Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 94
  1. #61
    Bob Smith
    Guest

    Re: Why does Sprint "allow" limited laptop Vision access?


    "Kovie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:3aVbd.132746$He1.76510@attbi_s01...
    > Bob, now you're definitely having some reading problems yourself. I was
    > referring to someone else who got fired, NOT Rob, that the previous poster
    > (Isaiah Beard) had cited.
    >
    > And I quote:
    >
    > "I know of at least one person who was fired from their job (not at

    Sprint)
    > because they mentioned in a blog that the company they work for uses PHP

    to
    > deliver online content.
    >
    > I can't believe we're still arguing over our mutual mis-readings of each
    > others' postings!
    >
    > --
    > Kovie
    > [email protected]zen


    My apologies. I thought you were speaking of Rob - O/Siris ...

    Bob





    See More: Why does Sprint "allow" limited laptop Vision access?




  2. #62
    Bob Smith
    Guest

    Re: Why does Sprint "allow" limited laptop Vision access?


    "Kovie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:ecVbd.263995$3l3.69190@attbi_s03...
    > I take it by your non-response that you're satisfied by my posting, Bob?
    >
    > --
    > Kovie
    > [email protected]zen


    Didn't see it Kovie. Must of marked it read by mistake. I'll check it out.

    Bob





  3. #63
    Bob Smith
    Guest

    Re: Why does Sprint "allow" limited laptop Vision access?


    "Kovie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:0SBbd.127272$He1.116492@attbi_s01...
    > Previous text snipped to include only relevant portions for readability &
    > comprehension:
    >
    > "Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > >
    > > "Kovie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:3kjbd.252237$3l3.12178@attbi_s03...
    > >
    > >> I would drop it if you didn't keep splitting hairs. Here's an excerpt

    of
    > >> the
    > >> Sprint TOS you quoted:
    > >>
    > >> "Plans/options with unlimited Sprint PCS Vision access are not

    available
    > >> with Sprint PCS Vision Phones used as a modem. Sprint PCS Vision

    services
    > >> are also not available...as substitutes for private lines..."

    > >
    > > Kovie - Do you have a reading comprehension problem? (And no, that's not
    > > meant as an insult, but a genuine inquiry). As I've explained two

    previous
    > > times to you, the text above DID NOT come from the Sprint TOS. Why do

    you
    > > keep saying this is part of the TOS?
    > >
    > > It came from the Vision FAQ PDF file per the prior link I provided -
    > >

    http://www1.sprintpcs.com/media/Asse...sion-Guide.pdf
    > >
    > > That's the current situation. No more and no less.
    > >
    > > Bob
    > >
    > >

    >
    > I'm not sure that I'm the only one having a reading comprehension problem,
    > Bob. Yes, the actual quote you used, and which I referred to, did come

    from
    > the FAQ PDF you cited (well, I'm taking your word for it which I have no
    > reason to doubt), and not their TOS, and for my misreading of your earlier
    > post I do apologize (it was late and I didn't realize these were two
    > separate documents).
    >
    > However, you also stated in an earlier post that nowhere in Sprint's TOS
    > does it say that you can't use your phone as a modem, or in what you

    called
    > "tethered" mode, which we both agreed means the same thing in this

    context.
    > To quote you:
    >
    > "Yes, I meant accessing the web via tethered use. And once and for the

    last
    > friggin' time, SPCS does not disallow tethered usage under the TOS. Go to
    > the Terms and Conditions link at the bottom of www.sprintpcs.com and tell

    me
    > where it's disallowed."
    >
    > Does not "disallow" tethered use?!? I'm not so sure.
    >
    > The following is an except from Sprint's current TOS, found by clicking on
    > the above T&C link:
    >
    > Terms & Conditions
    >
    > 9 - Terms and Conditions of Services
    > Effective June 30, 2004
    >
    > Other Sprint PCS Vision Terms.
    >
    > ...Vision is not available for use with server devices or host computer
    > applications, other systems that drive continuous heavy traffic or data
    > sessions, or as substitutes for private lines or frame relay connections.
    > Unlimited Vision plans/options may not be used with Sprint PCS phones or
    > smart phones being used as a modem in connection with other equipment

