hotspot teather..pay or not pay??

[dcastillo]

how's this sound...

We go to sweet tomatoes (buffet) a few times a month.. when you pay you are asked if you want water or soda...
They give you either a clear or red glass. Then you go to the soda fountain and get your drink yourself. Can I fill my water glass with soda just because its there? Sure I could, but I know its wrong because soda is something extra I should pay for....
When you get service from verizon, we all know hotspot has an extra charge, if we don't pay that charge then we shouldn't use it... whether are phones can do it out of the box or not....
This isn't a question of what's fair or not fair... restaurants that charge 3 bucks for a soda isn't fair at all... but that doesn't give me the right to break the rules and put soda in my water glass...
Same with tethering...
Danny

 

[Andrew Martonik]

how's this sound...

We go to sweet tomatoes (buffet) a few times a month.. when you pay you are asked if you want water or soda...
They give you either a clear or red glass. Then you go to the soda fountain and get your drink yourself. Can I fill my water glass with soda just because its there? Sure I could, but I know its wrong because soda is something extra I should pay for....
When you get service from verizon, we all know hotspot has an extra charge, if we don't pay that charge then we shouldn't use it... whether are phones can do it out of the box or not....
This isn't a question of what's fair or not fair... restaurants that charge 3 bucks for a soda isn't fair at all... but that doesn't give me the right to break the rules and put soda in my water glass...
Same with tethering...
Danny

No... That's actually not paying for something then taking a paid product. Explicitly "stealing".

This is different. By your analogy, this is like buying a red cup, then filling it up with soda, and taking 2 straws so that you and your friend can share the soda. By Verizon's rules, you need to pay for that soda twice because you're letting 2 people use it, even though you only bought one cup, and you're using the same limited amount of soda, just split between the 2 of you (even if there are "unlimited" refills, you paid for that amount of soda still). Your "contract" of buying the red cup is that you'll take soda and use it. Its your choice how.

Sure, some could say "why not just get 2 cups, that's not nice", but its wholly in the rules for you to buy that red cup, put the soda in it, and share it between you and your friend. You paid for the soda, you can drink it, share it, dump it on the floor or throw it in the trash. It doesn't matter. Once you paid for it, do whatever the f**k you want with it!

This is the exact same with tethering, I don't know how many times I (or others) have to say it. You're paying for a set amount of data: 2gb, 4gb, 5, 10, etc... why should it be more expensive because you use it differently... You're using the exact same amount of data. Data used on your computer is data not used on the phone. You're not using 2x as much, you're using one or the other at a time. So who cares? You're capped anyways.

I'll refer back to my example 6 some-odd pages ago. It's as if you have a cable ISP that charges $50/month and gives you a modem and an ethernet cable, and you can only register 1 desktop PC to use with it. If you want to use a router (that you bought!) to hook up an XBOX or a laptop PC, you have to pay them an extra $20/month. How absurd is that argument? Could you imagine if Time Warner, Comcast, Roadrunner, etc. did that? This is exactly the same.

Every single person paying for tethering is just affirming the carrier's idea that double charging for data is OK. Stop doing it, seriously...

 

[dcastillo]

Interesting point... but my situation like some others is different... I have unlimited data...

 

[JustinTiburon#AC]

Interesting point... but my situation like some others is different... I have unlimited data...

I have unlimited as well and I still tether from time to time. I refuse to pay for it but if the service is there I'm not going to stop using it. I'll stop when I get a warning.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

 

[Nechasin]

how's this sound...

