Scholar
•
98 Messages
Is AppleWatch Tethering?
Will AT&T consider using AppleWatch with your iPhone to be a form of tethering? I have seen a lot of people speculate that they think it is tethering, but has AT&T actually said anything about this?
One of the advertised features of the iPhone 6 is that you can use it with AppleWatch, and this is one of the reasons I bought an iPhone 6 on AT&T. They didn't say anything like, "You can use it with AppleWatch BUT you have to change your plan and pay extra" or "You can use it with AppleWatch BUT you can only wear your watch at home". So I would be pretty disappointed if AppleWatch requires a tethering plan.
How is this currently working out with Android smartwatches?
formerlyknownas
ACE - Sage
•
117K Messages
9 years ago
I don't use one, I'm sure we can count on others who do to post more information.
0
0
GLIMMERMAN76
ACE - Expert
•
23.9K Messages
9 years ago
@lizdance40
the only smart watch that requires a sim card is the Samsung Gear S. All other smart watches use the phone and program for use with the watch.
If you have an unlimited data plan then yes a iWatch would be tethering according to ATT's TOS. We just had that discusion about a moto 360.
Moto 360 discussion thread.
http://forums.att.com/t5/Wearables/Tethering-Notification-Email-from-AT-amp-T/m-p/4172399#M100
0
0
neo979
Scholar
•
98 Messages
9 years ago
Tethering means that another device is directly accessing your phone's Internet connection. If it is just syncing with a phone app, that should be different. It's crazy to suggest that tethering restrictions mean "If you download data over the cellular network, you may never put that data on another device for the rest of your life."
I love my iPhone 6+, but I bought my phone and plan based partly on the claim that I could use them with AppleWatch. If this is not true, that would be grounds to terminate my contract.
0
0
formerlyknownas
ACE - Sage
•
117K Messages
9 years ago
The definition of tethering has not yet been cleared up as to how it will effect smart watches. If all the watch does is allow you to bluetooth and see notifications, or other functions a bluetooth ear piece can do, I don't see a problem. But does AT&T?
Are we back in the same circle?
What is considered tethering? What is and is not allowed?
This is another change in technology that hasn't been accounted for. Originally, the only way to 'tether' is with a wifi hot spot. Or by direct cable.
0
0
GLIMMERMAN76
ACE - Expert
•
23.9K Messages
9 years ago
0
0
ujmnz
Guru
•
294 Messages
9 years ago
ATT's own TOS defines tethering as:
6.11.1
Tethering is a wireless or wired method in which your AT&T mobile device is used as a modem or router to provide a Internet Access connection to other devices, such as laptops, netbooks, tablets, smartphones, other phones, USB modems, network routers, mobile hotspots, media players, gaming consoles, and other data-capable devices. AT&T data plans with tethering enabled may be used for tethering your AT&T Mobile device to other devices
The way these smart watches work, they are not getting direct internet access. So tethering shouldn't count. Same with car stereos and such. The phone may be transferring data/information to these devices but not actual internet access/permission because the phone is not acting like a traditional router/modem would.
That's the way I understand their TOS. I had unlimited data until recently. My car stereo has a built in pandora app and I would use it constantly. The bluetooth profiles used would be media audio and call audio only, not internet.
0
0
GLIMMERMAN76
ACE - Expert
•
23.9K Messages
9 years ago
@ujmnz
while I agree with you and I do. If you read that moto 360 thread Dimirty looked at it different.
0
0
ujmnz
Guru
•
294 Messages
9 years ago
I did read his interpretation, which I disagree with. Back when I worked for ATT, I would have strong discussions with management about how the policies are worded because some people read it/understood it differently. One manager would read it and agree with me, another might read it and tell a customer something completely different.
If we take that TOS at face value, then his interpretation is incorrect in my opinion.
edit:
Their internal knowledge database may be worded differently as well. I'm sure they aren't allowed to post the exact wording from that, but that would help with understanding what the employees are told about the policy. But of course, depending on the wording, someone may understand it differently.
0
0