Why does sprint block the capablitiy to use your phone's network to connect with your PC. We pay for the data plan already, so whats the deal? Do other carriers do the same?
Thanks for posting your question with us. The idea is that you are paying for data for your phone, not for your computer. In order to use tethering (hotspot), you would need to have an additional option added to your account to allow that service. You can pay $20/month for 2GB of data or $50 for 6GB. These are add-on features meaning you can add and remove them at any time, paying only for the days you use the service. Other carriers do charge for their data plans as well, but some are structured with hotspot bundled into the monthly data plan.
There seems to be a lot of confusion about this.
The first thing is you only need to download the HTC network interface driver from HTC, the device is not as modem or a hotspot but a NIC
The second thing is you pulll up your phone settings and go to wireless and networks.
Finally you go down to the bottom, there is a check for the USB tethering switch, just turn it on.
My phone was not "Rooted" it is configured by Sprint and has not been tampered with by anyone.
It is not illegal to tether a phone if you have a data plan under the terms and conditions of Sprint. In fact Sprint cannot prohibit it under the follwoing reasons on their own terms and conditions.
Prohibited Network Uses. To ensure the activities of some users do not impair the ability of our customers to have access to reliable services provided at reasonable costs, you may not use our services in a manner that is unlawful, infringes on intellectual property rights, or harms or unduly interferes with the use of Sprint's network or systems. Sprint reserves the right, without notice or limitation, to limit data throughput speeds or quantities or to deny, terminate, end, modify, disconnect, or suspend service if an individual engages in any of the prohibited voice or data uses detailed below or if Sprint, in its sole discretion, determines action is necessary to protect its wireless networks from harm or degradation. Examples of prohibited voice uses: Sprint voice services are provided solely for live dialogue between, and initiated by, individuals for personal use and as otherwise described in this policy. Sprint services may not be used for any other purposes, including, but not limited to: monitoring services, transmission of broadcasts, transmission of recorded material, telemarketing, autodialed calls, other commercial uses, or other connections that do not consist of uninterrupted live dialogue between individuals. Examples of prohibited data uses: Sprint data services are provided solely for purposes of web surfing, sending and receiving email, photographs and other similar messaging activities, and the non-continuous streaming of videos, downloading of files or on line gaming. Our data services may not be used: to generate excessive amounts of Internet traffic through the continuous, unattended streaming, downloading or uploading of videos or other files or to operate hosting services including, but not limited to, web or gaming hosting; (ii) to maintain continuous active network connections to the Internet such as through a web camera or machine-to-machine connections that do not involve active participation by a person; (iii) to disrupt email use by others using automated or manual routines, including, but not limited to "auto-responders" or cancel bots or other similar routines; (iv) to transmit or facilitate any unsolicited or unauthorized advertising, telemarketing, promotional materials, "junk mail", unsolicited commercial or bulk email, or fax; (v) for activities adversely affecting the ability of other people or systems to use either Sprint's wireless services or other parties' Internet-based resources, including, but not limited to, "denial of service" (DoS) attacks against another network host or individual user; (vi) for an activity that connects any device to Personal Computers (including without limitation, laptops), or other equipment for the purpose of transmitting wireless data over the network (unless customer is using a plan designated for such usage); or (vi) for any other reason that, in our sole discretion violates our policy of providing service for individual use. Unlimited Use Plans. If you subscribe to rate plans, services or features that are described as unlimited, you should be aware that such "unlimited" plans are subject to these Sprint Prohibited Network Uses.
If you for example have a contract with the simply everything plan, which includes unlimited data, as long as you are not violating any other aspect of prohibited use as it states.
I currently use this process for using a "secure" network for privacy and protection purposes. I only use it when I go to work because I have my own ISP at home.
I do not use my work network for personal buisness.
However recently I have been given an erroneous message and I have complained because as I pointed out, tethering is not using a Hot Spot or Modem service, the device driver windows uses is called:
HTC Remote NDIS based Device.
