In article <slrnsf8i8t.1ess.g.kreme@m1mini.local>, Lewis
<g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote:

> >> > Prior to AT&T getting the iPhone, carriers generally did not
> >> > differentiate between normal and "tethered" use. It was AT&T who
> >> > required Apple to introduce differentiation and its systems then started
> >> > to treat normal vs tethered differently. Other carriers followed suit.
> >>
> >> This is not only totally wrong, but also totally idiotic. The mechanism
> >> for seeing if you are tethered is a root part of TCP/IP and uses the TTL
> >> that shows the NATed devices with a TTL 1 greater than the device
> >> itself.
>
> > the usual method is a different apn or another flag whose name i can't
> > recall, which could be changed on some phones if the msl was known.
>
> For data that was within the cell network, but for Internet use it's the
> TTL.

not always.

> In fact, you can hack certain cellular routers to set the TTL for all
> connected devices to the same, thus getting unlimited data without the
> cellular provide knowing you are tethering.

not if they use a different method.

the link below lists several methods, including the mac address and
what the destination server is. for example, if someone connects to
windows update servers, it's probably a tethered windows pc, not a
phone.

<https://android.stackexchange.com/questions/47819/how-can-phone-compani
es-detect-tethering-incl-wifi-hotspot>

> I have not doe this myself as I have no need for it, but I know someone
> who does for their frequent road-trip vacations that last a few months
> at a time.

i used to use the other methods.

On 7/17/2021 3:40 PM, JF Mezei wrote:

<snip>

> In other countries, tethering was available unrestricted for quite a bit
> fo time before iPhone arrived and carrers started to restrict it
> "because they could".

It really wasn't "because they could," it was really because they had
to. Any loophole that enabled users to use more data, at higher speed,
at lower cost, would quickly be taken advantage of, overwhelming the
network without providing sufficient revenue to increase network capacity.

On 2021-07-17 18:58, nospam wrote:

>> Prior to AT&T getting the iPhone, carriers generally did not
>> differentiate between normal and "tethered" use.
>
> yes they did.

Handsets before the iPhone did not support different APNs for tethering
so there was no differentiation between the two types of traffic. And
remember that prior to iPhone, carriers had far lower usage limits so
you would reach limit very quckly when tethering on laptop so it wasn't
a big issue for network capacity.

Apple succeeded in getting carriers to provide much mroe generous gig
limits. (In Canada, Rogers was *forced" by Apple to provide 6GB for $30
(on top of voice service) where in the past it provided GPRS in megabytes.

In article <k%2JI.47583$dp5.29235@fx48.iad>, JF Mezei
<jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

>
> >> Prior to AT&T getting the iPhone, carriers generally did not
> >> differentiate between normal and "tethered" use.
> >
> > yes they did.
>
>
> Handsets before the iPhone did not support different APNs for tethering
> so there was no differentiation between the two types of traffic.

they most certainly did. i had several of them.

there are also other methods to determine tether versus non-tether.

> And
> remember that prior to iPhone, carriers had far lower usage limits so
> you would reach limit very quckly when tethering on laptop so it wasn't
> a big issue for network capacity.

false.

> Apple succeeded in getting carriers to provide much mroe generous gig
> limits. (In Canada, Rogers was *forced" by Apple to provide 6GB for $30
> (on top of voice service) where in the past it provided GPRS in megabytes.

when the iphone launched in 2007, at&t offered unlimited data (as well
as lower priced capped plans).

at&t grossly underestimated how much data people would use, and that's
*without* tethering.

their network was very quickly overloaded, resulting in numerous
complaints about shitty service, mostly in dense urban areas such as
new york city and san francisco.

that was a significant reason why at&t delayed offering the ability to
tether despite iphoneos (as it was called at the time) fully supporting
it.

