, they are unable to get onto the school's wifi. During those rare times, they tether to access the web to work on classwork. Including tethering, they're using ~500MB/mo.

Another is a media junkie. They spend hours a day on YouTube and streaming music. They go through ~3GB/mo.

If both are on the unlimited plan, which is costing Verizon more money? By finding an alternative method to tether, the first user is still using far less bandwidth than the second. Isn't it a bit misleading to claim the first is stealing from Verizon while costing Verizon less?

Ignoring potential legal ramifications, how is it ethical to you for Verizon to charge you for the service and then restrict you to their monopoly? Do you believe BiteSMS encourages stealing because it includes a method to text cheaply outside of a carrier's plan for places that don't include unlimited texting? Do you believe using Skype to make international calls is stealing because it circumvents Verizon's fees for international calls? Do you believe the monopoly Verizon is attempting to create by banning other tethering apps is just or is it an unnecessary restriction?

If verizon didn't protect themselves with the t and c you could set up a for profit kiosk and resell their lte bandwidth through your iPhone via wifi tethering. Essentially our armchair lawyer friend would have no compunction about doing so, cause according to him verizon can't regulate usage of the lte spectrum at all.

He's made no such claim. That's purely an assumption on your part. But, let's look at it anyway.

The phone has a maximum connection. That connection includes a limited "tunnel" of data. If he can only download 20Mbps, sharing his connection with 19 other people means they're each looking at an average of 1Mbps. The phone doesn't magically connect at a higher rate. When used in this manner, the phone is essentially a wireless router. Do you believe wifi routers are stealing? If I share my internet with a roomie and charge him $20 to use my net, isn't that exactly the same as reselling bandwidth? Do you believe this common arrangement between roommates is unethical and should be viewed as stealing?

 

[natasftw]

You've offered nothing to the conversation from the start. You're free to go to whatever conversation you'd like.

 

[i7guy]

You're looking at two different questions there. One was asking if you view violating Apple's T&C as theft.

I know I decided to combine the thoughts into one paragraph.

In Verizon's case, they have several bands. The most common two these days are their 3G and LTE. The LTE bands include specific restrictions. The 3G bands do not. They include a clause in their T&C that limit your ability to use their 3G band. They've run into legal issues trying to transfer the same restriction to their LTE band.

The FCC ruling implies unlimited data consumers are exempted from the decree.

Who ever said anything about reselling the data? Before we get into the idea of "stealing," let's look at two scenarios. One includes a student that spends most of their time either at home or in class with wifi. Once in a while, they are unable to get onto the school's wifi. During those rare times, they tether to access the web to work on classwork. Including tethering, they're using ~500MB/mo.

Another is a media junkie. They spend hours a day on YouTube and streaming music. They go through ~3GB/mo.

If both are on the unlimited plan, which is costing Verizon more money? By finding an alternative method to tether, the first user is still using far less bandwidth than the second. Isn't it a bit misleading to claim the first is stealing from Verizon while costing Verizon less?

Ignoring potential legal ramifications, how is it ethical to you for Verizon to charge you for the service and then restrict you to their monopoly? Do you believe BiteSMS encourages stealing because it includes a method to text cheaply outside of a carrier's plan for places that don't include unlimited texting? Do you believe using Skype to make international calls is stealing because it circumvents Verizon's fees for international calls? Do you believe the monopoly Verizon is attempting to create by banning other tethering apps is just or is it an unnecessary restriction?

He's made no such claim. That's purely an assumption on your part. But, let's look at it anyway.

The phone has a maximum connection. That connection includes a limited "tunnel" of data. If he can only download 20Mbps, sharing his connection with 19 other people means they're each looking at an average of 1Mbps. The phone doesn't magically connect at a higher rate. When used in this manner, the phone is essentially a wireless router. Do you believe wifi routers are stealing? If I share my internet with a roomie and charge him $20 to use my net, isn't that exactly the same as reselling bandwidth? Do you believe this common arrangement between roommates is unethical and should be viewed as stealing?

Reselling the data is an extension of the thought Verizon can't limit or restrict my usage of the LTE sprectrum. The notion of "stealing" I think is very clear, you know when you are doing it, if you have to justify why you are doing it, guilty. We are not discussing Verizons costs, we are discussing usage and whether the t and c has any teeth.