NDIS stands for Network Driver Interface Specification
This is not a modem, it is not a hotspot, it is a network interface device, thus modem and hotspot rules cannot apply.
The native OS provides you with this option once you install the driver into a computer.
Thus it is not an abuse or violation of use, the device was designed to perform this function.
In early August, the FCC ruled that Verizon Wireless can't keep its customers from using built-in tethering apps, downloading tethering apps, or using other apps that let you share your phone's internet connection like a hotspot with other devices. AT&T now includes tethering as part of the phone plan's basic price. Apparently, all US carriers will follow suit, or risk having to shell out the $1.25M that Verizon was fined for not complying.
I would think Sprint will allow tethering very soon...
Sprinty is violating the FCC regulations by impairing a customer's use of their phone device and applications as long as they have a 3G, 4G or both data plans. Here is some information to validate the statement:
The United States 700 MHz FCC wireless spectrum auction, officially known as Auction 73, was started by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on January 24, 2008 for the rights to operate the 700 MHz frequency band in the United States. The details of process were the subject of debate among several telecommunications companies, including Verizon Wireless, AT&T, as well as the Internet company Google. Much of the debate swirled around the "open access" requirements set down by the Second Report and Order released by the FCC determining the process and rules for the auction. All bidding was required by law to commence by January 28.
The last transmissions by the incumbent television broadcasters using this spectrum ceased on June 12, 2009 except for LPTV (Low Power TV) stations, which can stay on the air with an analog signal until the winning bidders start operations. Full power TV stations ceased analog broadcasting on June 12, 2009.
The 700 MHz spectrum was previously used for analog television broadcasting, specifically UHF channels 52 through 69. The FCC has ruled that the switch to digital television has made these frequencies no longer necessary for broadcasters, due to the improved spectral efficiency of digital broadcasts. Thus, all broadcasters will be required to move to channels 2 through 51 as part of the digital TV transition. This reallocation is an ongoing effort; the lower channels of the band, 52 through 59, have been used considerably more for analog and digital broadcasts than the upper channels, 60 through 69, which have been largely abandoned.
Some of the 700 MHz spectrum was already auctioned in Auctions 44 and 49. Channels 54, 55 and 59 were sold and in some areas are already being used for broadcasting and Internet access. For example Qualcomm MediaFLO in 2007 started using Channel 55 for broadcasting TV to cell phones in New York City, San Diego and elsewhere.
 Auction rules and process
For the 700-MHz auction, the FCC designed a new multi-round process that limits the number of package bids that each bidder can submit (12 items and 12 package bids) and the prices at which they can be submitted, provides computationally intensive feedback prices similar to the pricing approach. This package bidding process (which is often referred to as combinatorial auctions) was the first of its kind to be used by the FCC in an actual auction. Bidders were allowed to bid on individual licenses or on an all-or-nothing bid which could be done up to twelve packages, which the bidder determined at any point in the auction. Doing the auction this way allowed the bidder to avoid the exposure problem when licenses are complements. The provisional winning bids are the set of consistent bids that maximize total revenues. The 700 MHz auction represented a good test-case for package bidding for two reasons. First, the 700 MHz auction only involves 12 licenses: 2 bands (one 10 MHz and one 20 MHz) in each of the 6 regions. Secondly, prospective bidders had expressed interest in alternative packaging because some Internet service providers had different needs and the flexibility would benefit them. The FCC issued Public Notice DA00-1486 adopted and described the package bidding rules for the 700 MHz auction.
The FCC’s original proposal allowed only nine package bids: the six 30 MHz regional bids and three nationwide bids (10, 20, or 30 MHz). Although these nine packages were consistent with the expressed desires or many prospective bidders, others felt that the nine packages were too restrictive. The activity rule is unchanged, aside from a new definition of activity and a lower activity requirement of 50%. A bidder must be active on 50% of its current eligibility or its eligibility in the next round will be reduced to two times its activity. Bids made in different rounds were treated as mutually exclusive and a bidder wishing to add a license or package to its provisional winnings must renew the provisional winning bids in the current round.