On 7/18/2021 4:42 PM, JF Mezei wrote:
> On 2021-07-17 18:58, nospam wrote:
>
>>> Prior to AT&T getting the iPhone, carriers generally did not
>>> differentiate between normal and "tethered" use.
>>
>> yes they did.
>
>
> Handsets before the iPhone did not support different APNs for tethering
> so there was no differentiation between the two types of traffic. And
> remember that prior to iPhone, carriers had far lower usage limits so
> you would reach limit very quckly when tethering on laptop so it wasn't
> a big issue for network capacity.
>
> Apple succeeded in getting carriers to provide much mroe generous gig
> limits. (In Canada, Rogers was *forced" by Apple to provide 6GB for $30
> (on top of voice service) where in the past it provided GPRS in megabytes.

nospam is wrong of course™.

Once the carriers began providing more data that's when they started
worrying about tethering. Some of them imposed extra fees if you used
your data allocation while tethering. So you then had apps that let you
tether without paying that fee but the carriers were often able to
figure out when a user was tethering.

In article <sd2hhu$cl4$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> >>> Prior to AT&T getting the iPhone, carriers generally did not
> >>> differentiate between normal and "tethered" use.
> >>
> >> yes they did.
> >
> >
> > Handsets before the iPhone did not support different APNs for tethering
> > so there was no differentiation between the two types of traffic. And
> > remember that prior to iPhone, carriers had far lower usage limits so
> > you would reach limit very quckly when tethering on laptop so it wasn't
> > a big issue for network capacity.
> >
> > Apple succeeded in getting carriers to provide much mroe generous gig
> > limits. (In Canada, Rogers was *forced" by Apple to provide 6GB for $30
> > (on top of voice service) where in the past it provided GPRS in megabytes.
>
> sms & jf mezei are wrong of course.

ftfy

> Once the carriers began providing more data that's when they started
> worrying about tethering. Some of them imposed extra fees if you used
> your data allocation while tethering. So you then had apps that let you
> tether without paying that fee but the carriers were often able to
> figure out when a user was tethering.

that was long before the iphone was even an idea, let alone an actual
shipping product.

i had phones at least as far back as 2000 that could detect tethering
versus non-tethering via apn or other methods. the speeds available at
the time from the carriers were the limiting factor, but were fine for
things such as ssh.

On 2021-07-18 21:11, nospam wrote:

> i had phones at least as far back as 2000 that could detect tethering

As one who has defended Verizon so much, I have to ask: Which carrier
were you with in 2000?

In article <5MtJI.63119$VU3.22606@fx46.iad>, JF Mezei
<jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

>
> > i had phones at least as far back as 2000 that could detect tethering
>
> As one who has defended Verizon so much,

i have never defended verizon.

> I have to ask: Which carrier
> were you with in 2000?

sprint at that time, and very familiar with tethering on all carriers
since that was something i did on a regular basis.

On Jul 19, 2021, JF Mezei wrote
(in article <5MtJI.63119$VU3.22606@fx46.iad>):

> On 2021-07-18 21:11, nospam wrote:
>
> > i had phones at least as far back as 2000 that could detect tethering
>
> As one who has defended Verizon so much, I have to ask: Which carrier
> were you with in 2000?

Forget about 2000. In 1987 I had a Nokia brick on GTE MobileNet which eventually became Verizon.

--
Regards,
Savageduck

In article <0001HW.26A7126F06612E1B70000F72E38F@news.giganews.com>,
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> >
> > > i had phones at least as far back as 2000 that could detect tethering
> >
> > As one who has defended Verizon so much, I have to ask: Which carrier
> > were you with in 2000?
>
> Forget about 2000. In 1987 I had a Nokia brick on GTE MobileNet which eventually became Verizon.

were you tethering it to your mac se ?

On 7/20/2021 7:17 AM, Savageduck wrote:
> On Jul 19, 2021, JF Mezei wrote
> (in article <5MtJI.63119$VU3.22606@fx46.iad>):
>
>> On 2021-07-18 21:11, nospam wrote:
>>
>>> i had phones at least as far back as 2000 that could detect tethering
>>
>> As one who has defended Verizon so much, I have to ask: Which carrier
>> were you with in 2000?
>
> Forget about 2000. In 1987 I had a Nokia brick on GTE MobileNet which eventually became Verizon.

