4 ms·

Wireless internet is already a total joke, where carriers charge you extra for tethering just to use the bandwidth you already paid for, and give you the runaro

Wireless internet is already a total joke, where carriers charge you extra for tethering just to use the bandwidth you already paid for, and give you the runaround when you try to contest charges. The carriers will manipulate this market to squeeze every possible dime they can get from it. And recall just how badly mobile phones stagnated before the iPhone and Android. That's carrier control at work. The sooner these guys become reduced to dumb pipes, the better.

ergo98 16y ago
>Wireless internet is already a total joke, where carriers charge you extra for tethering just to use the bandwidth you already paid for Bullshit. Don't dumb down the argument just because it serves your personal desires. Tethering completely upsets the usage models. Their choice is then either to increase prices for everyone, or, if it remains relatively rare, increase the prices for the few. They chose the latter.
- ericd 16y ago
  Given that they claimed "Unlimited" bandwidth, I would say that you already paid for that slice of bandwidth you're using for your computer. That said, it would be nice to have explicit limits at different price points, regardless of how you're using it. They don't seem to be doing this, though, even on AT&T where you're specifically paying for a given amount of bandwidth. You have to pay again. So, parent was hyperbolic, but not bullshit.
  - ergo98 16y ago
    >Given that they claimed "Unlimited" bandwidth I haven't signed up for a plan that claimed unlimited since the 90s. Maybe organizations around here are just more rational? However I do have a 5GB plan on my smartphone. In an average month I use around 500MB, because there's only so much you can do on a smartphone, and they know it, but they monitor the curve and provide enough excess that I know that if I really needed it for a period, I could use it. They also sell data sticks for PCs, and they charge much more for lower caps, because of course they know that you'll use it. My gym membership costs something like $19 a month. Technically I could go every open minute of every day, hogging equipment and space. So could everyone else. Of course then the gym could host a membership count in the dozens instead of in the many hundreds, and my real cost would be significantly higher.
    - steveklabnik 16y ago
      For what It's worth, both my FIOS and my data plan from T-Mobile claim to be unlimited. I have yet to read the fine print.
- dieterrams 16y ago
  > Tethering completely upsets the usage models. Their choice is then either to increase prices for everyone, or, if it remains relatively rare, increase the prices for the few. They chose the latter. The only way they'd be forced to increase prices for everyone is if they were breaking even. And there isn't a usage model in existence that makes a $20 tethering charge on top of a $15 200MB data plan even remotely reasonable. Don't come up with flimsy rationalizations just because it serves your personal desires.
  - ergo98 16y ago
    >The only way they'd be forced to increase prices for everyone is if they were breaking even You mean as a whole company? Ha, that's a riot. If selective customers cost a business disproportionately, they target those customers or fire them as customers. Get used to it because it's how the real world works. >Don't come up with flimsy rationalizations just because it serves your personal desires. I'm a data user, not provider. I gain no benefit by extra costs, caps, and overage fees. Those things hurt me instead of help me. I'm also rational, however, and I have the capacity to separate my selfish desires ("I want everything free and everything limitless and perfect!") from the reality.
    - dieterrams 16y ago
      Ah, when I spoke of your personal desires, I wasn't talking about what you desired from your carrier. It's rather strange that you'd interpret it that way, since that obviously doesn't make any sense. However, you do have a reputation for being uncharitable and holding irrational grudges against people, which also explains your weird "whole company" assumption. Whatever the case, you are strangely attempting to justify carrier pricing schemas through customer costs alone, as if the carriers were driven by sheer necessity rather than the desire to exploit their leverage in a deficiently competitive market. Maybe that's not what you're suggesting. If it is, my breaking even point still stands. If it isn't, and you agree that the pricing schemas are driven by leverage exploitation, then my larger point that carriers will abuse their power to the detriment of the public still stands. I'll grant you one thing, which is that your "usage models" argument is sufficient to explain why tethering restrictions exist at all. But it's neither necessary nor sufficient to explain the specific pricing schemes, which I chalk up to leverage exploitation. And don't try to tell me carriers would never exploit their customers--they have an established and unambiguous record of doing exactly that. I'll be leaving this conversation now, since I'm pretty sure you're in this to attack me rather than have a genuine discussion. Take care!