    (e.g.,
    > computers, etc.) through use of connection kits or other
    > phone-to-computer/PDA accessories, or Bluetooth or other wireless
    > technology. We may terminate services without notice for any misuse...
    >
    > Well, perhaps a REALLY good lawyer could argue that technically, from an
    > arcane legal point of view, Sprint it not disallowing the tethered/modem

    use
    > of a Vision phone in the TOS, but even then it would be straining the

    limits
    > of credulity. But as I read this excerpt from Sprint's TOS, you CANNOT use
    > your phone as a modem by tethering it to a computer under an unlimited
    > Vision plan. It's actually pretty clear, I think, even for us non-lawyers.
    > However, allowing that perhaps I'm still not getting your point because

    it's
    > either too subtle or confusing, or because I continue to have a reading
    > comprehension problem, is there still something that I'm missing here?
    >
    > --
    > Kovie
    > [email protected]zen


    Ya gotta read between the lines. First off, the first sentence says "Vision
    is not available ..." We know that it is available, as we have used the
    service. They have to say that terminology. If "Not" was not included, then
    the interpretation would be that Sprint says it's ok to tether up and use
    the service to your heart's content. If this happened, everyone would be
    dropping their dial - ups for the $10 to $20/mo. option and taking all the
    available bandwidth. This was not the intent of Vision, at least not at this
    time. They might change this philosophy once they upgrade their hardware and
    software with EV-DO and then to EV-DV.

    Towards the end of the above paragraph, they say we can't use our phones to
    access Vision tethered to the laptop and that if we do, they may terminate
    service. So, they are saying the capability is there, but if you get caught
    using it, they might cancel the service. No one has disputed what's said in
    their legalese.

    So, going back to square one, it's against the rules, and yet they know we
    are using it. Most of us who post here and use the service in low to
    moderate amounts (99%), aren't getting any warnings from SPCS or threats of
    account cancellation. The remaining 1% are either getting billed for their
    usage or have had their accounts cancelled.

    Now, no one has posted here saying they had their accounts cancelled, but
    Rob has piped in saying that SPCS has cancelled a number of accounts. We
    have had some posters here who have piped in, saying that they are getting
    charged.

    IOW, as our former resident troll Phillipe said, those of us that are not
    incurring additional charges are staying under SPCS's radar. That's all
    there is to it.

    Bob





  4. #64
    Kovie
    Guest

    Re: Why does Sprint "allow" limited laptop Vision access?

    Accepted. Misreadings and misinterpretations of others' postings is bound to
    happen. I've been guilty of it myself in the past, including with yours. I'm
    just trying to keep the tone down to a sub-Crossfire level.

    ;-)

    --
    Kovie
    [email protected]zen


    "Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > "Kovie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:3aVbd.132746$He1.76510@attbi_s01...
    >> Bob, now you're definitely having some reading problems yourself. I was
    >> referring to someone else who got fired, NOT Rob, that the previous
    >> poster
    >> (Isaiah Beard) had cited.
    >>
    >> And I quote:
    >>
    >> "I know of at least one person who was fired from their job (not at

    > Sprint)
    >> because they mentioned in a blog that the company they work for uses PHP

    > to
    >> deliver online content.
    >>
    >> I can't believe we're still arguing over our mutual mis-readings of each
    >> others' postings!
    >>
    >> --
    >> Kovie
    >> [email protected]zen

    >
    > My apologies. I thought you were speaking of Rob - O/Siris ...
    >
    > Bob
    >
    >






  5. #65
    Kovie
    Guest

    Re: Why does Sprint "allow" limited laptop Vision access?