I had a Radio Shanty brick on GTE Mobilnet. AT&T didn't serve Silicon
Valley until they took over the Cellular One network. I recall people
buying AT&T service up in Sacramento then using it in the Bay Area
because AT&T was offering nationwide roaming, and AT&T being upset about
it because Bay Area users were roaming most of the time.

On 2021-07-20 09:26, nospam wrote:

>> were you with in 2000?
>
> sprint at that time, and very familiar with tethering on all carriers
> since that was something i did on a regular basis.

The only carriers with whom you could have had experience with GSM
Thetering and APNs were Voicestream and Omnipoint (not sure if they had
already merged and not sure if they had deployed GPRS by then) and I
think Pac Bell was also GSM at that point but not sure.

By 2000's Sprint's GSM network in Washington DC had long been sold to
Omnipoint/Voicestream (now called T-Mobile).

If you were with Sprint, you could not have any knowledge of how
thethering worked on GSM networks and wouldn't have known that it was
still needed to manually enter the APN for GPRS service because that
part of proviosioning wasn't yet part of OTA provisioning standards.

CDMA didn't get the equivalent of GPRS (1XRTT) actually deployed until
2002, so you coudln't have had experience with tethering on a CDMA
network in 2000.

AT&T started its conversion from TDMA (IS-136) to GSM 2G in 2001.
(along with its then partly owned partner Cantel AT&T in Canada (now
Rogers Wireless). The migration was done because IS-136 was a dead end
and its channels were too narrow to offer decent speeds. The GSM
channels were much wider (GSM 2G also used time division but as each
time-divided channel was wider, each time slot within a channel allowed
far more data to be transmitted).

There is similar difference in 3G where both GSM and CDMA used code
division multiple access, but the GSM implememntation used wider
channels so have far greater capacity which is why HSPA managed to get
speeds up to 42mbps while CDMA2000 was stuck at 3mbps.

In article <SLGJI.48840$h8.9490@fx47.iad>, JF Mezei
<jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

>
> CDMA didn't get the equivalent of GPRS (1XRTT) actually deployed until
> 2002, so you coudln't have had experience with tethering on a CDMA
> network in 2000.

not only could i, but i did.

note the copyright date of 2000:
<https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/cYMAAOSwCdVe65uH/s-l1600.jpg>
<https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/wHUAAOSwFjZe65uS/s-l1600.jpg>
<https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/5fEAAOSwEfJe65uN/s-l1600.jpg>

<https://www.altaba.com/news-releases/news-release-details/sprint-brings-
power-wireless-internet-palm-your-hand>
Aug 11, 1999

Sprint Brings The Power Of The Wireless Internet To The Palm Of
Your Hand With The Introduction Of The Sprint PCS Wireless Web
....
SPRINT PCS WIRELESS WEB CONNECTION: Sprint PCS customers will
be able to do virtually anything they do today while tethered to a
wireline modem - "on the go," and wirelessly. Sprint PCS Wireless
Web Connection will allow users with laptops, palmtops or other
personal digital assistants (PDAs) to connect to the nation's largest
all-digital, all-PCS nationwide wireless network. Designed with the
mobile workforce in mind, connectivity is the latest offering within
The Sprint PCS Clear Wireless Workplace - a suite of simple, flexible
wireless business solutions. Connection allows Sprint PCS customers
to use their Sprint PCS Phones in place of a modem to connect to
their important, personal information tools and corporate networking
content, such as email, schedules, task lists, contacts/address
books, order forms and key documents.
....
The Sprint PCS Wireless Web Connection Kit enables a customer to
access information simply by connecting one end of the cable to the
serial port on most popular portable computing devices (such as a
laptop, Palm Pilot, Windows CE device or other PDA) and the other end
to the port on the Sprint PCS Phone. No special changes are needed
on the corporate network or "back end" for the customer to use
connectivity to access information "real time."...

