t-mobile bans user's own apps
andreas at kostyrka.org
Wed Feb 28 15:21:11 CET 2007
* Wolfgang S. Rupprecht <wolfgang.rupprecht+gnus200702 at gmail.com> [070228 00:06]:
> "Dean Collins" <Dean at cognation.net> writes:
> > Yep saw that in Slashdot, bit of confusion are they cracking down on
> > existing data levels for cheaper data offerings (something called TZones
> > or similar) or if totally banning.
> > Point is, vote with your feet and go to cingular or someone else.
> I tried my best to understand the 8+ different Cingular data offerings
> and it seems at first glance that each of them either requires using a
> device bought from Cingular or approved by name (eg. the various
> "Blackberry" planes)
Well, the Smartphone, Data and Laptop plans should work. OTOH, it's
basic stupidity, because they seem to sell the same product
"unlimited" internet access with different prices depending upon which
device you insert your SIM card into. So IANAL, but I guess you should
be ok to use the Smartphone plan, as the Neo is a smartphone ;)
The problem, why this is stupid, is the fact that many smartphones
allow sharing the internet access to a laptop via Bluetooth. They can
disable this on their own "enhanced" brand phones, but buying the same
phone from the manufacturer will include this subversive features.
(btw, that makes sometimes sense, because my phone has better
reception than my UMTS data card.)
GPRS/UMTS offers basically one way to differate data offerings, by
offering different APNs (access point names). E.g. my phone offers
basically three APNs (Blackberry, T-Mobile MMS, Internet). Blackberry
will probably connect you to a special network garden, that allows for
pushing email. MMS allows sending/receiving MMS. And internet is
basically a NAT-ed internet access.
Now offering the same network destination (Internet) with different
prices attached depending upon the device used is a creative way for
the legal department, but it's hard to implement network-wise. The
only thing would be that Cingular only allows connecting via
pre-authenticated EMEI-identified phones. Haven't heard yet that they
do this to their customers.
The alternate way would be to log the EMEI, decode (if that's at all
possible) what device it is, and later sue your customer. (If that's
their strategy, I guess that they had help from some SCO managers on
the dole ;) )
More information about the community