    "Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > "Kovie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:0SBbd.127272$He1.116492@attbi_s01...
    >>
    >> The following is an except from Sprint's current TOS, found by clicking
    >> on
    >> the above T&C link:
    >>
    >> Terms & Conditions
    >>
    >> 9 - Terms and Conditions of Services
    >> Effective June 30, 2004
    >>
    >> Other Sprint PCS Vision Terms.
    >>
    >> ...Vision is not available for use with server devices or host computer
    >> applications, other systems that drive continuous heavy traffic or data
    >> sessions, or as substitutes for private lines or frame relay connections.
    >> Unlimited Vision plans/options may not be used with Sprint PCS phones or
    >> smart phones being used as a modem in connection with other equipment

    > (e.g., computers, etc.) through use of connection kits or other
    >> phone-to-computer/PDA accessories, or Bluetooth or other wireless
    >> technology. We may terminate services without notice for any misuse...
    >>

    > Ya gotta read between the lines. First off, the first sentence says
    > "Vision
    > is not available ..." We know that it is available, as we have used the
    > service. They have to say that terminology. If "Not" was not included,
    > then
    > the interpretation would be that Sprint says it's ok to tether up and use
    > the service to your heart's content. If this happened, everyone would be
    > dropping their dial - ups for the $10 to $20/mo. option and taking all the
    > available bandwidth. This was not the intent of Vision, at least not at
    > this
    > time. They might change this philosophy once they upgrade their hardware
    > and
    > software with EV-DO and then to EV-DV.
    >
    > Towards the end of the above paragraph, they say we can't use our phones
    > to
    > access Vision tethered to the laptop and that if we do, they may terminate
    > service. So, they are saying the capability is there, but if you get
    > caught
    > using it, they might cancel the service. No one has disputed what's said
    > in
    > their legalese.
    >
    > So, going back to square one, it's against the rules, and yet they know we
    > are using it. Most of us who post here and use the service in low to
    > moderate amounts (99%), aren't getting any warnings from SPCS or threats
    > of
    > account cancellation. The remaining 1% are either getting billed for their
    > usage or have had their accounts cancelled.
    >
    > Now, no one has posted here saying they had their accounts cancelled, but
    > Rob has piped in saying that SPCS has cancelled a number of accounts. We
    > have had some posters here who have piped in, saying that they are getting
    > charged.
    >
    > IOW, as our former resident troll Phillipe said, those of us that are not
    > incurring additional charges are staying under SPCS's radar. That's all
    > there is to it.
    >
    > Bob
    >


    Now I really am confused. What have we been arguing about, if we both agree
    that Sprint's TOS says that "we can't use our phones to access Vision
    tethered to the laptop and that if we do, they may terminate service" (your
    words)? I thought you said in an earlier post that Sprint's TOS DID NOT say
    this. And I quote yet again:

    "Yes, I meant accessing the web via tethered use. And once and for the last
    friggin' time, SPCS does not disallow tethered usage under the TOS. Go to
    the Terms and Conditions link at the bottom of www.sprintpcs.com and tell me
    where it's disallowed."

    Are we arguing over the differences between the terms "can't use" and "does
    not allow"? I sure hope not, as that is about as meaningful as Clinton's
    famous reinterpretation of the word "is".

    Bottom line, we both (finally) appear to agree that Sprint's policy is that
    while, technically, it is possible to use your phone as a modem, legally,
    you're not allowed to do this, and can be cut off if you try, and that this
    is stated (albeit not as clearly as it could be) in their TOS. We also both
    agree that so long as they choose to look the other way, those of us who
    choose to take advantage of this should be reasonable about our "abuse" of
    this apparently rarely enforced policy.

    If this is true, then what this debate has been about is now beyond me.

    --
    Kovie
    [email protected]zen





  6. #66
    Bob Smith
    Guest

    Re: Why does Sprint "allow" limited laptop Vision access?


    "Kovie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:AMYbd.246063$MQ5.15566@attbi_s52...
    <snipped>
    > Bottom line, we both (finally) appear to agree that Sprint's policy is

    that
    > while, technically, it is possible to use your phone as a modem, legally,
    > you're not allowed to do this, and can be cut off if you try, and that

    this
    > is stated (albeit not as clearly as it could be) in their TOS. We also

    both
    > agree that so long as they choose to look the other way, those of us who
    > choose to take advantage of this should be reasonable about our "abuse" of
    > this apparently rarely enforced policy.