The FCC placed important rules on public safety for the auction. 20 MHz of the valuable 700 MHz spectrum were set aside for the creation of a public/private partnership that will eventually roll out to a new nationwide broadband network tailored to the requirements of public safety. The FCC offered the commercial licensee extra spectrum adjacent to the public safety block that the licensee can use as it wants. The licensee is allowed to use whatever bandwidth that is available on the public safety side of the network to offer data services of their own.
 Google involvement
In an effort to encourage Network neutrality, groups such as Public Knowledge, MoveOn.org, Media Access Project, along with individuals such as Craigslist founder Craig Newmark, and Stanford Law professor Lawrence Lessig appealed to the Federal Communications Commission to make the newly freed airways open access to the public.
(Note: This is because Google introduced the G1 and it was marketed by T-Mobile. I was one of those users. Google is the owner of the Andriod OS, and they have prohibited any modification to restrict a Cellular carrier from blocking its functions. If the carrier does, they are NOT andriod phones, and to advertise them as such would be a flase advertisement.)
Prior to the bidding process, Google asked that the spectrum be free to lease wholesale and the devices operating under the spectrum be open. Currently many providers such as Verizon and AT&T use technological measures to block external applications. In return Google guaranteed a minimum bid of $4.6 billion. Google's specific requests were the adoption of certain policies
Open applications: Consumers should be able to download and utilize any software applications, content, or services they desire;
Open devices: Consumers should be able to utilize a handheld communications device with whatever wireless network they prefer;
Open services: Third parties (resellers) should be able to acquire wireless services from a 700 MHz licensee on a wholesale basis, based on reasonably nondiscriminatory commercial terms; and
Open networks: Third parties (like internet service providers) should be able to interconnect at any technically feasible point in a 700 MHz licensee's wireless network.
The result of the auction was that Google was outbid by others in the auction, triggering the open platform restrictions Google had asked for without having to actually purchase any licenses. Google was actively involved in the bidding process although it had no intentions of actually winning any licenses. The reason for this was that it could push up the price of the bidding process in order to reach the us$ 4.6B reserve price, therefore triggering the open source restrictions listed above. Had Google not been actively involved in the bidding process, it would have made sense for businesses to suppress their bidding strategies in order to trigger a new auction without the restrictions imposed by Google and the FCC. Google's upfront payment of $287,371,000 in order to participate in the bidding process was largely recovered after the auction since it had not actually purchased any licences. Despite this, Google ended paying interest costs on which resulted in an estimated loss of 13 million dollars.
The FCC ruled in favor of Google's requests. Only two of the four requirements were put in place, open applications and open devices. Google had wanted the purchaser to allow 'rental' of the blocks to different providers.
In retaliation, Verizon filed a lawsuit against the Federal Communications Commission to remove the provisions Google had asked for. Verizon called the rules “arbitrary and capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence and otherwise contrary to law.”
After the open access rules were implemented, Verizon Wireless filed suit against the FCC on September 13, 2007, seeking to have the rules dismissed on the grounds that the open access requirement "violates the U.S. Constitution, violates the Administrative Procedures Act … and is arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by the substantial evidence and otherwise contrary to law." On October 23, Verizon chose to drop the lawsuit after losing its appeal for a speedy resolution on October 3. However, the CTIA stepped in to challenge the same regulations in a lawsuit filed the same day. On November 13, 2008, the CTIA dropped its lawsuit against the FCC.
The auction divided UHF spectrum into 5 blocks:
Block A: 12 MHz bandwidth (698–704 and 728–734 MHz)
Block B: 12 MHz bandwidth (704–710 and 734–740 MHz)
Block C: 22 MHz bandwidth (746–757 and 776–787 MHz)
Block D: 10 MHz bandwidth (758–763 and 788–793 MHz)
Block E: 6 MHz bandwidth (722–728 MHz)
The FCC placed very detailed rules about the process of this auction of the 698–806 MHz part of the wireless spectrum. Bids were anonymous and designed to promote competition. The aggregate reserve price for all Block C licenses was approximately $4.6 billion. The aggregate reserve price for all 5 blocks being auctioned in Auction 73 was just over $10 billion.