On 2021-07-20 10:32, nospam wrote:

>> Forget about 2000. In 1987 I had a Nokia brick on GTE MobileNet which eventually became Verizon.
>
> were you tethering it to your mac se ?

Starting in about 1992, the Motorola AMPS flip phones allowed a dialup
modem to be plugged in the phone with a special adaptor. You would dial
on the handset, and do dummy ATDT of any number on modem, and you could
then connect to a remote modem. (But this was dependant on good sound
quality of the air link - all analogue).

With GSM 2G before GPRS, they had circuit switched data where the phone
acted as a RS232 extension cord to a dialup modem located in carrier's
premises.

A call was made to one such modem (so billed by minute as a voice call),
but being digital, the link acted as an RS232 extension cord between
your laptop and the modem at the carrier's premises. When you typed in
the ATDT command, it would be sent to the modem at remote end whoch
would dial the number and connect you. As a "phone call", this was
limited to your allocated 1 time slot in one channel.

GPRS changed things by replacing dialup modems with IP routers (and
expecting the handset to talk IP), and most importantly, did away with
circuit switched approach and data was transmitted via one or more time
slots that were not used for voice. (Voice calls had priority to a time
slot, so when voice call was connected, it would take a time slot away
from the pool availble to GPRS).

I don't recall whether time slots were dynamically assigned to
individual GPRS users or whether each user had permanently assigned time
slots during the session.

moving from 2G to 3G kept the same service principles (APN etc), but the
air interface was completely changed from the old time division time
slot approach.

Interestingly, for LTE, while the air interface doesn't have time slots,
the interface "manager" hands out transmission tokens. Those tokens can
be prioritized and this is why VoLTE gets prioirity and better voice
quality than Skype because Skype is "data" and VoLTE has priority access
to the capacity at a tower. (carriers requested this design to
purposefully get around net neutrality rules so their voice service
would be better quality).

5G is even worse as it extends the carrier's ability to define different
"service" each with its own priority in getting transmission slots.
(Telus in Canada has been discussing its own health services needing
ability to have priority to transmit medical images, while competing
health services would just be regular data without that priority).

So with 5G, one can theortically have many many APNs each for different
types of applciations and I have no idea how handsets manage that.

In article <JrHJI.5272$gE.2432@fx21.iad>, JF Mezei
<jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> Starting in about 1992, the Motorola AMPS flip phones allowed a dialup
> modem to be plugged in the phone with a special adaptor. You would dial
> on the handset, and do dummy ATDT of any number on modem, and you could
> then connect to a remote modem. (But this was dependant on good sound
> quality of the air link - all analogue).

<https://www.arcelect.com/Cellular_Digita_Packet_Data-CDPD.htm>
Here's how it works: During transmission across cellular telephone
channels, there are moments when the channel is idle. In fact,
industry research indicates that over 30 percent of air time, even
during heavy traffic, is unused. CDPD technology is able to detect
and use these otherwise wasted moments by packaging data in small
packets and sending it in short "bursts" during the idle time. As a
result, the cellular channel operates more efficiently, and voice and
data transmissions are unaffected. CDPD is based on the same
communications protocol as the Internet, so mobile users have
access to the broadest range of information.  

> ... and I have no idea how handsets manage that.

yep.

On 7/20/2021 1:56 PM, JF Mezei wrote:

<snip>

> The only carriers with whom you could have had experience with GSM
> Thetering and APNs were Voicestream and Omnipoint (not sure if they had
> already merged and not sure if they had deployed GPRS by then) and I
> think Pac Bell was also GSM at that point but not sure.

Pac Bell was GSM from the start. When Cingular bought SBC, which owned
Pacific Bell, they got the Pac Bell 1900 MHz GSM network. When Cingular
bought AT&T they sold off the 1900 MHz GSM network to T-Mobile, and
later changed their name to AT&T.