    I agree.
    >
    > If this is true, then what this debate has been about is now beyond me.


    It's been going on because of your constant curiosity ... and not accepting
    the original answers that were given to you.

    Bob





  7. #67
    =?ISO-8859-15?Q?O/Siris?=
    Guest

    Re: Why does Sprint "allow" limited laptop Vision access?

    In article <[email protected]>,=20
    [email protected] says...
    > Well officially, it was cost-cutting. From what Rob has stated (and I=20
    > hope he will correct me if I'm wrong), the particular call center he=20
    > worked at was closed and the employees laid off.
    >=20


    For the record, correct. Since this particular call center made the=20
    public news for a couple of days, I feel there is very little detective=20
    work in realizing that I worked at the Bolingbrook, IL call center,=20
    which was shut down on August 3rd. I found a job a couple of weeks=20
    prior to that, and Sprint was only too happy to let me go (it saved them=20
    paying me severance).

    --=20
    R=D8=DF
    O/Siris
    ~+~
    A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be.
    Moderation in temper is always a virtue,
    but moderation in principle is always a vice.
    Thomas Paine, "The Rights of Man", 1792



  8. #68
    =?ISO-8859-15?Q?O/Siris?=
    Guest

    Re: Why does Sprint "allow" limited laptop Vision access?

    In article <O8Cbd.241483$MQ5.218837@attbi_s52>, [email protected]zen=20
    says...
    > Also, having worked for a number of corporations, more happily at some th=

    an=20
    > at others, I personally believe that unless a company is out and out=20
    > committing a crime or doing something hugely unethical and immoral (which=

    is=20
    > usually criminal anyway, and which in either case you're morally obliged =

    to=20
    > blow the whistle), so long as you work for that company, you're being=20
    > unethical yourself by revealing inside information about the company.
    >=20


    I agree. And I think that, while I worked there, I posted here and made=20
    quite clear my respect for Sprint's right to keep secrets. What I knew=20
    then, and still see far too much of, though, is that Sprint allows a=20
    dreadful ignorance of policy in its reps. The dreaded "call back in 10=20
    minutes and get another answer" syndrome. That alone was my reason for=20
    the revelations I made. I still feel obligated to keep what I knew then=20
    of the internal "atmosphere" that I experienced. But I *do* feel=20
    justified in the few things I posted.

    --=20
    R=D8=DF
    O/Siris
    ~+~
    A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be.
    Moderation in temper is always a virtue,
    but moderation in principle is always a vice.
    Thomas Paine, "The Rights of Man", 1792



  9. #69
    Kovie
    Guest

    Re: Why does Sprint "allow" limited laptop Vision access?

    "Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > "Kovie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:AMYbd.246063$MQ5.15566@attbi_s52...
    > <snipped>
    >> Bottom line, we both (finally) appear to agree that Sprint's policy is
    >> that
    >> while, technically, it is possible to use your phone as a modem, legally,
    >> you're not allowed to do this, and can be cut off if you try, and that
    >> this
    >> is stated (albeit not as clearly as it could be) in their TOS. We also
    >> both
    >> agree that so long as they choose to look the other way, those of us who
    >> choose to take advantage of this should be reasonable about our "abuse"
    >> of
    >> this apparently rarely enforced policy.

    >
    > I agree.


    Finally!

    >>
    >> If this is true, then what this debate has been about is now beyond me.

    >
    > It's been going on because of your constant curiosity ... and not
    > accepting
    > the original answers that were given to you.
    >
    > Bob
    >
    >


    Not exactly what I asked (and why should I accept someone's answer if it
    makes no sense?), but let's leave it at that and save everyone the agony...

    --
    Kovie
    [email protected]zen





  10. #70
    Kovie
    Guest

    Re: Why does Sprint "allow" limited laptop Vision access?

