4 ms·

> Tethering completely upsets the usage models. Their choice is then either to increase prices for everyone, or, if it remains relatively rare, increase the pri

> 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
    Interesting discussion tactic. Your argument is almost entirely an attack on me (first that I have a "reputation", which is a laugh, and then that I bizarrely mistook your very clear statement), and then after making your point you leave off claiming that this is it, you're sure that I'll just attack you. That people actually fell for that blend of trolling, actually up-arrowing, is a sad indictment of Hacker News. I was sure everyone was pretty accustomed to that cheap tactic by now.

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
  Interesting discussion tactic. Your argument is almost entirely an attack on me (first that I have a "reputation", which is a laugh, and then that I bizarrely mistook your very clear statement), and then after making your point you leave off claiming that this is it, you're sure that I'll just attack you. That people actually fell for that blend of trolling, actually up-arrowing, is a sad indictment of Hacker News. I was sure everyone was pretty accustomed to that cheap tactic by now.