Ok, let me attempt to clarify what I am saying, because some people are not getting the point here...
Verizon is challenging this ruling that they cannot block apps that compete with their own services. As I see it, they really only have two decent arguments to try to make:
1) "We should be allowed to restrict apps that cause issues with our networks and infrastructure, or that allows people to use excessive bandwidth that can degrade our performance and impact other paying customers."
On that, I would agree with them. Go after the people that are degrading your performance by using too much bandwidth. Throttle them and give them a warning, if they do it again, enroll them in a more expensive tier. Or charge them more. If they continue to abuse it, suspend their service.
Nobody disputes that. I simply dispute them automatically blaming "tethering" itself in a "preserving our network and performance" argument because they have yet to show that a) Tethering causes that, and b) that non-tetherers don't also use excessive badwidth consumption. Many of us tether and end up using LESS than we paid for, so how are we degrading performance? So in this argument, I feel that they are wrong. If performance and service is the argument and issue, then go after the people abusing that and don't automatically assume that anyone tethering is in that top 5%, because at least with us 3G customers, we probably are not. VZW 3G is crazy slow, barely faster than dial-up. Nobody is using dial-up speed as "free ISP". Maybe with LTE, but again, if they are, they will be in that top 5% with a huge bullseye on their backs and easy pickings.
2) "We have a right to protect our other paid services by blocking apps that allow customers to obtain what we offer, but for free."
If they use that argument, the question becomes, what about free IM clients costing them texting plan revenue? Google Voice and other VoIP apps allowing people to have "unlimited calling plans" while only paying for data and the minimum calling plan? What about free music and video streaming thwarting VCast plans?
See, if they win on the tethering issue based on this argument, then they will have a precident to do the same in those other areas if they decide to. That's my problem with it. This argument can EASILY be applied to many other areas if they are successful.
And as for "this is Capitalism"... Capitalism doesn't mean a free for all. It doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with no consequences. A Free market is only as free and unlimited as we allow it to be. If a company is gouging people or nickle and diming them to death, the flip side of Capitalism is that the consumer is the checks and balance, and occasionally the government does have to step in and enforce or allow something.
Auto makers used to be able to void your warranty if you had your car serviced, even an oil change, at a mechanic that was not a factory dealership. That way they could force you to pay more and use the dealership, else they would just void your warranty. But the government stepped in on the side of consumers and passed a law that said that you can buy a car and use a non-dealer mechanic or do the work yourself without automatically voiding your warranty. Now, the flip side is that if the dealer can PROVE that your problem was the RESULT of doing it yourself, or using a non-dealer mechanic or aftermarket part, then they could charge you for the repair. But they had to prove that what you did was what CAUSED it.
So the Capitalist system allowed dealers to screw consumers before the law was passed, but the government did need to play a role and step in and find some middle ground that was fair to the consumer, but didn't screw the dealerships and manufacturers either.
So while I don't like a lot of government intervention, there are times when it sorta has to, because Capitalism is not perfect, and things can go to far when a company gets too big and starts screwing customers and we might not have the power to fight back when there are only 2 or 3 carriers and they all loosely agree to use the same tactics...
So if VZW wins on the "we reserve the right to protect our paid services", my concern is that they could take that same argument and apply it to texts, VoIP, audio and video streaming, etc...
