How AT&T Recognizes Unauthorized Tethering from Jailbroken iPhones

I'd like to see a proper source of this (other than Android Police / iPhone Download Blog). I have used MyWi without having any special settings for tethering (my provider doesn't supply those), and it worked just fine; it would be a bit silly to go through the trouble of setting up a hotspot and making sure you're actively routing the data to the 'wrong' APN.

(Note that iPhone Download Blog is the one calling MyWi by name)

Also, if this is the case, wouldn't it be easier for AT&T to just disable the tethering APN for you if you don't have the tethering option? That would seem to be much more effective.

Jailbreaking was given a temporary exemption from the DMCA. That doesn't mean it's necessarily legal, nor does it mean that it doesn't violate the terms of the contract with your carrier.

There's a huge difference between jailbreaking an iPhone, which the EFF established doesn't (necessarily) violate the DMCA, and breaking your contract by using services from AT&T that you're not paying for. The first means using something you bought and paid for in a way the manufacturer doesn't want you to. The second means using a service that the provider charges for, but you're not paying for. The law is never going to protect the second one.

To start with, tethering without paying for it is definitely a contract violation, and AT&T could cut off your service, retroactively charge you for it, or do whatever else (within reason) the contract provides for. There is little or no legal ambiguity about this. You are getting a service for free from AT&T that other people are charged for, so you're breaking your deal with them and owe them damages.

The (slightly) more interesting legal question might be whether AT&T could ask a prosecutor to bring criminal charges. My uninformed guess is they could, based on something like "theft of services." If I charged $20 a month for you to come fill up a one-gallon bucket any time you wanted from my well, and instead of a bucket you filled up a tanker truck, it would be theft plain and simple, because you'd knowingly be taking something from me without my permission.

(Actually I hate physical metaphors for computer stuff, because they usually distract more than help if you're talking with reasonably technical people. So let's not get sidetracked with questions like, "what if I filled up the tanker truck _with the bucket?_" [Unless you happen to enjoy pointless arguments as much as I do, in which case go for it.] The point is that the contract permits you to access AT&T's network in certain ways for a certain price, and you're accessing it in different ways without paying the different price, and the law's not too likely to be on your side for that one.)

This is all probably hypothetical, though. AT&T wouldn't bother to bring an expensive lawsuit or risk negative publicity from criminal charges, when they can (perfectly legitimately) charge you extra under the terms of your contract and dare you to fight it.

IAAL, in case that changes your assessment of a random person's opinions on the internet.

Every good dealer knows that you don't cut off your customers' supply. You "work with" them, you send someone to break their legs for not paying, but you never cut them off.

Seriously, wouldn't it always have been easier just to cut customers off to prevent things like astronomical texting overages? That would interfere with that beautiful revenue stream.

I would first suspect some sort of powersaving feature. Try continuously using the phones interface locally (reloading webpages or something of the sort), and I bet you'll notice that your FTP server is always available from other computers.

I say this because I've noticed what seems to be similar behaviour with servers running on my hacked kindle3 (wifi only). They stop responding until you generate traffic from the kindle, which kicks the wifi card up from some sort of lower power level, or something.