I don't know what bytesms does, but if it circumvents carrier controls then yes it is stealing. If it's like imessage (data based), then no, it's not stealing.

As far as a monopoly hard to justify the legal notion, maybe an oligopoly. They have lost the legal case to ban tether apps, what I don't believe they have lost is the inability to regulate data that is being passed through the iphone for unlimited customers on LTE (which is what this discussion is all about)

As far as the roommates, it seems if you are sharing bandwidth in a apartment with the same address, I don't see how anyone could call it stealing. Different legal address is another story and since you haven't volunteered your exact situation, one can't guess. I could charge my kids, rent a portion of the cable bill, food etc. nobody in the right mind would think it's stealing. However, if I open up my router to my next door neighboor and charge a fee, it's a different story.

YOu're kind of all over the place here as skype is a data app and has nothing to do with anything in this conversation, as is imessages as is whatsapp as is cnn news. Skype, imessage, whatsapp are not circumventing controls or fees.

The discussion is simple, does verizon have the ability to enforce their t and c as it relates to their network? Does circumventing the $30/mo fee to tether for unlimited data users on LTE consistute stealing? IMO Yes.

 

[iOS Gravity]

Bite SMS is a jailbreak app.

 

[natasftw]

As far as the roommates, it seems if you are sharing bandwidth in a apartment with the same address, I don't see how anyone could call it stealing. Different legal address is another story and since you haven't volunteered your exact situation, one can't guess. I could charge my kids, rent a portion of the cable bill, food etc. nobody in the right mind would think it's stealing. However, if I open up my router to my next door neighboor and charge a fee, it's a different story.

I don't see how anyone could call it stealing either. However, you've managed to make a similar claim by suggesting his usage of data is stealing. AT&T's internet T&C have a clear no resale clause. It clearly states "for your use only." Sharing your internet is a violation. By your reasoning, how is that not stealing?

YOu're kind of all over the place here as skype is a data app and has nothing to do with anything in this conversation, as is imessages as is whatsapp as is cnn news. Skype, imessage, whatsapp are not circumventing controls or fees.

The discussion is simple, does verizon have the ability to enforce their t and c as it relates to their network? Does circumventing the $30/mo fee to tether for unlimited data users on LTE consistute stealing? IMO Yes.

Let me try this one another time. The conversation is whether or not circumventing Verizon's fees by using another provider to gain the same functionality amounts to stealing. Skype offers the ability to make international phone calls. When on wifi, it will not access Verizon's phone nor data networks. You'll make international calls that circumvent Verizon's fees. Your position is circumventing fees by using a cheaper alternative is stealing. Is this cheaper alternative stealing as well?

You say none of those are circumventing fees. That's not entirely accurate. iMessage goes around the carriers texting. If texts aren't unlimited, it gets around (circumvents) the provider's fees. Hell, Skype isn't against the data plan. If someone on unlimited data opts to use Skype to make international calls, they're using Verizon's network solely to make the call while getting around the international fees. This is circumventing the fees. By your reasoning, how is this not stealing?

 

[i7guy]

The thing about Skype, iMessage are permitted usage. There is nothing in the t and c that says you can't use google voice or iMessage or Skype.

However there is a specific clause in the t and c for tethering for those customers on unlimited data. If you have a share plan or not on lte please stop reading now this May not apply to you.

I posted the t and c link as well as the FCC decree, you can reread it at your leisure.

But the simpler test is if you would have to activate personal hotspot on your non jail broken iPhone and it would add an additional fee to your bill and you avoid that charge by jail breaking, that is stealing. If personal hotspot is already enabled on your iphone, then jailbreaking to get the tether apps is not stealing.

On my iphone 5s with unlimited data, personal hotspot is not enabled, i can enable it for $30/mo. By jailbreaking, if i can use the tether apps to get same for free, it's stealing and against the t and c.

It appears this simple concept eludes some people.

 

[bobbob1016]

You're looking at two different questions there. One was asking if you view violating Apple's T&C as theft.

Let me try to explain the other piece. My last college job tried to force me to drive a couple of hours round trip to sign a couple paperwork items before they'd release my last paycheck. Their justification was the initial employee handbook included a clause agreeing to that and showed me the handbook with my signature saying I agreed to abide by the handbook. The clause violated both state and federal law. Needless to say, the paperwork was never signed and I collected my paycheck. After dealing with both sets of government attorneys, they decided they might want to change their policy as well. They couldn't enforce the contract because the clause violated the law.

