When I start the hotspot on my phone, it does not ask me to pay.if I started the hotspot on my phone, it would ask me to pay...
When I start the hotspot on my phone, it does not ask me to pay.if I started the hotspot on my phone, it would ask me to pay...
When I start the hotspot on my phone, it does not ask me to pay.
I start my hotspot on my phone using a widget. It starts and I don't get asked to pay.I believe if you start the hotspot on your phone, then try to connect to it from another machine, it then asks you to pay..
I could be wrong, but thats how it used to be...
-Danny
But that doesn't mean that the phone wasn't designed to allow you to use a widget, it was. And VZW knows that and allows people to use their GNexi as they were designed to be used.ahh...
but if you started it from the settings menu, not from a downloaded app, you would be asked to pay....
"The right thing to do." Can anyone tell me if charging twice for the same data is "The right thing to do?"
Anyone see the padphone where you actually doc your cell into a tablet. You gonna pay for that tethering?
If they follow AT&T's policy with tethering when you plug a Motorola phone into a Lapdock, they'll make you pay for tethering on the Padphone.
This is the hypocrisy of carriers charging for tethering. They'll double charge you when you plug your phone into a bigger monitor, even though there is no transmission of data. Absolute joke.
Yes. I agreed to a contract that says VZ can change it at any time. This is a contract of adhesion. Look it up if you don't know what it means. So, if VZ has a problem with me tethering my device without paying for it, they can do a number of things to try to stop it, or terminate my contract. I would have to go to arbitration to fight it, and would most likely win. That is why they don't enforce it. The language in the contract, the whole contract, is designed to be in VZ's favor, without any room for me as the consumer to negotiate it. They design these contracts so that people like you follow them, whereas people like me who don't, they don't do anything because they know that in the unlikely event we do go to arbitration, they have no legal leg on which to stand and could cause them to remove the tethering pricing and language altogether. It is a contractual deterrent, but is unlikely to be enforced fully in a dispute. It's like when you sign a waiver for a waverunner. If the waverunner was not properly maintained and blows up and hurts you, the waiver you signed doesn't give the owner who rents it to you the right to be negligent. Similarly, just because VZ draws up an adhesory contract to which I agree does not mean that it is enforceable.Wrong question
The question is, "Did you agree to the conditions of the contract?"
The rhetorical question is... "are you living up to what you agreed to?" but you probably knew that question.
The sooner you accept that you are working with rationalizations rather than right or wrong... the sooner this thread will end.
:-D
Yes, you are confused. The VZW contract does not say you can't tether.I'm confused now... so you are agreeing that you signed a contract that says you can't tether, but then you are justifying to us why you do?
-Danny
The VZW contract does NOT say that a widget can't be used to WiFi tether. You are wrong. Again.The question is, "Did you agree to the conditions of the contract?"
Yes. It's called contract law. Brush up a bit on it.I'm confused now... so you are agreeing that you signed a contract that says you can't tether, but then you are justifying to us why you do?
-Danny
VZW doesn't mind at all. If they did, they would throttle you like ATT does. Not throttling 4G LTE is part of VZW's business strategy to get ATT customers to come over to VZW.VZW doesn't seem to mind much.
You'd better hit the books yourself. That's what I do. Verizon would win hands down over you in 60 seconds (or less). But they cannot be bothered to mess with diddly stuff like tethering using widgets and stuff. It means nothing to their business. They're happy to have some people pay for it, and they don't care otherwise. When they run into bandwidth problems they'll most likely do the ATT thing: throttle the high use phones (>2GB/month) back (and that's in the contract). That kills the nonpaying tether people right there. This is pretty simple, and I predict they'll have most of the unlimited contracts changed by the end of 2013. Mabye one year after that. The fact that ATT is throttling already plays right into Vzn's hand, they'll get some converts who are just pissed off at ATT. Either way the unlimited contracts go bye bye (either with ATT or Verizon). That's their ultimate goal: to get the high data users to pay more fees, and keep the low data users (like me and my wife, who use 0.5gb/month and pay for unlimited) paying more than they have to. My wife would never give up her precious unlimited plan, even thought she could save money on the 2GB deal. They'll win, they always do.Yes. It's called contract law. Brush up a bit on it.
Anything to support that opinion?You'd better hit the books yourself. That's what I do. Verizon would win hands down over you in 60 seconds (or less). But they cannot be bothered to mess with diddly stuff like tethering. It means nothing to their business. They're happy to have some people pay for it, and they don't care otherwise. When they run into bandwidth problems they'll most likely do the ATT thing: throttle the high use phones (>2GB/month) back (and that's in the contract). That kills the nonpaying tether people right there. This is pretty simple, and I predict they'll have most of the unlimited contracts changed by the end of 2013. Mabye one year after that.
Yes. It's called contract law. Brush up a bit on it.