I foolishly signed up for Pac Bell Wireless when it was launched because
they had the lowest cost service. Struggled with them for the one year
of the contract. Coverage was abysmal and the network was very congested.

Did you ever watch Stephen Colbert's bit on AT&T?
<https://techstaffer.blog/2020/02/18/colbert-report-explaining-atts-history-3/>.

On 2021-07-20 17:30, nospam wrote:
> In article <SLGJI.48840$h8.9490@fx47.iad>, JF Mezei
> <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>
>>
>> CDMA didn't get the equivalent of GPRS (1XRTT) actually deployed until
>> 2002, so you coudln't have had experience with tethering on a CDMA
>> network in 2000.
>
> not only could i, but i did.
>
> note the copyright date of 2000:
> <https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/cYMAAOSwCdVe65uH/s-l1600.jpg>
> <https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/wHUAAOSwFjZe65uS/s-l1600.jpg>
> <https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/5fEAAOSwEfJe65uN/s-l1600.jpg>
>
> <https://www.altaba.com/news-releases/news-release-details/sprint-brings-
> power-wireless-internet-palm-your-hand>

Suggest you get the .pdf of the instructions for this service. This was
equivalent to the original dial up service in GSM where you connected to
a model at Sprint facility to make outbound call from there with thec
computer connected to phone with serial cable and phone acting as RS232
extension to your serial cable.

No APNs, no TCPIP in the service. Just raw 8 bit transfers on a serial
link. (over which you could use PPP and encapsulate TCP packets if you
connected to an ISP).

On 2021-07-20 17:56, nospam wrote:

> <https://www.arcelect.com/Cellular_Digita_Packet_Data-CDPD.htm>

That is totally different. This is a totally separate radio that makes
the equivalent of using white space between TV channels. Not that is was
in use in USA in early 1990s when the USA had NO digital mobile and was
all AMPS.

Am 19.07.21 um 03:11 schrieb nospam:
> i had phones at least as far back as 2000 that could detect tethering
> versus non-tethering via apn or other methods.

Wikipedia:

The iPhone is a line of smartphones designed and marketed by Apple Inc.
that use Apple's iOS mobile operating system. The first-generation
iPhone was announced by former Apple CEO Steve Jobs on *January 9*, *2007*.

--
De gustibus non est disputandum

On Jul 20, 2021, nospam wrote
(in article<200720211032423903%nospam@nospam.invalid>):

> In article<0001HW.26A7126F06612E1B70000F72E38F@news.giganews.com>,
> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
> > >
> > > > i had phones at least as far back as 2000 that could detect tethering
> > >
> > > As one who has defended Verizon so much, I have to ask: Which carrier
> > > were you with in 2000?
> >
> > Forget about 2000. In 1987 I had a Nokia brick on GTE MobileNet which eventually became Verizon.
>
> were you tethering it to your mac se ?

Of course not. I had yet to buy my first Mac, I was still running my Apple ][e with DuoDrives and a bunch of expansion cards. That and a steam drive modem.

--
Regards,
Savageduck

In article <91PJI.11612$7k7.11378@fx11.iad>, JF Mezei
<jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> >> CDMA didn't get the equivalent of GPRS (1XRTT) actually deployed until
> >> 2002, so you coudln't have had experience with tethering on a CDMA
> >> network in 2000.
> >
> > not only could i, but i did.
> >
> > note the copyright date of 2000:
> > <https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/cYMAAOSwCdVe65uH/s-l1600.jpg>
> > <https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/wHUAAOSwFjZe65uS/s-l1600.jpg>
> > <https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/5fEAAOSwEfJe65uN/s-l1600.jpg>
> >
> > <https://www.altaba.com/news-releases/news-release-details/sprint-brings-
> > power-wireless-internet-palm-your-hand>
>
>
> Suggest you get the .pdf of the instructions for this service. This was
> equivalent to the original dial up service in GSM where you connected to
> a model at Sprint facility to make outbound call from there with thec
> computer connected to phone with serial cable and phone acting as RS232
> extension to your serial cable.

i suggest you stop trying to tell me what i did and didn't do.

the fact is that i was tethering back then, and the phone could detect
it versus a normal voice call.

