tethered data connectivity troubles

Well, after a few mostly useless sessions with Cingular Data Support, I
happened across the answer on the web.

If you dial *99***1# you will need to enter an APN. In Extra string dialup
commands on your PDA you need to add +cgdcont=1,"IP","isp.cingular"

This works with the [email protected] / CINGULAR1 credentials.

I also found that [email protected] / CINGULAR1 credentials will work on
*99# if I use this extra dialing string, but substitute wap.cingular for
isp.cingular .

This took up several hours of my time. I hope this info is helpful to
others.

Michael

"Michael" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I've had a Pocket PC configured to connect to the internet via Bluetooth
> on a Motorola V557. This has worked fine for a long time. This weekend,
> I noticed that it was not working and has not worked since. Nothing has
> changed on the phone or Pocket PC, but its like the network is refusing
> the connection. I'm dialing *99# . I've tried [email protected] and
> [email protected] for usernames (along with blank username, which I had
> been using). I'm using CINGULAR1 for the password.
>
> I've also noticed that data availability has been up and down in my area,
> Memphis, which is unusual. It has been showing up when I have tried to
> connect and I am able to connect to Media NET features on the phone when
> data is available. But, the Pocket PC Bluetooth connection fails after
> trying to dial *99#.
>
> Is anyone else started having trouble recently?
>
> I'd very much appreciate any suggestions.
>
> Thanks,
> Michael
>

---

› See More: tethered data connectivity troubles

Scott wrote:
> Tell that to the broadband providers who also provide 'unlimited' service
> but do restrict or throttle customers who use more than the average amount
> of bandwidth. They've been doing it for years and NOBODY has been able to
> change it. This is no different.

Wireless ISPs do it all the time, *but they also have a FAP (Fair Access
Policy) in place*. Say if you download more than 500 Meg in a 24 hour
period, you get throttled back to like 24 Kbps for 24 hours.

Hughes satellite aka DirectPC had a FAP in place, but did not publish
the limits. It took a lawsuit to force them to disclose the point at
which you would get "FAPed"

jay wrote:
> i think that it would be a problem for cingular if it came down to someone
> in court and they had papers showing that the service is in fact
> "unlimited,"
>
> I don't think that Cingular would have papers proving otherwise.
>
> btw, I have used, err I mean I know someone who has used almost 3 gigs of
> transfer every month for a while now and has have never been flagged as a
> tetherer, so none of this probably matters anyway

Assuming the person was using it as a tethered modem and someone took
Cingular to court over it, all Cingular would have to do is point out
that tethering is prohibited.

A friend in San Antonio got flagged, but in an inadvertent billing foul
up. He had the unlimited MediaNet that somehow got taken off his account
and data charges started appearing. When he called about it, he was told
tethering was prohibited and they had him sign up for the $59/mo
unlimited Data Connect add-on. His data charges are still in dispute and
up for review. He might get out of the charges as it was a billing screw up.

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Mon, 20 Mar 2006
11:23:39 -0700, "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"jay" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...

>>i think that it would be a problem for cingular if it came down to someone
>> in court and they had papers showing that the service is in fact
>> "unlimited,"
>
>Tell that to the broadband providers who also provide 'unlimited' service
>but do restrict or throttle customers who use more than the average amount
>of bandwidth. They've been doing it for years and NOBODY has been able to
>change it. This is no different.

Not true. For example, DirecWay satellite has an explicit "Fair Use" policy.
Without such an explicit policy, a provider cannot get away with that. In
Cingular's case it would have to show some violation of its terms of service
(e.g., tethering), which would be difficult at best, as I've shown in my prior
posts. Other than that it could of course terminate service once the contract
has been completed. Caveat: I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Mon, 20 Mar 2006
23:53:01 GMT, DecaturTxCowboy <[email protected]> wrote:

>jay wrote:
>> i think that it would be a problem for cingular if it came down to someone
>> in court and they had papers showing that the service is in fact
>> "unlimited,"
>>
>> I don't think that Cingular would have papers proving otherwise.
>>
>> btw, I have used, err I mean I know someone who has used almost 3 gigs of
>> transfer every month for a while now and has have never been flagged as a
>> tetherer, so none of this probably matters anyway
>
>Assuming the person was using it as a tethered modem and someone took
>Cingular to court over it, all Cingular would have to do is point out
>that tethering is prohibited.

Cingular would also have to prove that it had been tethered, which would be
difficult at best (as I've shown previously), and show that such a restriction
is legally enforceable.

>A friend in San Antonio got flagged, but in an inadvertent billing foul
>up. He had the unlimited MediaNet that somehow got taken off his account
>and data charges started appearing. When he called about it, he was told
> tethering was prohibited and they had him sign up for the $59/mo
>unlimited Data Connect add-on.

In other words, he was dumb enough to admit he was tethering.

>His data charges are still in dispute and
>up for review. He might get out of the charges as it was a billing screw up.

He should definitely be able to get out of all charges over the $60/month
($59.99/month, not $59/month) rate, as per the terms of service (and can
probably get out of anything over $20/month if he is persistent).