In Verizon's case, they have several bands. The most common two these days are their 3G and LTE. The LTE bands include specific restrictions. The 3G bands do not. They include a clause in their T&C that limit your ability to use their 3G band. They've run into legal issues trying to transfer the same restriction to their LTE band. That creates a new mess for them to deal with.




Who ever said anything about reselling the data? Before we get into the idea of "stealing," let's look at two scenarios. One includes a student that spends most of their time either at home or in class with wifi. Once in a while, they are unable to get onto the school's wifi. During those rare times, they tether to access the web to work on classwork. Including tethering, they're using ~500MB/mo.

Another is a media junkie. They spend hours a day on YouTube and streaming music. They go through ~3GB/mo.

If both are on the unlimited plan, which is costing Verizon more money? By finding an alternative method to tether, the first user is still using far less bandwidth than the second. Isn't it a bit misleading to claim the first is stealing from Verizon while costing Verizon less?

Ignoring potential legal ramifications, how is it ethical to you for Verizon to charge you for the service and then restrict you to their monopoly? Do you believe BiteSMS encourages stealing because it includes a method to text cheaply outside of a carrier's plan for places that don't include unlimited texting? Do you believe using Skype to make international calls is stealing because it circumvents Verizon's fees for international calls? Do you believe the monopoly Verizon is attempting to create by banning other tethering apps is just or is it an unnecessary restriction?



He's made no such claim. That's purely an assumption on your part. But, let's look at it anyway.

The phone has a maximum connection. That connection includes a limited "tunnel" of data. If he can only download 20Mbps, sharing his connection with 19 other people means they're each looking at an average of 1Mbps. The phone doesn't magically connect at a higher rate. When used in this manner, the phone is essentially a wireless router. Do you believe wifi routers are stealing? If I share my internet with a roomie and charge him $20 to use my net, isn't that exactly the same as reselling bandwidth? Do you believe this common arrangement between roommates is unethical and should be viewed as stealing?

Only time now to reply to the bottom part, but, first, the way it connects isn't the same as your home internet, it changes rapidly depending on a number of factors. Second, 20Mbps to your phone is one stream, as in Netflix or whatever. If you have 20 people connecting, you have 20 different connections that need to be maintained. 20 people watching the same Netflix stream (one stream to 20 devices) is the same drain on Verizon as your example (if Netflix sends one stream down to the 20 people) but if those 20 people are watching videos from 20 different sources, that's 20x the strain on the Verizon boxes than you're paying for. This is the same with Torrents, you're making 50 connections to different places.

ISP's used to view a WiFi router as stealing, but they have less as a point, as fixed internet is much more stable, and easy to predict, Cellular depends on waaaaaay too many factors to predict. ISP's initially wanted to charge for every device behind the router, but the guy who made DHCP or whatever basically made that a moot point. I'll find the exact article for that if you want, but as this thread has been pointing to FCC cases without linking, I don't know if I have to, to be honest.

 

[natasftw]

Regardless, I'd like i7 to explain to me how he views this as stealing. Ignore all legal interpretations. Tell me in your own ideas how you view it as stealing.

The thing about Skype, iMessage are permitted usage. There is nothing in the t and c that says you can't use google voice or iMessage or Skype.

However there is a specific clause in the t and c for tethering for those customers on unlimited data. If you have a share plan or not on lte please stop reading now this May not apply to you.

I posted the t and c link as well as the FCC decree, you can reread it at your leisure.

But the simpler test is if you would have to activate personal hotspot on your non jail broken iPhone and it would add an additional fee to your bill and you avoid that charge by jail breaking, that is stealing. If personal hotspot is already enabled on your iphone, then jailbreaking to get the tether apps is not stealing.

On my iphone 5s with unlimited data, personal hotspot is not enabled, i can enable it for $30/mo. By jailbreaking, if i can use the tether apps to get same for free, it's stealing and against the t and c.

It appears this simple concept eludes some people.

I quoted a piece of my original question. As the legal debate was making things more troublesome, I wanted to see where you were coming from. You cannot claim with any certainty the T&C applies. Similarly, I cannot claim it definitely wouldn't apply to unlimited users.