    "O/Siris" <0siris@sprîntpcs.côm> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    In article <O8Cbd.241483$MQ5.218837@attbi_s52>, [email protected]zen
    says...
    > Also, having worked for a number of corporations, more happily at some
    > than
    > at others, I personally believe that unless a company is out and out
    > committing a crime or doing something hugely unethical and immoral (which
    > is
    > usually criminal anyway, and which in either case you're morally obliged
    > to
    > blow the whistle), so long as you work for that company, you're being
    > unethical yourself by revealing inside information about the company.
    >


    I agree. And I think that, while I worked there, I posted here and made
    quite clear my respect for Sprint's right to keep secrets. What I knew
    then, and still see far too much of, though, is that Sprint allows a
    dreadful ignorance of policy in its reps. The dreaded "call back in 10
    minutes and get another answer" syndrome. That alone was my reason for
    the revelations I made. I still feel obligated to keep what I knew then
    of the internal "atmosphere" that I experienced. But I *do* feel
    justified in the few things I posted.

    --
    RØß
    O/Siris

    Well, in a sense you were being a "whistleblower" (good), not a corporate
    mole (bad), because you knew something about your company that you didn't
    like or agree with and which you believed was not properly serving its
    customers, and felt you were doing these customers a favor by alerting them
    of this, while at the same time not betraying your company in any unethical
    way, by, say, revealing proprietary product information.

    You were clearly walking on very thin ice with your company, and they would
    have had grounds to dismiss and possibly prosecute you had they found this
    out. But I'm guessing that revealing this limited information was an act of
    conscience for you (and which, in this instance, I applaud you for, even
    though it was obviously risky for you).

    So, I'm just curious, last you heard when you were there, what are you
    prepared to reveal about Sprint's unenforced "phone as modem use not allowed
    under Vision" policy? Without asking you to reveal how, do they actually
    have a way to tell if you're using it this way? And if so, why don't they
    enforce it for all but the most flagrant abusers, if their policy
    specifically forbids it? Is it because it's just not worth their bother to
    go after people who are reasonable about their usage, or, perhaps, because
    they don't want to potentially alienate such customers, on whom they're
    still making a good profit? Or is it because they're just too disorganized
    to do this?

    I suppose it might seem that I'm contradicting myself here by asking you to
    reveal "inside info", but you no longer work there, and from what I
    understand you've already answered some or all of these questions before.
    I'd understand if you prefer not to answer them here, of course, as I am
    asking you to "tip Sprint's hand" as to their internal thinking (or lack of
    it). I'm just curious, nothing more.

    --
    Kovie
    [email protected]zen





  11. #71
    Steve Sobol
    Guest

    Re: Why does Sprint "allow" limited laptop Vision access?

    O/Siris wrote:

    > I agree. And I think that, while I worked there, I posted here and made
    > quite clear my respect for Sprint's right to keep secrets. What I knew
    > then, and still see far too much of, though, is that Sprint allows a
    > dreadful ignorance of policy in its reps.


    Actually, this is one of the few major, major complaints that I have about
    Sprint, and it pisses me off.

    Just to confirm something I already knew, I called *2 a couple weeks ago and said

    "Any plan changes within the first three months don't require a contract
    extension, right?"

    "No, that's not right sir."

    About a minute later I ended up explaining that I'm working for a company that
    resells Sprint and that our Sprint AE herself mentioned that that was the case,
    after which she said she'd go double check and sheepishly came back and told me
    I was right.

    Sprint needs to get their front line CSRs trained better.

    (The fact that I must extend my contract if I change plans after three months,
    even if I don't take a promo, is my other major problem with Sprint.)

    --
    JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
    Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) / [email protected]
    PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
    Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.



  12. #72
    Bob Smith
    Guest

    Re: Why does Sprint "allow" limited laptop Vision access?