<https://onlinecare.cingular.com/my-account/legal/service-agreement.jsp>:

If you misrepresent your eligibility for any Rate Plan, you agree to pay us
the additional amount you would have been charged under the most favorable
Rate Plan for which you are eligible.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Mon, 20 Mar 2006 16:03:41 -0600,
"Michael" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Well, after a few mostly useless sessions with Cingular Data Support, I
>happened across the answer on the web.
>
>If you dial *99***1# you will need to enter an APN. In Extra string dialup
>commands on your PDA you need to add +cgdcont=1,"IP","isp.cingular"
>
>This works with the [email protected] / CINGULAR1 credentials.
>
>I also found that [email protected] / CINGULAR1 credentials will work on
>*99# if I use this extra dialing string, but substitute wap.cingular for
>isp.cingular .
>
>This took up several hours of my time. I hope this info is helpful to
>others.

If you check, I think you'll find that the needed configuration is the same
for *99***1# as it is for *99# IF profile 1 is set as the default profile --
the ***1 just selects Profile 1. *99# alone selects the default profile
(which may or may not be 1).

In my Motorola V551, Profile 1 is configured with the proper APN (wap.cingular
for MEdia), and is set as the default Profile, so dialing *99# works with just
the proper username ([email protected]) and password (CINGULAR1).

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <[email protected]> on Mon, 20 Mar 2006
> 11:23:39 -0700, "Scott" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"jay" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>
>>>i think that it would be a problem for cingular if it came down to
>>>someone
>>> in court and they had papers showing that the service is in fact
>>> "unlimited,"
>>
>>Tell that to the broadband providers who also provide 'unlimited' service
>>but do restrict or throttle customers who use more than the average amount
>>of bandwidth. They've been doing it for years and NOBODY has been able to
>>change it. This is no different.
>
> Not true.

Very true, your single example (out of hundreds of compnies) not
withstanding.

> For example, DirecWay satellite has an explicit "Fair Use" policy.
> Without such an explicit policy, a provider cannot get away with that.

Talk to Comcast users

> In
> Cingular's case it would have to show some violation of its terms of
> service
> (e.g., tethering), which would be difficult at best, as I've shown in my
> prior
> posts. Other than that it could of course terminate service once the
> contract
> has been completed.



> Caveat: I am not a lawyer,

Ain't that the truth. Of course, you don't know what you truly are, so this
type of statement would apply to most of your posts.

>and this is not legal advice.

Right again- it is nothing more than unsubstantiated and uneducated
observations. You usually berate others that post like this. How
hypocritical.

"John Navas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> Cingular would also have to prove that it had been tethered, which would
> be
> difficult at best (as I've shown previously),

Sorry- your amateur experiments don't qualify as proof.

> and show that such a restriction
> is legally enforceable.

More conjecture.

>
>>A friend in San Antonio got flagged, but in an inadvertent billing foul
>>up. He had the unlimited MediaNet that somehow got taken off his account
>>and data charges started appearing. When he called about it, he was told
>> tethering was prohibited and they had him sign up for the $59/mo
>>unlimited Data Connect add-on.
>
> In other words, he was dumb enough to admit he was tethering.

See how easy it is, John? Try it sometime.

> If you check, I think you'll find that the needed configuration is the
> same
> for *99***1# as it is for *99# IF profile 1 is set as the default
> profile --
> the ***1 just selects Profile 1. *99# alone selects the default profile
> (which may or may not be 1).

I would guess that *99***1# does not make any difference from *99#. I
haven't tried it though. Since it is working as-is and I have both WAP and
ISP connections set up now, it is useful for me to see it dialing a
different number for each.

I noticed that when I set up a USB connection from a laptop using the
Motorola software, it seems to be using profile 3. Any idea why the
difference there?


> In my Motorola V551, Profile 1 is configured with the proper APN
> (wap.cingular
> for MEdia), and is set as the default Profile, so dialing *99# works with
> just
> the proper username ([email protected]) and password (CINGULAR1).

Are you saying there is a place to configure the profiles on the phone? Or
is this a network / account setting? Clearly, I was not able to get things
working with just the username and password. The extra dialing string is
required. I also confirmed this with a coworker who is using a Bluetooth
Pocket PC and a V551. His connection fails without the extra dialing
string, but succeeds with it.

-Michael

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <[email protected]> on Wed, 22 Mar 2006 14:33:19
-0600, "Michael" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> If you check, I think you'll find that the needed configuration is the
>> same
>> for *99***1# as it is for *99# IF profile 1 is set as the default
>> profile --
>> the ***1 just selects Profile 1. *99# alone selects the default profile
>> (which may or may not be 1).
>
>I would guess that *99***1# does not make any difference from *99#. I
>haven't tried it though. Since it is working as-is and I have both WAP and
>ISP connections set up now, it is useful for me to see it dialing a
>different number for each.
>
>I noticed that when I set up a USB connection from a laptop using the
>Motorola software, it seems to be using profile 3. Any idea why the
>difference there?

Check the profiles (and the default setting) for differences.

>> In my Motorola V551, Profile 1 is configured with the proper APN
>> (wap.cingular
>> for MEdia), and is set as the default Profile, so dialing *99# works with
>> just
>> the proper username ([email protected]) and password (CINGULAR1).
>
>Are you saying there is a place to configure the profiles on the phone?

Settings -> Web Sessions -> Web Sessions

>Or
>is this a network / account setting? Clearly, I was not able to get things
>working with just the username and password. The extra dialing string is
>required.

Not with my V551. The modem log verifies that Windows XP DUN isn't sending
any extra commands to the phone.

>I also confirmed this with a coworker who is using a Bluetooth
>Pocket PC and a V551. His connection fails without the extra dialing
>string, but succeeds with it.

He may have the same configuration issues.

--
Best regards, SEE THE FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS AT
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cingular_Wireless_FAQ>