Here's a simple concept that's apparently been lost on you. The entire premise for your argument is the claim that circumventing the fees by using a cheaper alternative is stealing. If this is true, it's true regardless of what the T&C contains. The T&C do not define stealing. If you have to cite the T&C to support your claim of stealing, you simply do not have a claim.

Skype circumvents Verizon's international fees by offering a cheaper alternative. MyWi circumvents Verizon's tethering fees by offering a cheaper alternative. You view one as stealing while you say the other isn't. Let me show you again how your reasoning works:

On your iPhone 5s, international calling isn't included. You can enable it for a pay per minute rate. By using Skype to make international calls, it's stealing.

Notice another simple concept, you said "stealing and against the T&C." That alone shows the two are separate ideas. They're not mutually exclusive. Everything against the T&C isn't stealing. Similarly, everything that is stealing isn't against the T&C. Your ENTIRE argument is about the T&C. I'm asking you to explain to me how it is stealing. You're either unable or unwilling to do so. If you're unwilling or unable to justify your accusations, perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to throw those kinds of claims around.

Only time now to reply to the bottom part, but, first, the way it connects isn't the same as your home internet, it changes rapidly depending on a number of factors. Second, 20Mbps to your phone is one stream, as in Netflix or whatever. If you have 20 people connecting, you have 20 different connections that need to be maintained. 20 people watching the same Netflix stream (one stream to 20 devices) is the same drain on Verizon as your example (if Netflix sends one stream down to the 20 people) but if those 20 people are watching videos from 20 different sources, that's 20x the strain on the Verizon boxes than you're paying for. This is the same with Torrents, you're making 50 connections to different places.

You're partially correct. The 20Mbps is the aggregate stream. The download cannot exceed the 20Mbps. This isn't changed dependent upon how many connections there are to the phone. The phone cannot exceed the 20Mbps. If Netflix does not use the entire 20Mbps, let's say it uses 10Mbps, then one person streaming Netflix would only use half the available data at that point in time. With two connections, they'd use twice as much data by reaching the 20Mbps download speeds. If there were 3 or more connections, Netflix would either have to drop to a lower quality stream, thus sending less data per connection, or buffer videos. Either way, the download wouldn't exceed 20Mbps. It's simply not possible to exceed the 20Mbps. This is true no matter how many devices you connect to the device. Bandwidth isn't increased. You're sharing the bandwidth you already have. Just a heads up, your first example wasn't accurate. If 20 different devices are seeking the same movie, they'd each send a request. Netflix is connection based. The broadcast you offer wouldn't take place. Instead, each would have their own individual session open that would draw the same data as if they were 20 different videos.

 

[i7guy]

I quoted a piece of my original question. As the legal debate was making things more troublesome, I wanted to see where you were coming from. You cannot claim with any certainty the T&C applies. Similarly, I cannot claim it definitely wouldn't apply to unlimited users.

Here's a simple concept that's apparently been lost on you. The entire premise for your argument is the claim that circumventing the fees by using a cheaper alternative is stealing. If this is true, it's true regardless of what the T&C contains. The T&C do not define stealing. If you have to cite the T&C to support your claim of stealing, you simply do not have a claim.

Skype circumvents Verizon's international fees by offering a cheaper alternative. MyWi circumvents Verizon's tethering fees by offering a cheaper alternative. You view one as stealing while you say the other isn't. Let me show you again how your reasoning works:

On your iPhone 5s, international calling isn't included. You can enable it for a pay per minute rate. By using Skype to make international calls, it's stealing.

Notice another simple concept, you said "stealing and against the T&C." That alone shows the two are separate ideas. They're not mutually exclusive. Everything against the T&C isn't stealing. Similarly, everything that is stealing isn't against the T&C. Your ENTIRE argument is about the T&C. I'm asking you to explain to me how it is stealing. You're either unable or unwilling to do so. If you're unwilling or unable to justify your accusations, perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to throw those kinds of claims around.



You're partially correct. The 20Mbps is the aggregate stream. The download cannot exceed the 20Mbps. This isn't changed dependent upon how many connections there are to the phone. The phone cannot exceed the 20Mbps. If Netflix does not use the entire 20Mbps, let's say it uses 10Mbps, then one person streaming Netflix would only use half the available data at that point in time. With two connections, they'd use twice as much data by reaching the 20Mbps download speeds. If there were 3 or more connections, Netflix would either have to drop to a lower quality stream, thus sending less data per connection, or buffer videos. Either way, the download wouldn't exceed 20Mbps. It's simply not possible to exceed the 20Mbps. This is true no matter how many devices you connect to the device. Bandwidth isn't increased. You're sharing the bandwidth you already have. Just a heads up, your first example wasn't accurate. If 20 different devices are seeking the same movie, they'd each send a request. Netflix is connection based. The broadcast you offer wouldn't take place. Instead, each would have their own individual session open that would draw the same data as if they were 20 different videos.

