[hunterdg]

For purposes of this thread, the "\HKLM\Software\OEM\WModem\Multi-NAI" registry hack is DEBUNKED/BUSTED. This registry key has absolutley no effect on tethering via "Internet Sharing"

Internet sharing WITHOUT a PAM plan is possible if a data connection is initiated (white or grey arrows above signal strength meter) prior to invoking the 'internet sharing' application

If one attempts to invoke 'Internet Sharing' without a pre-existing data connection, the device attempts to make a connection, but returns an error 67 (assuming no PAM plan exists. This is proof that the 'Internet Sharing application does indeed attempt to pass a different NAI to the sprint server authentication process. I am unable to determine the location of this M.IP/NAI. It is NOT M.IP 2 as i previously posited.

M.IP 2 is NOT populated via IOTA with a [username]@pam.sprintpcs.com NAI, as i previously mentioned. I'm starting to question Sprint's method of verifying tethering.. It seems that instead of populating a completely separate M.IP with the PAM NAI (as was once the case), the phone may now simply dynamically prefix the standard M.IP with 'pam' when tethering is detected. This certainly seems like a legitimate method sprint may have adopted to reduce the ease of fooling the PAM nai authentication process..

It appears that, as far as authentication is concerned, there is no difference between the 'Sprint PCS' and 'Phone As Modem' connections. There is no correlation btw the error 67 (failure to authenticate) and the network connection chosen in 'Internet Sharing'. Regardless of which is selected, the error 67 only occurs when there is no EXISTING data connection.

make sense?

Now we need to find the reg key or piece of 'Internet Sharing' app that prefixes M.IP1 with 'pam'. once we find this, we will no longer have to ensure a data connection exists before invoking 'Internet Sharing'