how-to block ads
topics flat nest
|Comments on news posted 2011-07-11 15:25:36: As had been expected, Verizon this week began pushing smartphone updates that cripple some devices' innate ability to be used as a mobile hotspot -- for free. .. |
Why so serious? You know, it really upsets me with BBR posts these stories about carrier sms 'cash cows' and now that they have removed free tethering everyone is up in arms. Before I get into anything, remember this: Verizon, and all other carriers, are BUSINESSES. They are not charities. They are not non profits. They are in the business of making money, just like all other businesses.
Why remove tethering? Tethered users use more data than mobile users. That is a known fact, and please don't tell me Jim Bob living in the country only checks his e-mail once a month with tethering, so won't use as much data. There is an exception to every argument.
Now, what if tethering was provided for free? You would have unlimited data to use on your computer, would put a strain on the tower you are connected to, creating a worse experience for other users trying to use the network. Not to mention that by using more data you are costing the company more money, and remember, they're a business not a charity.
Some say that the tethering functionality is already included in the phone, and was removed by Verizon - but guess what. Phones come with built in phone functionality that cell providers also charge for using, should that be free too? Please don't give me a car analogy,
This is all for those users grandfathered to the unlimited 29.99 plan. Anyone with the new tiered data pricing, I agree, hotspot should be included, as it is your choice how you use your 2/5/10/8000000 GB.
Re: Why so serious?
said by RandomGuy :
Some say that the tethering functionality is already included in the phone, and was removed by Verizon - but guess what.
Some The lawsuit say that the tethering Bluetooth functionality is already included in the phone, and was removed by Verizon - but guess what, Verizon got sued for "willful, deceptive and oppressive conduct" and was ordered to make a settlement with users.