You are mixing and matching permitted uses and uses that are in violation of the t and c (for certain customers). Skype is a permitted use, it uses your data..it is a legal cheaper alternative.
- I quoted the t and c and included links to both the t and c and the FCC decree.
- I very specifically said, if you have to call up the carrier to enable personal hotspot and by jailbreaking you get it free; that is against the t and c and amounts to stealing.
- You can read the t and c and form your own conclusion.
- You have not answered my question of whether personal hotspot is enabled on your iphone by default. (I'll bet our arm chair lawyer friend does NOT have it enabled)
- You are going around discussing cheaper alternatives, circumventing fees does not consitute cheaper alternatives anymore than robbing a bank does to get an interest free loan as a cheaper alternative to a loan. (I know we can have fun with this one. )

 

[natasftw]

You are mixing and matching permitted uses and uses that are in violation of the t and c (for certain customers). Skype is a permitted use, it uses your data..it is a legal cheaper alternative.
- I quoted the t and c and included links to both the t and c and the FCC decree.
- I very specifically said, if you have to call up the carrier to enable personal hotspot and by jailbreaking you get it free; that is against the t and c and amounts to stealing.
- You can read the t and c and form your own conclusion.
- You have not answered my question of whether personal hotspot is enabled on your iphone by default. (I'll bet our arm chair lawyer friend does NOT have it enabled)
- You are going around discussing cheaper alternatives, circumventing fees does not consitute cheaper alternatives anymore than robbing a bank does to get an interest free loan as a cheaper alternative to a loan. (I know we can have fun with this one. )

I'm not on the unlimited plan. I've said in several places that I'm on the newer plan that includes the mobile hotspot.

You quoted the T&C and FCC decree. They're 100% irrelevant to the conversation of stealing.

MyWi has a cost. You're circumventing the Verizon fee to pay the MyWi fee. Similarly, in my example you circumvent the Verizon fees to pay the Skype fees. These are both cheaper alternatives. The entire point to circumvent the fees is to find a cheaper alternative. You're creating a scenario where people hack into their phone to turn on Mobile Hotspot. That's not what happens. They install an alternative app, most commonly MyWi or pdanet, to perform a similar function. If you go back in the history of jailbreaking, these alternatives existed prior to Mobile Hotspot. Apple integrated the idea into iOS.

Your analogy fails unless they are activating Mobile Hotspot. They're not. Your point, up until now, fits another analogy much better. You go to the first bank and the interest on your loan is 5%. You go to a second bank and get a 1% interest rate. The first bank had a clause in their paperwork that restricts you from using other banks to get a loan if you get a quote from them. Now, you're suggesting accepting the second loan is cheating because that quote had terms that disagree with you finding a cheaper alternative.

I'm focusing on cheaper alternative because THAT is the heart of where you're making your claim. MyWi is NOT Mobile Hotspot. It's an alternative app. Both have their cost. One is cheaper than the other. Verizon wants to lock people into Mobile Hotspot as it's free to them and makes income. It's amazing to me you don't see THAT as stealing. Mobile Hotspot is not the data. It's a feature that enables the phone to share internet with other local devices. You're mixing the two in your analogies and claims. It sounds like you're on the unlimited plan as well. If Verizon decided YouTube streaming had the potential to cost more and included a new clause in their T&C, that you've agreed can be updated by Verizon, that required a fee to use the YouTube app, would it be stealing to use Jasmine instead? They've traditionally had their own navigation apps for sale. If they decided Apple Maps conflicted with their product and disabled Apple Maps before a fee, would you be stealing to use Google Maps?

Why would you continue to tell me to read the T&C? If you have to rely on the T&C, it's not stealing. That SHOULD be a "simple concept." The T&C is a contract. It's not a legal definition of stealing. It doesn't provide an ethical definition of stealing. It creates the potential for a breach of contract. That's not the same as stealing. Every time you cite the T&C, you weaken your accusation of theft. They're two entirely different discussions.