We go to sweet tomatoes (buffet) a few times a month.. when you pay you are asked if you want water or soda...
They give you either a clear or red glass. Then you go to the soda fountain and get your drink yourself. Can I fill my water glass with soda just because its there? Sure I could, but I know its wrong because soda is something extra I should pay for....
When you get service from verizon, we all know hotspot has an extra charge, if we don't pay that charge then we shouldn't use it... whether are phones can do it out of the box or not....
This isn't a question of what's fair or not fair... restaurants that charge 3 bucks for a soda isn't fair at all... but that doesn't give me the right to break the rules and put soda in my water glass...
Same with tethering...
Danny

if you only paid for one soda, then the us nothing wrong with sharing. However, if you paid for unlimited soda then it is wrong to share. The unlimited is for you and you alone. By your analogy, it would be okay to buy one unlimited soda, and then go around and fill everyone's glass in the restaurant with out any one else paying for soda because you bought unlimited.

someone should start a poll with age ranges and if you pay for tether or not. I think it would be interesting.

 

[anon(596177)]

if you only paid for one soda, then the us nothing wrong with sharing. However, if you paid for unlimited soda then it is wrong to share. The unlimited is for you and you alone. By your analogy, it would be okay to buy one unlimited soda, and then go around and fill everyone's glass in the restaurant with out any one else paying for soda because you bought unlimited.

someone should start a poll with age ranges and if you pay for tether or not. I think it would be interesting.

Annnd with that post it's time for me to chime in lol.

I agree mostly with this argument. Of course there are going to be those who dont but to each their own.

I have a second job working two days a week as a server in a restaurant. Occasionally, I will get a couple, or a party of two, that will order their meals and then only order one soft drink between the two of them. The thing is, sometimes that couple will share that drink even though it comes with free refills, sometimes because they are trying to save a couple bucks, and sometimes because one feels like they wouldnt be able to finish a full drink and thus doesn't want to pay for something they wont use to their full extent. Either way, I am required to get them their drink and their refill because they ordered it, and 29 times out of 30 there is no reason to confront the customer about sharing a drink with free refills because they do not go over 1 or sometimes 2 refills to that glass, and soda is so cheap for the restaurant to buy that it just isn't worth the time to confront the customer and risk of losing their business.


I see tethering the exact same way. There are some people out there (myself included) that use a tethering app to tether for free, and some of them (again, myself included) still have unlimited data. I personally have a free wifi hotspot app and I have it specifically for times that I am without wifi and need it for my work laptop. Does it get used occasionally for other reasons? sure, I would be lying to say I havent used it for personal gain on occasion. But, it gets used specifically for times I need internet and a cell phone browser just wont cut it. Just last night my internet went out at home while I was in the middle of getting something done, so I popped on my hotspot and was able to finish it while my cable network at home was down.

I, however, do not rack up 10 GB/month worth of data while tethered. I have had my hotspot app for 2 months now and have yet to pass 2 gb of tethered data. With that being said I do not and will not pay for a tethering plan monthly for a trivial amount of data sharing, it's completely not worth it to me. This is where the soda sharing analogy comes in.

Then we can talk about the verizon side. Verizon pretty much works like my restaurant does. Having an app on your phone that gives free tethering is trivial to verizon, at least for most users. There are some that go a little too far with it, but in most cases it isn't hurting Verizon's business, and they dont want to completely lose your business, so they turn a blind eye.

I like having the ability of using my phone as a hotspot when I need it but I dont abuse it, so I have no problem using an app that gives that ability to me free.

 

[JustinTiburon#AC]

Annnd with that post it's time for me to chime in lol.

I agree mostly with this argument. Of course there are going to be those who dont but to each their own.

I have a second job working two days a week as a server in a restaurant. Occasionally, I will get a couple, or a party of two, that will order their meals and then only order one soft drink between the two of them. The thing is, sometimes that couple will share that drink even though it comes with free refills, sometimes because they are trying to save a couple bucks, and sometimes because one feels like they wouldnt be able to finish a full drink and thus doesn't want to pay for something they wont use to their full extent. Either way, I am required to get them their drink and their refill because they ordered it, and 29 times out of 30 there is no reason to confront the customer about sharing a drink with free refills because they do not go over 1 or sometimes 2 refills to that glass, and soda is so cheap for the restaurant to buy that it just isn't worth the time to confront the customer and risk of losing their business.