 Results of the auction
Auction 73 generally went as planned by telecommunications analysts. In total, Auction 73 raised $19.592 billion. Notably, Verizon Wireless and AT&T Mobility together accounted for $16.3 billion of the total revenue. Of the 214 approved applicants, 101 successfully purchased at least one license. Despite their heavy involvement with the auction, Google did not purchase any licenses. However, Google did place the minimum bid on Block C licenses in order to ensure that the license would be required to be open-access. 
The results for each of the five blocks:
Block A – Verizon Wireless and U.S. Cellular both bought 25 licenses each. In this block, Verizon targeted urban areas, while U.S. Cellular bought licenses primarily in the northern portion of the U.S. Cavalier Telephone and CenturyTel also bought 23 and 21 licenses, respectively.
Block B – AT&T Mobility was the biggest buyer in the B block, with 227 licenses totaling $6.6 billion. U.S. Cellular and Verizon bought 127 and 77 licenses, respectively. AT&T Mobility and Verizon Wireless bought licenses around the country, while U.S. Cellular continued with its strategy to buy licenses in northern regions.
Block C – Of the 10 licenses in the C Block, Verizon Wireless bought the 7 that cover the contiguous 48 states (and Hawaii). Those seven licenses cost Verizon roughly $4.7 Billion. Of the other three, Triad Broadcasting bought the two covering the Alaska, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, while Small Ventures USA L.P. bought the one covering the Gulf of Mexico.
Block D – Amid some controversy, no licenses were sold in Block D because the reserve price was not met. The FCC had set the reserve price on the spectrum at $1.3 billion, but the highest bidder (Qualcomm) only bid $472 million. This piece of spectrum remains unsold and has not been scheduled for another auction.
Block E – EchoStar spent $711 million to purchase 168 of the 176 available Block E licenses. This block, made up of unpaired spectrum, will likely be used to stream television shows. Qualcomm also bought 5 licenses.
After the end of Auction 73, there remained some licenses that either went unsold or were defaulted on by the winning bidder from Blocks A and B. A new auction, Auction 92, was be held on July 19, 2011 to sell the 700 MHz band licenses that were still available. The auction closed on July 28, 2011, with 7 bidders having won 16 licenses worth $19.8 million.
Sprint is risking losing their "privilege" to transceive the 3G and 4G bands. The FCC has the power to revoke the privilege of using the "Public Airwaves". This in effect will put Sprint out of business if they continue to do so.
Since Sprint is a memeber of the CTIA, they clearly should know they have no authority to act like this and in fact know they have no legal grounds to place any restrictions on a consumers use of the device or applications as long as a person has a 3G or 4G data plan, especially if they are sold as unlimited. The FCC regulations in effect makes any term or conditions that Sprint has attempted to implement void for conflicting with known federal regulations.
I beleive Sprint is grossly inaccuarately counting the customers "Hotspot" usage.
Especially when it works through either a on network 3G, off network 3G or 4G network.
Here is an accounting from my data usage:
|3G on network||198412|
|3g Off Network|
|4G On Network||168689|
|Total Network data||367101||0|
|Hotspot||3370551||Please explain this||or|
|I used only||367101||kB||367.10||MB|
|But get counted||3370551||kB||3370.55||MB|
|That is a difference of||918.15%||918.15%|
In theory, I cannot use more hotspot data than the 3G and 4G total data your system recorded.
Since it is the network connection my device is using.
This seems to be a VERY big error in counting, the only explanation that would be viable is that Hotspots must communicate updated routing protocol data. But this is data that is required for the Hotspot to operate. This must not be counted as customer used data, this can account for as much as 50% of a routers capacity to relay data.
Untill such accurate recording of usage is proven, Sprint must not charge for Hotspot usage.