I'm intentionally mixing permitted uses and uses in violation of the T&C. I'm doing this because the T&C are schizophrenic. They create ethical questions by allowing the same activity with one action while attempting to monetize it elsewhere. If you believe the act is stealing, you should believe this to be true regardless of the T&C. If you don't believe using Skype for international calls is stealing, you shouldn't believe using MyWi to tether is stealing. Similarly, if you believe using MyWi to tether is stealing, you should believe using Skype for international calls is stealing. If you don't, you're defining stealing by confusing it with breach of contract. Stealing is stealing whether a T&C document exists or not.

Your very specific statement shows you don't really understand the conversation. He hasn't enabled personal hotspot. By your very specific statement, he's not stealing. He's not stealing for two reasons: 1) personal hotspot is still disabled and 2) MyWi isn't free. You've been harping on this and calling him a thief when he doesn't even meet the conditions you've set. It's like me saying "if you send in a check on the due date every month instead of paying in another way, you're stealing." Then, I'd follow this statement by completely ignoring how you actually pay your bill, cite my original claim, and call you a thief. The initial claim doesn't really make sense. Then, I ignore what you're actually doing and claim you meet my original claim. Finally, I use those two "facts" to call you a thief. It's absurd.

 

[iOS Gravity]

MyWi is morally stealing although you are paying to get it. With another repo, a cracked version could be obtained for free. So you are stealing from Verizon and the original developer of MyWi.(Wasn't trying to break the piracy discussion rule)

 

[i7guy]

I'm not on the unlimited plan. I've said in several places that I'm on the newer plan that includes the mobile hotspot.
You quoted the T&C and FCC decree. They're 100% irrelevant to the conversation of stealing.

MyWi has a cost. You're circumventing the Verizon fee to pay the MyWi fee. Similarly, in my example you circumvent the Verizon fees to pay the Skype fees. These are both cheaper alternatives. The entire point to circumvent the fees is to find a cheaper alternative. You're creating a scenario where people hack into their phone to turn on Mobile Hotspot. That's not what happens. They install an alternative app, most commonly MyWi or pdanet, to perform a similar function. If you go back in the history of jailbreaking, these alternatives existed prior to Mobile Hotspot. Apple integrated the idea into iOS.

Your analogy fails unless they are activating Mobile Hotspot. They're not. Your point, up until now, fits another analogy much better. You go to the first bank and the interest on your loan is 5%. You go to a second bank and get a 1% interest rate. The first bank had a clause in their paperwork that restricts you from using other banks to get a loan if you get a quote from them. Now, you're suggesting accepting the second loan is cheating because that quote had terms that disagree with you finding a cheaper alternative.

I'm focusing on cheaper alternative because THAT is the heart of where you're making your claim. MyWi is NOT Mobile Hotspot. It's an alternative app. Both have their cost. One is cheaper than the other. Verizon wants to lock people into Mobile Hotspot as it's free to them and makes income. It's amazing to me you don't see THAT as stealing. Mobile Hotspot is not the data. It's a feature that enables the phone to share internet with other local devices. You're mixing the two in your analogies and claims. It sounds like you're on the unlimited plan as well. If Verizon decided YouTube streaming had the potential to cost more and included a new clause in their T&C, that you've agreed can be updated by Verizon, that required a fee to use the YouTube app, would it be stealing to use Jasmine instead? They've traditionally had their own navigation apps for sale. If they decided Apple Maps conflicted with their product and disabled Apple Maps before a fee, would you be stealing to use Google Maps?

Why would you continue to tell me to read the T&C? If you have to rely on the T&C, it's not stealing. That SHOULD be a "simple concept." The T&C is a contract. It's not a legal definition of stealing. It doesn't provide an ethical definition of stealing. It creates the potential for a breach of contract. That's not the same as stealing. Every time you cite the T&C, you weaken your accusation of theft. They're two entirely different discussions.

I'm intentionally mixing permitted uses and uses in violation of the T&C. I'm doing this because the T&C are schizophrenic. They create ethical questions by allowing the same activity with one action while attempting to monetize it elsewhere. If you believe the act is stealing, you should believe this to be true regardless of the T&C. If you don't believe using Skype for international calls is stealing, you shouldn't believe using MyWi to tether is stealing. Similarly, if you believe using MyWi to tether is stealing, you should believe using Skype for international calls is stealing. If you don't, you're defining stealing by confusing it with breach of contract. Stealing is stealing whether a T&C document exists or not.

Your very specific statement shows you don't really understand the conversation. He hasn't enabled personal hotspot. By your very specific statement, he's not stealing. He's not stealing for two reasons: 1) personal hotspot is still disabled and 2) MyWi isn't free. You've been harping on this and calling him a thief when he doesn't even meet the conditions you've set. It's like me saying "if you send in a check on the due date every month instead of paying in another way, you're stealing." Then, I'd follow this statement by completely ignoring how you actually pay your bill, cite my original claim, and call you a thief. The initial claim doesn't really make sense. Then, I ignore what you're actually doing and claim you meet my original claim. Finally, I use those two "facts" to call you a thief. It's absurd.

See bold, this discussion has been conflated. My specific question was on unlimited users circumventing the $30 fee. I know you have mobile hotspot...that is why I keep saying: UNLIMITED USERS WHO CIRCUMVENT THE $30 FEE as discussed in the t and cl which amounts to activitating personal hotspot.

I still don't understand if this is possible or not. Please educate the forum on this as I can't jailbreak my phone due to a signed agreement.

 

[natasftw]

MyWi is morally stealing although you are paying to get it. With another repo, a cracked version could be obtained for free. So you are stealing from Verizon and the original developer of MyWi.(Wasn't trying to break the piracy discussion rule)

Now you're confusing two new ideas. Pirating is stealing. In your example, it's stealing from MyWi's developers.

What you just said is similar to claiming that someone finding a way to mess with Skype's system to get free credits guarantees Skype is stealing from Verizon. By doing this, there is a potential that Skype can be used completely for free. With the potentially free Skype, they can now get international calls for free.

There's no such thing as morally stealing. You can believe using the cheaper alternative is immoral. You can believe it's theft, although your belief appears to be inconsistent. Moral theft is imaginary. Let me help you with this idea. Two people steal $5. The first feels guilty. The second believes they've done nothing wrong. Both have a very different set of morals. Morals are relative. Theft is not. If you have to attempt to explain the stealing by turning it into a relative conversation, it's not stealing. Hence, moral theft is imaginary.

 

[natasftw]

See bold, this discussion has been conflated. My specific question was on unlimited users circumventing the $30 fee. I know you have mobile hotspot...that is why I keep saying: UNLIMITED USERS WHO CIRCUMVENT THE $30 FEE as discussed in the t and cl which amounts to activitating personal hotspot.

I still don't understand if this is possible or not. Please educate the forum on this as I can't jailbreak my phone due to a signed agreement.

Saying that is equal to saying SHOPPING FOR CHEAPER INTEREST RATES AMOUNTS TO STEALING FROM THE FIRST BANK. Bolding it doesn't make it any less absurd. It's not activating Mobile Hotspot. It's using another app to perform similar functions. You install the MyWi app. The MyWi app is programmed separately, and prior to, Mobile Hotspot.

I never claimed you accused me of stealing. I just have an objection to anyone making that claim while using asinine logic.

If you knew I had Mobile Hotspot enabled, why in the world would you say:

You have not answered my question of whether personal hotspot is enabled on your iphone by default. (I'll bet our arm chair lawyer friend does NOT have it enabled)

That doesn't even begin to make sense. You'd only know if I told you. You can't claim I haven't answered and then say "I know... that is why I keep saying..." when I answer it again. That is NOT why you've kept saying that. You wanted to look down on someone else and call them a thief. The longer this goes on, the more "simple" it becomes to see that. You remain unwilling, or unable, to rationalize it as theft.

 

[i7guy]

Saying that is equal to saying SHOPPING FOR CHEAPER INTEREST RATES AMOUNTS TO STEALING FROM THE FIRST BANK. Bolding it doesn't make it any less absurd. It's not activating Mobile Hotspot. It's using another app to perform similar functions. You install the MyWi app. The MyWi app is programmed separately, and prior to, Mobile Hotspot.

I never claimed you accused me of stealing. I just have an objection to anyone making that claim while using asinine logic.

If you knew I had Mobile Hotspot enabled, why in the world would you say:

That doesn't even begin to make sense. You'd only know if I told you. You can't claim I haven't answered and then say "I know... that is why I keep saying..." when I answer it again. That is NOT why you've kept saying that. You wanted to look down on someone else and call them a thief. The longer this goes on, the more "simple" it becomes to see that. You remain unwilling, or unable, to rationalize it as theft.

The bold is where I believe you and I part ways. If you have to activate mobile hotstop on a non-jailbroken iphone, you have to pay VZW $30/mo according to the T and C. It is not substituting a cheaper alternative, it's the avoidance of paying a monthly fee. You are not buying an app, you are required by VZW to pay this money. I view that as stealing. You can couch it in cheaper alternatives from now until the cows come home.

It's no different than cutting through the ez-pass lanes without an ez-pass. You will get caught eventually. On to a different question: does Verizon care about which tether app your use. I say no. The other question is: do they care that you tether when in fact you haven't been authorized to tether? That I do believe they care about.

Your whole discussion is pointless, because you do not believe there could be the remote possibility that people who jailbreak their iphone 5's on LTE that have to pay VZW a fee who can circumvent that fee, could be stealing. You call it cheaper alternatives. Like my bank robbery example is a cheaper alternative to a loan.

 

[natasftw]

The bold is where I believe you and I part ways. If you have to activate mobile hotstop on a non-jailbroken iphone, you have to pay VZW $30/mo according to the T and C. It is not substituting a cheaper alternative, it's the avoidance of paying a monthly fee. You are not buying an app, you are required by VZW to pay this money. I view that as stealing. You can couch it in cheaper alternatives from now until the cows come home.

It's no different than cutting through the ez-pass lanes without an ez-pass. You will get caught eventually. On to a different question: does Verizon care about which tether app your use. I say no. The other question is: do they care that you tether when in fact you haven't been authorized to tether? That I do believe they care about.

Your whole discussion is pointless, because you do not believe there could be the remote possibility that people who jailbreak their iphone 5's on LTE that have to pay VZW a fee who can circumvent that fee, could be stealing. You call it cheaper alternatives. Like my bank robbery example is a cheaper alternative to a loan.

It's only pointless because you're making terrible analogies. In the case your analogies apply, you're correct. The problem is, they don't.

Let's look at a detailed discussion as using general ideas isn't getting anywhere.

You pay Verizon a fee for data of some amount. There are various ways to use this data.
Verizon offers Mobile Hotspot for a fee to plans that still have unlimited data as an option. We've agreed up until here.

Mobile Hotspot does not add any additional data. It offers and additional service allowing the phone to act similar to a wifi router. It does not use a separate data stream. It uses the data already there. This is where your two analogies fail. In your ez-pass analogy, the driver uses the same roads to get to his destination without paying. This is the same as using Mobile Hotspot. The data, much like the destinations, is there regardless of the means you use to get to your laptop. Your analogy is true if you claim using MyWi is no different than using the access road. In this analogy, the destinations do not change. The only change is the means one uses to get between the two destinations. If you believe using the access road is stealing from the ez-pass, then I can understand why you view MyWi as stealing.

Your bank robbery uses the same exact cash. That's where your analogy fails. That's why I fixed your analogy to include the second bank. MyWi is the second bank. You're not using Mobile Hotspot. The data was already paid for. You cannot use an analogy that double dips on the data fee. You're only able to claim the Mobile Hotspot service.

I do believe there's a "remote possibility." You just haven't picked up on that. I've claimed you'd be right if people were enabling Mobile Hotspot. This would be no different than pirating paid apps. You'd find a crack that disables the ability for Mobile Hotspot to check for payment. That is definitely stealing. But, that's not what is happening in this discussion. In fact, a realistic point of view would claim YOUR discussion is pointless. You're focusing on a make believe scenario and using that to justify your claims. If you were to use the actual situation, your claims are baseless. I call MyWi and pdanet cheaper alternatives. That's what they are. Your bank analogy is asinine. By robbing the same bank, you're not allowing for the possibility of competing banks. MyWi and pdanet are not the "same bank." They are competitors. Your entire argument boils down to you making the claim that using competitors is stealing.

Let's give another example using the ideas you've focused your entire argument on. If Verizon were to sign you to a two-year agreement with the T&C including a clause that claimed you were not able to use other cellular providers for 5 years from the end of your contract, would you view it as stealing from Verizon to use AT&T shortly after you cancelled your Verizon contract? That is the same idea as you're offering here. "It's against their T&C to use a competitor so it's stealing."