I see tethering the exact same way. There are some people out there (myself included) that use a tethering app to tether for free, and some of them (again, myself included) still have unlimited data. I personally have a free wifi hotspot app and I have it specifically for times that I am without wifi and need it for my work laptop. Does it get used occasionally for other reasons? sure, I would be lying to say I havent used it for personal gain on occasion. But, it gets used specifically for times I need internet and a cell phone browser just wont cut it. Just last night my internet went out at home while I was in the middle of getting something done, so I popped on my hotspot and was able to finish it while my cable network at home was down.

I, however, do not rack up 10 GB/month worth of data while tethered. I have had my hotspot app for 2 months now and have yet to pass 2 gb of tethered data. With that being said I do not and will not pay for a tethering plan monthly for a trivial amount of data sharing, it's completely not worth it to me. This is where the soda sharing analogy comes in.

Then we can talk about the verizon side. Verizon pretty much works like my restaurant does. Having an app on your phone that gives free tethering is trivial to verizon, at least for most users. There are some that go a little too far with it, but in most cases it isn't hurting Verizon's business, and they dont want to completely lose your business, so they turn a blind eye.

I like having the ability of using my phone as a hotspot when I need it but I dont abuse it, so I have no problem using an app that gives that ability to me free.

Tell those cheap idiots to quit being cheap and pay for another 2 dollar soda!

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

 

[dmmarck]

People need to relax with the legal advice unless they're attorneys.

Adhesion contracts are generally disfavored nowadays, but the degree to which that affects the consumer depends upon relevant state statutory law and common law. Without knowing this, the entire conversation is moot because only generalities are known.

Second, to whomever mentioned the UCC. Itself is not enforceable, but only the state equivalent. There can be differences. Also, this contract is likely to be considered a services contract with a purchase of the phone being a minority of the purpose. Therefore, if a court determined it was for services, the UCC/state equivalent doesn't apply.

Third, look up the option theory of contract by Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Xparent Cyan Tapatalk

 

[ScooberJake]

This is different. By your analogy, this is like buying a red cup, then filling it up with soda, and taking 2 straws so that you and your friend can share the soda.

No, I think the original analogy is correct. Verizon has a service for tethering (the red cup). Many people choose not to buy the addition service and pay only for data on the phone (the clear cup). But then they put soda in their clear cup just because no one is watching. This has nothing to do with sharing with another person.

If you go to that restaurant and take a few sips of soda from your clear cup will the restaurant care if they see you? No, of course not. Sure, you are breaking the letter of the law, but it has no real effect. Besides, you might decide you like the soda and buy the red cup next time. Even if you fill your clear cup all the way with soda, they still may not say anything because they don't want to lose your business (i.e. use amounts of data equal to a typical phone user).

But if you get to the point where you are filling that clear cup with soda 20 times, maybe trying to take a little home with you, the restaurant will definitely care and probably kick you out. Once that happens they might have to crack down on all soda in the clear cups, even just a sip here or there.

So IMO there are two reasons not to use large amounts of tethered data without paying for it. The first is ethics. But even if you don't agree with my ethical evaluation, surely you can see that abusing the leniency that Verizon is giving us can only cost us all the perk of unlimited data and occasional tethering in the future.

 

[JustinTiburon#AC]

No, I think the original analogy is correct. Verizon has a service for tethering (the red cup). Many people choose not to buy the addition service and pay only for data on the phone (the clear cup). But then they put soda in their clear cup just because no one is watching. This has nothing to do with sharing with another person.

If you go to that restaurant and take a few sips of soda from your clear cup will the restaurant care if they see you? No, of course not. Sure, you are breaking the letter of the law, but it has no real effect. Besides, you might decide you like the soda and buy the red cup next time. Even if you fill your clear cup all the way with soda, they still may not say anything because they don't want to lose your business (i.e. use amounts of data equal to a typical phone user).