ergo98 16y ago

>Wireless internet is already a total joke, where carriers charge you extra for tethering just to use the bandwidth you already paid for Bullshit. Don't dumb down the argument just because it serves your personal desires. Tethering completely upsets the usage models. Their choice is then either to increase prices for everyone, or, if it remains relatively rare, increase the prices for the few. They chose the latter.

ericd 16y ago
Given that they claimed "Unlimited" bandwidth, I would say that you already paid for that slice of bandwidth you're using for your computer. That said, it would be nice to have explicit limits at different price points, regardless of how you're using it. They don't seem to be doing this, though, even on AT&T where you're specifically paying for a given amount of bandwidth. You have to pay again. So, parent was hyperbolic, but not bullshit.
- ergo98 16y ago
  >Given that they claimed "Unlimited" bandwidth I haven't signed up for a plan that claimed unlimited since the 90s. Maybe organizations around here are just more rational? However I do have a 5GB plan on my smartphone. In an average month I use around 500MB, because there's only so much you can do on a smartphone, and they know it, but they monitor the curve and provide enough excess that I know that if I really needed it for a period, I could use it. They also sell data sticks for PCs, and they charge much more for lower caps, because of course they know that you'll use it. My gym membership costs something like $19 a month. Technically I could go every open minute of every day, hogging equipment and space. So could everyone else. Of course then the gym could host a membership count in the dozens instead of in the many hundreds, and my real cost would be significantly higher.
  - steveklabnik 16y ago
    For what It's worth, both my FIOS and my data plan from T-Mobile claim to be unlimited. I have yet to read the fine print.
dieterrams 16y ago
> Tethering completely upsets the usage models. Their choice is then either to increase prices for everyone, or, if it remains relatively rare, increase the prices for the few. They chose the latter. The only way they'd be forced to increase prices for everyone is if they were breaking even. And there isn't a usage model in existence that makes a $20 tethering charge on top of a $15 200MB data plan even remotely reasonable. Don't come up with flimsy rationalizations just because it serves your personal desires.
- ergo98 16y ago
  >The only way they'd be forced to increase prices for everyone is if they were breaking even You mean as a whole company? Ha, that's a riot. If selective customers cost a business disproportionately, they target those customers or fire them as customers. Get used to it because it's how the real world works. >Don't come up with flimsy rationalizations just because it serves your personal desires. I'm a data user, not provider. I gain no benefit by extra costs, caps, and overage fees. Those things hurt me instead of help me. I'm also rational, however, and I have the capacity to separate my selfish desires ("I want everything free and everything limitless and perfect!") from the reality.
  - dieterrams 16y ago
    Ah, when I spoke of your personal desires, I wasn't talking about what you desired from your carrier. It's rather strange that you'd interpret it that way, since that obviously doesn't make any sense. However, you do have a reputation for being uncharitable and holding irrational grudges against people, which also explains your weird "whole company" assumption. Whatever the case, you are strangely attempting to justify carrier pricing schemas through customer costs alone, as if the carriers were driven by sheer necessity rather than the desire to exploit their leverage in a deficiently competitive market. Maybe that's not what you're suggesting. If it is, my breaking even point still stands. If it isn't, and you agree that the pricing schemas are driven by leverage exploitation, then my larger point that carriers will abuse their power to the detriment of the public still stands. I'll grant you one thing, which is that your "usage models" argument is sufficient to explain why tethering restrictions exist at all. But it's neither necessary nor sufficient to explain the specific pricing schemes, which I chalk up to leverage exploitation. And don't try to tell me carriers would never exploit their customers--they have an established and unambiguous record of doing exactly that. I'll be leaving this conversation now, since I'm pretty sure you're in this to attack me rather than have a genuine discussion. Take care!