1:04 am
April 22, 2009
4:50 am
October 14, 2008
12:57 pm
August 13, 2009
My nokia n8 has the ability to be a wireless hotspot.
Since SO i limited to WAP browsing only, would it be against the terms of service to tether other phones so that they could browse with just their built in browser too?
Just a curiosity question. The term 'tethering' usually is meant to assume full access to the internet using your laptop to abuse things such as downloading or 'regular' laptop use.
1:04 pm
October 14, 2008
6:54 pm
December 30, 2010
i would say the UMB is for on device browsing only, if you want to stick to the terms and conditions(well at least the essence of it).
So even it is not full data access, you are not supposed to be using it from other device(even if it is possible). It is very similar to the 'no video download' that strictly speaking is not violating the 'browsing' definition(embedded youtube is typical example). But that is also against the intend of the usage and they explicitly added that.
8:33 pm
March 8, 2012
Hmmm...I didn't realize that it was against the TOS. I guess I figured that if they didn't want something like that done they'd just disable the ability to do that since they control the access.
Sounds like the Wind mobile internet plan may be more my speed. I was just planning on using Speakout to browse the web and do e-mail on my Playbook but if I can't do that I might as well look at Wind as a home internet replacement to make up for the extra $25/month.
7:19 am
October 14, 2008
With all due respect, it is your responsibility to read and understand the TOS on the official site, as well as the rules on this site before you make your first post. That way it clears up a lot of confusion as to what or what isn't allowed. Too many people come here and post away with no regards for the rules.
8:00 pm
March 8, 2012
Dude I already conceded to my error and never claimed otherwise.
I'm hardy the first person on the internet to click "ok" to the terms and conditions on a website without reading them.
Nor am I interested in taking part in an internet tinkling contest so I'll pass on the flame bait. But thank you for stating the obvious so you could take the moral high ground and look down on me.
11:06 pm
December 30, 2010
AssmanMike said:
Dude I already conceded to my error and never claimed otherwise.
I'm hardy the first person on the internet to click "ok" to the terms and conditions on a website without reading them.
Nor am I interested in taking part in an internet tinkling contest so I'll pass on the flame bait. But thank you for stating the obvious so you could take the moral high ground and look down on me.
don't worry, you are not the only one. In fact, it is plain unrealistic to expect ANYONE to read that
How many people read their city bylaw or their credit card fine prints ?