In article <sd8g4d$8th$1@dont-email.me>, Joerg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.ch>
wrote:

> Am 19.07.21 um 03:11 schrieb nospam:
> > i had phones at least as far back as 2000 that could detect tethering
> > versus non-tethering via apn or other methods.
>
> Wikipedia:
>
> The iPhone is a line of smartphones designed and marketed by Apple Inc.
> that use Apple's iOS mobile operating system. The first-generation
> iPhone was announced by former Apple CEO Steve Jobs on *January 9*, *2007*.

read what i wrote again. hint: it's not about the iphone.

In article <74PJI.49486$h8.11093@fx47.iad>, JF Mezei
<jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

>
> > <https://www.arcelect.com/Cellular_Digita_Packet_Data-CDPD.htm>
>
> That is totally different. This is a totally separate radio that makes
> the equivalent of using white space between TV channels. Not that is was
> in use in USA in early 1990s when the USA had NO digital mobile and was
> all AMPS.

cdpd is what was used in amps days. it did not work well.

In article <0001HW.26A8539406AC72EA70000F72E38F@news.giganews.com>,
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> > > > > i had phones at least as far back as 2000 that could detect tethering
> > > >
> > > > As one who has defended Verizon so much, I have to ask: Which carrier
> > > > were you with in 2000?
> > >
> > > Forget about 2000. In 1987 I had a Nokia brick on GTE MobileNet which
> > > eventually became Verizon.
> >
> > were you tethering it to your mac se ?
>
> Of course not. I had yet to buy my first Mac, I was still running my Apple
> ][e with DuoDrives and a bunch of expansion cards. That and a steam drive modem.

the thread is about tethering.

On 2021-07-21 09:22, nospam wrote:

> the fact is that i was tethering back then, and the phone could detect
> it versus a normal voice call.

Dial-up over switched voice call in AMPS days isn't tethering because
the modem was on your side and the phone handled a normal voice call
tramsmitting sounds that happened to be modem sounds instead of voice.
The carrier wouldn't know. The phone would only know that you had an
"extention phone" attached to its plug.

You or your ilk had argued that therering always used separate APN from
normal data. And you now point to analogue AMPS that had no concept of
an APN. Similarly, both the GSM circuit switced data and the Sprint dial
up networking you said you used on 2000 did not use APNs. They moved the
modem to the central office from your laptop and provided the quivalent
of a long RS232 cabvle to connect your laptop to the modem at central
office. The "voice" call now handled bits of data instead of modem
sounds. No routing involved, no APN involved.

GSM got GPRS formally in 1998 (standard) but it didn't instantly become
available. It was late to deploy in Canada and USA (in USA, became
available in 2002, roughly at same time as CDMA's equivalent).

So you couldn't have been using APNs in 2000 because the tech hadn't
been deployed in the USA (or Canada) yet.

And whatever CDMA did is moot because it is a totally different system
and we're discussing GSM services and whether tethering required 2 APNs
from the start or not.

Since you weren't using a GSM service in 2002 (and certaintly not 2000),
you have no way to know how the few GSM phones available in North
America (due to 1900 frequency not used elsewhere in world, we only had
a small subset of phone models availabel in North America).

I happened to have such a phone and can tell you that tethering was
undifferentiated by the carrier, and that you would manually input the
APN when you first started to use it, and you entered only one APN (in
my case, internet.fido.ca) My first GPRS phone was Siemens M55.

Carriers continued to keep tethering undifferentiated until the arrival
of iPhone in Canada (by which time, AT&T allowed Apple to add thetering
on condition of separate APN so AT&T could monetize). Fron that point,
carriers around the world started to monetize tethering on smartphones.

(The iPhone also pushed carriers to raise usabel limits because we could
not access full Internet and not just email and a WAP browser and higher
usage limits also made tethering mroe problematic if people abused it).