    "Kovie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:cM2cd.189395$wV.182148@attbi_s54...
    > "Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > >
    > > "Kovie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:AMYbd.246063$MQ5.15566@attbi_s52...
    > > <snipped>
    > >> Bottom line, we both (finally) appear to agree that Sprint's policy is
    > >> that
    > >> while, technically, it is possible to use your phone as a modem,

    legally,
    > >> you're not allowed to do this, and can be cut off if you try, and that
    > >> this
    > >> is stated (albeit not as clearly as it could be) in their TOS. We also
    > >> both
    > >> agree that so long as they choose to look the other way, those of us

    who
    > >> choose to take advantage of this should be reasonable about our "abuse"
    > >> of
    > >> this apparently rarely enforced policy.

    > >
    > > I agree.

    >
    > Finally!
    >
    > >>
    > >> If this is true, then what this debate has been about is now beyond me.

    > >
    > > It's been going on because of your constant curiosity ... and not
    > > accepting
    > > the original answers that were given to you.
    > >
    > > Bob
    > >
    > >

    >
    > Not exactly what I asked (and why should I accept someone's answer if it
    > makes no sense?), but let's leave it at that and save everyone the

    agony...

    I agree. I gotta say that with your continued curiosity, as with the reply
    to Rob's post, you just won't let this go ... will you!. Just accept the
    fact that SPCS is not enforcing Vision usage for those that do it on a
    limited basis, and leave it at that ..., before someone gets an itch up
    their ass @ SPCS to change this current situation, and everyone gets hit for
    tethered online charges. Is that a deal Kovie?

    Bob





  13. #73
    Kovie
    Guest

    Re: Why does Sprint "allow" limited laptop Vision access?

    "Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > "Kovie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>
    >> Not exactly what I asked (and why should I accept someone's answer if it
    >> makes no sense?), but let's leave it at that and save everyone the

    > agony...
    >
    > I agree. I gotta say that with your continued curiosity, as with the reply
    > to Rob's post, you just won't let this go ... will you!. Just accept the
    > fact that SPCS is not enforcing Vision usage for those that do it on a
    > limited basis, and leave it at that ..., before someone gets an itch up
    > their ass @ SPCS to change this current situation, and everyone gets hit
    > for
    > tethered online charges. Is that a deal Kovie?
    >
    > Bob
    >


    Bob, I seriously doubt that some executive at Sprint is going to read this
    thread and say "Woah, people know about the loophole? Gotta change that
    now...". But I do agree that I've about beaten this topic to death so I will
    (you can now exhale!) give it a rest.

    Now what was that MB limit again?... ;-)

    --
    Kovie
    [email protected]zen





  14. #74
    =?ISO-8859-15?Q?O/Siris?=
    Guest

    Re: Why does Sprint "allow" limited laptop Vision access?

    In article <cf3cd.399422$Fg5.344502@attbi_s53>, [email protected]zen=20
    says...
    > "O/Siris" <0siris@spr=EEntpcs.c=F4m> wrote in message=20
    > news:[email protected]...
    > In article <O8Cbd.241483$MQ5.218837@attbi_s52>, [email protected]zen
    > says...
    > > Also, having worked for a number of corporations, more happily at some=

    =20
    > > than
    > > at others, I personally believe that unless a company is out and out
    > > committing a crime or doing something hugely unethical and immoral (whi=

    ch=20
    > > is
    > > usually criminal anyway, and which in either case you're morally oblige=

    d=20
    > > to
    > > blow the whistle), so long as you work for that company, you're being
    > > unethical yourself by revealing inside information about the company.
    > >

    >=20
    > I agree. And I think that, while I worked there, I posted here and made
    > quite clear my respect for Sprint's right to keep secrets. What I knew
    > then, and still see far too much of, though, is that Sprint allows a
    > dreadful ignorance of policy in its reps. The dreaded "call back in 10
    > minutes and get another answer" syndrome. That alone was my reason for
    > the revelations I made. I still feel obligated to keep what I knew then
    > of the internal "atmosphere" that I experienced. But I *do* feel
    > justified in the few things I posted.
    >=20
    > --=20
    > R=D8=DF
    > O/Siris
    >=20
    > Well, in a sense you were being a "whistleblower" (good), not a corporate=

