John Navas wrote:
> On 16 Nov 2006 23:24:05 -0800, "RMZ" <Jeremy.Deats@gmail.com> wrote in
> <1163748245.858485.147370@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups. com>:
>
> >That sounds about right according to Cingular's confusing written
> >policy.
> >
> >I respect that you work for the company and are trying to clarify their
> >policy, but here's some information you may not have. This are not
> >opinion pieces, they are assertive facts.
> >
> >1. On the SmartPhone devices (i.e. 2125, 8125, 3125) these models have
> >a program called ModemLink that "tethers" in a way that the service
> >provider can not detect tethering by conventional means, to use
> >non-technical terms, it just passes the data on through to the virtual
> >"modem" driver running on the desktop PC via USB. I got this from a
> >Microsoft Engineer close to the design of the Windows Mobile 5 OS that
> >runs on these devices.
>
> There actually are ways tethering like that can be detected and/or
> defeated. Next time check with a cellular engineer, instead of a
> Windoze jockey.
>

The only way your statement is true is if Cingular has some form of
application written into the device OS firmware that logs this sort of
thing and makes it available to the provider. If that were the case, a
Windows Engineer would know, since the Smartphone devices run Windows.
The Windows Mobile 5 OS controls every aspect of the hardware.

So can you explain how, I mean do you understand the technical aspects
of how the provider could detect this and say for certain this
Microsoft Engineer is mistaken? If so, in laymans terms I'd like to
know. Mr. Navas, I'm a software engineer by profession, and I
understand the technical aspects of the Windows Mobile 5 devices quite
well. I won't claim the same for the other hardware, but with these
devices and given my source I believe 100% you are mistaken on this,
but if you can explain the technical aspects to justify what you've
said then I may change my mind.

The only way I can think of that they could audit this is if they could
detect how often ModemLink is running. The security architecture of
SmartPhones is published, there is no way for a provider to audit
what's running on the device. What they can do is make it so only
certified applications can run and they can also maintain a list server
of unauthorized application that they do not allow. That's the extent
of it, the ModemLink application in question is part of the firmware
and can not be blocked in this way.

The provider can only audit the amount of data and the source IP
addresses that the device is connecting to and of course they can tell
which gateway you are connecting to.

They can anaysis the data and if they, for example see that you're
accessing a media heavy site like YouTube.com they could make an
assumption that you are tethering, but the resources required to do
this kind of web traffic marshalling makes it unlikely, and it would be
extreemly hard on the Windows Mobile platform, because these devices
are hand held computers, for all they know I could be developing a
mobile YouTube player.

Windows Mobile blurs the line between desktop PC, PDA and mobile phone.
For a technical standpoint I would imagine it's a nightmare for a
company like Cingular that preys on consumer ignorance with their
unethical data connect policies. You want to to look at www.google.com
on you phone, fine if you want to pipe that data to a desktop or laptop
PC the logical design would be not to not restrict that, which is
another reason I believe my source.

I would also assert that if Cingular had the technical means to audit
this and charge customers using ModemLink in a way that violates their
written policy (as many, including yourself have claimed) that they
would do so. That would makes sesne wouldn't it? But they haven't.

It's not rocket science, you combine the facts you know and then add in
the second hand information you have from quality sources, then you
apply a little deductive reasoning and you end up with pretty good
theory.

Of course you're free to use whatever system you want to form your
beliefs what you want. From you comments I take it that comes heavily
from second hand information Cingular themselves. But as the great
Economist Steven Levitt has said "conventional wisdom is often wrong".
The answer is often outside the box.





> >2. Authorized or not, I know several people who "tether" regularly over
> >a MediaNET umlimited account (using MediaNet authorized WAP.CINGULAR
> >gateway, not ISP.CINGULAR) without any disconnect or strange billing
> >issues, we pay our $20/month and are glad we bought a Windows Mobile
> >based phone. The method by which this can be done actually came from
> >Microsoft, one infamous Microsoft Software Engineer who publicly posted
> >on his blog back in Fev 06 gave the details, I communicated with him by
> >e-mail last month and he confirmed, nine months of happy MediaNET
> >Unlimited tethering and no unexpected charges.
>
> How to do that with virtually any GSM mobile device actually far
> predates anything from Microsoft -- I posted it to Usenet shortly after
> the original MEdia Works Unlimited was released by Cingular. Again,
> next time check cellular resources, not Microsloth.
>
> >3. For further confirmation, after hours of being tossed around from
> >dept to dept. I finally had a Cingular rep (over their phone support)
> >tell me that tethering was allowed although "not publicly advertised"
> >over their $20/month MediaNET with their Microsoft SmartPhones "as long
> >as you use the WAP gateway". I was also told that Cingular does not
> >audit the WAP gateway if a customer has MediaNET Unlimited on their
> >account.
>
> Apparently true.
>
> >Want to stay on 24/7, doesn't matter to them, this is one of
> >those rare times where "unlimited" means exactly that. Cingular could
> >of course add terms to change how "unlimited" is defined, but they
> >haven't as of yet.
>
> Cingular apparently does look at the top (ab)users of wireless data, an
> easy thing to do from back end (e.g., billing) systems (not the WAP
> gateway). See "Article re CELCOs clamping down on 'unlimited'"
> <http://groups.google.com/group/alt.cellular.cingular/browse_frm/thread/c9a24a0c82061d9e/>
> and <http://www.techweb.com/wire/mobile/187202664>:
>
> The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday that Verizon Wireless has
> been sending out service cancellation notices to high-speed EV-DO
> cellular data customers who the operator claims over-use the
> service. The Journal also reported that Sprint and Cingular are
> assessing additional fees to heavy 3G users.
>
> >While I applicate you trying to clear this up, what I've stated above
> >is fact. ...
>
> Not entirely.
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>