But if you get to the point where you are filling that clear cup with soda 20 times, maybe trying to take a little home with you, the restaurant will definitely care and probably kick you out. Once that happens they might have to crack down on all soda in the clear cups, even just a sip here or there.

So IMO there are two reasons not to use large amounts of tethered data without paying for it. The first is ethics. But even if you don't agree with my ethical evaluation, surely you can see that abusing the leniency that Verizon is giving us can only cost us all the perk of unlimited data and occasional tethering in the future.

Obviously they don't care that much considering the one guy on here actually called up Verizon and told them about it asking if he can use it without getting charged, and the moron on the other end of the phone said I didn't know they could do that, but tell me how again? The guy works for Verizon, some customer told him about the stupid glitch and they didn't seem to care that much. In the end its a stupid glitch and the more complaining about it, the more annoying it gets. Who cares what joe shmoe does, it doesn't effect you in anyway or ruin your service, or cost you more money so if he gets caught then he gets caught. I doubt it would ever happen, but if it does so be it. You stand on your good conscious knowing you never break any contract your 100 percent perfect and let us 99 percenters do what we want with out devices.

/threaddie please?

 

[bworley50]

People need to relax with the legal advice unless they're attorneys.

Adhesion contracts are generally disfavored nowadays, but the degree to which that affects the consumer depends upon relevant state statutory law and common law. Without knowing this, the entire conversation is moot because only generalities are known.

Second, to whomever mentioned the UCC. Itself is not enforceable, but only the state equivalent. There can be differences. Also, this contract is likely to be considered a services contract with a purchase of the phone being a minority of the purpose. Therefore, if a court determined it was for services, the UCC/state equivalent doesn't apply.

Third, look up the option theory of contract by Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Xparent Cyan Tapatalk

Here is my bottom line. Any time I enter a contract whereby the other party states that he/she/it can change the terms and conditions of the contract during the middle of the contract, yet I cannot, is a contract that I deem to be unfair. Courts have agreed with this. "So don't enter the contract," people say. All wireless carriers have this language, so if I want a cell phone, I have to agree to this. So, I agree, and then do what I want. It's their job to call me out on it. All you people who say that is unethical have not mentioned the ethics of a corporation designing an adhesion contract which I cannot negotiate. If they all do it, then I can't "go somewhere else." I could just not have cell service, I get that. The difference is that I love VZ and I do not complain about their policies. I just break them whenever I feel like it, because they can do the same. They have it in writing that they can do that. If you're going to contract with me, and you include in the contract that you can change the terms of the contract whenever you feel like it, guess what? I will too. That is called business intelligence, not lack of ethics. Is it ethical to charge me twice for the same data? I don't know, and I don't care. I just won't participate. VZ is obviously fine with that. I have never gone over 5GB in a month, never. I pay for home internet as well. I tether for free in very rare circumstances. I'm sure as hell not going to pay for it.

 

[ScooberJake]

Here is my bottom line. Any time I enter a contract whereby the other party states that he/she/it can change the terms and conditions of the contract during the middle of the contract, yet I cannot, is a contract that I deem to be unfair. Courts have agreed with this. "So don't enter the contract," people say. All wireless carriers have this language, so if I want a cell phone, I have to agree to this. So, I agree, and then do what I want. It's their job to call me out on it. All you people who say that is unethical have not mentioned the ethics of a corporation designing an adhesion contract which I cannot negotiate. If they all do it, then I can't "go somewhere else." I could just not have cell service, I get that. The difference is that I love VZ and I do not complain about their policies. I just break them whenever I feel like it, because they can do the same. They have it in writing that they can do that. If you're going to contract with me, and you include in the contract that you can change the terms of the contract whenever you feel like it, guess what? I will too. That is called business intelligence, not lack of ethics. Is it ethical to charge me twice for the same data? I don't know, and I don't care. I just won't participate. VZ is obviously fine with that. I have never gone over 5GB in a month, never. I pay for home internet as well. I tether for free in very rare circumstances. I'm sure as hell not going to pay for it.