    =20
    > mole (bad), because you knew something about your company that you didn't=

    =20
    > like or agree with and which you believed was not properly serving its=20
    > customers, and felt you were doing these customers a favor by alerting th=

    em=20
    > of this, while at the same time not betraying your company in any unethic=

    al=20
    > way, by, say, revealing proprietary product information.
    >=20
    > You were clearly walking on very thin ice with your company, and they wou=

    ld=20
    > have had grounds to dismiss and possibly prosecute you had they found thi=

    s=20
    > out. But I'm guessing that revealing this limited information was an act =

    of=20
    > conscience for you (and which, in this instance, I applaud you for, even=

    =20
    > though it was obviously risky for you).
    >=20
    > So, I'm just curious, last you heard when you were there, what are you=20
    > prepared to reveal about Sprint's unenforced "phone as modem use not allo=

    wed=20
    > under Vision" policy? Without asking you to reveal how, do they actually=

    =20
    > have a way to tell if you're using it this way? And if so, why don't they=

    =20
    > enforce it for all but the most flagrant abusers, if their policy=20
    > specifically forbids it? Is it because it's just not worth their bother t=

    o=20
    > go after people who are reasonable about their usage, or, perhaps, becaus=

    e=20
    > they don't want to potentially alienate such customers, on whom they're=

    =20
    > still making a good profit? Or is it because they're just too disorganize=

    d=20

    It's not unenforced. But enforcement *is* prioritized, so that light=20
    usage is just too much of a dminishing return. So far as I'm aware, it=20
    remains such. Like a speeder who's only a couple of miles over will=20
    almost always get away with it, Sprint has defined a level beyond which=20
    the damage merits a reaction.

    And that's literally the attitude: usage of the phone as a modem hurts=20
    the network. I don't buy it, to be blunt. I think it's a question of=20
    capacity planning, and Sprint doesn't seem to know how to do that if=20
    everyone with a phone (or even a significant number of them) started=20
    using the phone as a modem. But, so long as Sprint says all of it=20
    hurts, all of it remains vulnerable to action.


    --=20
    R=D8=DF
    O/Siris
    ~+~
    A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be.
    Moderation in temper is always a virtue,
    but moderation in principle is always a vice.
    Thomas Paine, "The Rights of Man", 1792



  15. #75
    Kovie
    Guest

    Re: Why does Sprint "allow" limited laptop Vision access?

    "O/Siris" <0siris@sprîntpcs.côm> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...

    >It's not unenforced. But enforcement *is* prioritized, so that light
    >usage is just too much of a dminishing return. So far as I'm aware, it
    >remains such. Like a speeder who's only a couple of miles over will
    >almost always get away with it, Sprint has defined a level beyond which
    >the damage merits a reaction.


    >And that's literally the attitude: usage of the phone as a modem hurts
    >the network. I don't buy it, to be blunt. I think it's a question of
    >capacity planning, and Sprint doesn't seem to know how to do that if
    >everyone with a phone (or even a significant number of them) started
    >using the phone as a modem. But, so long as Sprint says all of it
    >hurts, all of it remains vulnerable to action.



    I feel that I should start a new thread on this by now, but it appears that
    there's a "don't rock the boat by asking too many questions about this
    matter" sentiment here, for fear that Sprint will pick up on the interest
    and start penalizing or charging tethered users (as if they don't already
    know, given what you've said about their ability to tell who's already doing
    this). So I'll let this thread die its rightful death. I'll just add that
    sooner or later Sprint is bound to make this a paid service, probably
    offering a variety of plan options based on usage level. Once they figure
    out a way to make a net profit off it, and feel that network capacity can
    support it, they'll roll out some plans. Hopefully, some of those will be
    rolled into existing Vision plans and thus not require an extra fee.

    And that, as they say, is that.

    --
    Kovie
    [email protected]zen





Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast