dafischman
Member
If what I've seen from SquireSCA, he isn't debating it being in the ToS. I will admit it's in there. It doesn't mean I have to agree with the concept. I agree with him that it's BS. I also agree that if you tether without paying you are in violation of the ToS. I rarely tether, but when I do, I know I'm violating my Tos. If they want to kick me off their service, I can take my $180+ per month to another carrier. Somehow I doubt they'll do that, but they'll make it harder to do the tethering if they can.You are still missing the point. I cannot explain it any simpler for you other than to say that it is like the water company analogy.
You pay for water, but then they tell you that you cannot shower with that water that you already paid for. If you want to bathe, then you need to pay another fee, for the same water.
How many times should we pay for the same amount of water?
I am not a sheeple for asking the questions. The sheeple are the ones that never question anything and just blindly follow whatever the Mother Ship hands them...
I love it when people say "you are missing the point". It shows a level of ignorance that I can only laugh or cry at it.
Fact: Tethering is a product sold by VZW.
Fact: It is a profit product for VZW.
Fact: Sheeple are paying for this product.
Those facts can't be argued with. I really don't give a flying-flip how you want to spin this. I am pointing out FACTS and only FACTS.
Your opinion that they shouldn't be allowed to double deep is irrelevant to those facts. Your opinion of how things should be done is also irrelevant to those facts. The sooner you figure this out this better off you will be as a consumer.
Pay for tethering and you are telling VZW life is golden. If you don't you better make sure the other people that are paying stop as well or your spin/opinion doesn't mean JACK.
+1
People need to stop looking at the definition of unlimited data in the dictionary and instead look it up in their Terms of Service contract. That's what matters in the real world.
Once again, I know it's in the ToS, and I'm not arguing that. What I am arguing is that if we continue to allow companies to rape us for this stuff, the slippery slope is very likely. What if Verizon decides to disable speaker phones on all phones and decides since speaker phones are a convenience allowing more than one people to be involved in the conversation that they want an extra $10 per month to reactivate it. If they put it in their ToS, I wouldn't automatically start agreeing with it.
This is why I think, if this has any truth, it is because the carriers want to lock down the phones so they can force us to use what they want us to use and create additional revenue streams. I don't think it is necessarily about tethering, but about the greater openness of the system. They want to force us to use their programs at what ever they want to charge us. They don't like that we have options, and that Dev's can create a program that often times works better than theirs and is free.
Josh