[hunterdg]

@krayziepop.. It appears the Mogul does indeed support/detect/recognize tethering/PAM. This is the explanation for why one must create a data connection (with pie or otherwise) before invoking ICS..

To clarify, it is NOT that one must use PIE to initiate a connection before using ICS, it is that a DATA connection must exist (grey or white arrows above signal bars) prior to invoking ICS. Launching PIE is just a method of creating that necessary data connection...

@ all.. it appears my initial description of M.IP 2 being populated by the IOTA is no longer correct. PAM phones no longer use a separate M.IP for PAM authentication. Instead, the NAI of M.IP 1 is dynamically prefixed with 'pam' when tethering is detected...(M.IP 1 is essentially changed while the phone is tethered).... shall i edit my original post for purposes of removing misinformation?

When ICS is invoked without a pre-existing data connection, ICS sees that M.IP 1 is NOT connected and thus prefixes M.IP 1 NAI with 'pam', becoming 'username@pam.sprintpcs.com' (this is normal behavior for all phones) the phone then attempts to connect, and gets booted (error 67) when no PAM plan is found on users account

the following appears to mogul specific..
when ICS is invoked with a pre-existing data connection, ICS sees that M.IP 1 is already connected, and thus simply uses the existing data connection and shares it.

some testing i've done that proves ICS uses the 'dynamic' M.IP 1 instead of M.IP 2...:

i cleared my M.IP 1 slot completely, and transferred all the data to M.IP 2 (normally blank), and changed my Active profile Index to '2' (told the phone to use M.IP 2 to connect instad of 1)

I then initaited a data connection with PIE, and was able to surf sucessfully. I then invoked ICS, which promptly disconnected my existing data connection (M.IP2), tried to re-connect (presumably using MIP1) and subsequently threw an error 67. This is proof that ICS dynamically prefixes M.IP 1, and has nothing to do with M.IP 2.. (it did not recognize the existing data connection with M.IP2 as it does with M.IP1)

i then restored my data to M.IP 1, cleared M.IP 2, and all was back to normal (error 67 without existing data connection, no error WITH existing data connection)

@ krayziepop... i like your theory about using the 6700's ICS on the 6800.. though i don't consider myself affluent enough to attempt the hack myself.. I bet if someone could compare the two, they'd notice the 'dynamic prefixing' i speak of and could likely remove it!

@ ebmorgan/all
from what i've read, it seems users with SERO plans are having fewer problems with tethering than others.. this leads me to believe that a SERO plan includes authentication for PAM/tethering built in (as apparently one cannot ADD a PAM pack to a SERO plan)

Can anyone else with a SERO plan confirm or deny their ability to invoke ICS (Internet Sharing) WITHOUT a pre-existing data connection (NO horizontal arrows above signal bars)??