You know, even though I am on the opposite side of this little discussion from you, I think you make a good point. And in the end, you and I do the same thing. I don't use my grandfathered unlimited data plan with my free tether capability as my home internet service. I only use it in rare circumstances when I need to connect my wife's Macbook or Kindle and there is no other connection around.

 

[GNex Girl]

People need to relax with the legal advice unless they're attorneys.

Adhesion contracts are generally disfavored nowadays, but the degree to which that affects the consumer depends upon relevant state statutory law and common law. Without knowing this, the entire conversation is moot because only generalities are known.

Second, to whomever mentioned the UCC. Itself is not enforceable, but only the state equivalent. There can be differences. Also, this contract is likely to be considered a services contract with a purchase of the phone being a minority of the purpose. Therefore, if a court determined it was for services, the UCC/state equivalent doesn't apply.

Third, look up the option theory of contract by Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

You clearly are not an attorney.

 

[GNex Girl]

All wireless carriers have this language, so if I want a cell phone, I have to agree to this. So, I agree, and then do what I want. It's their job to call me

The wireless companies are an oligopoly, one which was granted to them by the FCC selling them parts of the electromagnetic spectrum to transmit on, which makes their adhesion contracts even more egregious.

adhesion contract + oligopoly granted by the government = unsympathetic defendant

 

[dmmarck]

You clearly are not an attorney.

I am in Virginia

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Xparent Cyan Tapatalk

 

[dmmarck]

Here is my bottom line. Any time I enter a contract whereby the other party states that he/she/it can change the terms and conditions of the contract during the middle of the contract, yet I cannot, is a contract that I deem to be unfair. Courts have agreed with this. "So don't enter the contract," people say. All wireless carriers have this language, so if I want a cell phone, I have to agree to this. So, I agree, and then do what I want. It's their job to call me out on it. All you people who say that is unethical have not mentioned the ethics of a corporation designing an adhesion contract which I cannot negotiate. If they all do it, then I can't "go somewhere else." I could just not have cell service, I get that. The difference is that I love VZ and I do not complain about their policies. I just break them whenever I feel like it, because they can do the same. They have it in writing that they can do that. If you're going to contract with me, and you include in the contract that you can change the terms of the contract whenever you feel like it, guess what? I will too. That is called business intelligence, not lack of ethics. Is it ethical to charge me twice for the same data? I don't know, and I don't care. I just won't participate. VZ is obviously fine with that. I have never gone over 5GB in a month, never. I pay for home internet as well. I tether for free in very rare circumstances. I'm sure as hell not going to pay for it.

I agree. Luckily, in most states, adhesion contracts never pan out due to doctrines related to procedural and substantive unconscionability. In more conservative states, like the one I practice in (as a transactional attorney), they take a more stringent accountability approach.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Xparent Cyan Tapatalk

 

[Andrew Martonik]

I am in Virginia

Click to view quoted image

LOL. Owned.....

 

[thebignewt]

I've been with Vzn now (again) almost 2 years now with a smartphone, and I honestly didn't know about the "hotspot" application that they have where you pay to tether. I can't find it on my GN either. The only tethering I know about is the app that was posted here on this forum, the free one. I remember reading some threads on a Blackberry forum years ago where some people were called to the carpet by Vzn for tethering because of the amount of data they were using (3G), but that's about it. They don't give a rat's a#s who tethers as long as they aren't hogs. They'll get the hogs in due time, tethering or no tethering. It's gonna be pay to play from now on I think.

 

[Ricky Babalu]

I am in Virginia

Click to view quoted image


Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Xparent Cyan Tapatalk

Ahahahahahaha..........................

 

[dmmarck]

My apologies about earlier. I hate internet bragging, but on the other hand, I can't stand trolling.