Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Let my Wi-Fi go: FCC rules Verizon can't charge for Wi-Fi tethering

zdnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 146 posts

Re: Let my Wi-Fi go: FCC rules Verizon can't charge for Wi-Fi tethering

#121

Post by javert »

juiceandjuice wrote: post #32

The most important reason why this is a no-brainer is because of the 700Mhz spectrum auction. The open device restriction (or lack of restrictions really) was a key provision that google pushed for. I'm sure some people are going to say the government is overstepping their authority, but in fact, they aren't. Verizon was overstepping their authority in this case. Everybody has google to thank for this.

I don't know much about the auction and the restriction you're talking about.

Even if anyone can use that spectrum, can't I charge someone for using my data network across that spectrum? I mean, presumably, Verizon is providing the endpoint you're connecting to.

Re: Let my Wi-Fi go: FCC rules Verizon can't charge for Wi-Fi tethering

#122

Post by vacri »

robomartin wrote: post #119
vacri wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you also complain that your cable TV isn't used to capacity because you're not watching all channels 24 hours a day? It seems so peculiar that people complain that they're not using their internet account to saturation when they don't make the same complaint about other things.

I am having trouble finding where in my post I said anything about using a service to saturation. Not that the cable TV analogy holds up. If you are using an iOS device to download a 100MB game app over WiFi via AT&T DSL --that you pay for-- while, at the same time paying for a cellular data plan, AT&T is making making more money on you because their cellular data bandwidth is not being utilized by they still charge…

The actual cost of the data itself is trivial in comparison to the cost of connectivity in the first place.

If you really hate it that much, and claim that you effectively never use it, then get a phone plan without data and just use your wifi. Problem solved.

The thing is, you do use your cellular data, and maintaining that service is more than just pushing a few ones and zeros.

I am having trouble finding where in my post I said anything about using a service to saturation.

Your post is complaining about paying for unused data, and why can't you just pay for the data you're actually using - in short, you want a plan that you saturate and just want to pay for that.

Re: Let my Wi-Fi go: FCC rules Verizon can't charge for Wi-Fi tethering

#124

Post by gojomo »

_delirium wrote: post #69
gojomo wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, there's a retaliatory impulse against those who seem to be arbitrarily price-discriminating... like norm-enforcers taking nothing rather than an unfair split in the ultimatum game. It explains some of the emotion around this issue. But if that effect were strong enough in this market, would it require the FCC to ban the tethering charge? (The FTC didn't have to ban Amazon's pricing experiments.) Most people…

It's a good question, and somewhat hard to disentangle. My view is that there's a strong opinion from techies that "the tubes" should be a commodity/utility service, and therefore there's resistance to various kinds of provider control/segmentation of uses. Basically, this view holds that pipes should be treated as utility or common-carrier type provisioning. Having that kind of view does correlate with being a heavi…

As a Verizon tethering subscriber, this decision will save me money... but I can separate the principle from my particular situation. Summed over all cases where a popular bit of price/service control is dictated by a federal agency, and also quite possibly in this particular case, the results are likely to be net-negative for consumers. So I'd rather regulators never intervene in this way. Their decisionmaking apparatus is unable to limit itself to the few reliably beneficial cases, instead intervening in many other cases that are just superficially attractive. On the other hand, if these sorts of differential pricing schemes get chiseled away over time by competition -- perhaps by giving other companies and technologies the marketing hook they need to make inroads, because after all packets are packets -- consumers win other benefits. Even if it takes more time than an 'FCC rescue'.

(I am the Bitzi gojomo! Seeing your comments here, I figured you were the same delirium... thanks for your contributions so many years ago!)

Re: Let my Wi-Fi go: FCC rules Verizon can't charge for Wi-Fi tethering

#125

Post by [deleted] »

_delirium wrote: post #69
gojomo wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, there's a retaliatory impulse against those who seem to be arbitrarily price-discriminating... like norm-enforcers taking nothing rather than an unfair split in the ultimatum game. It explains some of the emotion around this issue. But if that effect were strong enough in this market, would it require the FCC to ban the tethering charge? (The FTC didn't have to ban Amazon's pricing experiments.) Most people…

It's a good question, and somewhat hard to disentangle. My view is that there's a strong opinion from techies that "the tubes" should be a commodity/utility service, and therefore there's resistance to various kinds of provider control/segmentation of uses. Basically, this view holds that pipes should be treated as utility or common-carrier type provisioning. Having that kind of view does correlate with being a heavi…

[deleted]

Re: Let my Wi-Fi go: FCC rules Verizon can't charge for Wi-Fi tethering

#126

Post by [deleted] »

_delirium wrote: post #69
gojomo wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, there's a retaliatory impulse against those who seem to be arbitrarily price-discriminating... like norm-enforcers taking nothing rather than an unfair split in the ultimatum game. It explains some of the emotion around this issue. But if that effect were strong enough in this market, would it require the FCC to ban the tethering charge? (The FTC didn't have to ban Amazon's pricing experiments.) Most people…

It's a good question, and somewhat hard to disentangle. My view is that there's a strong opinion from techies that "the tubes" should be a commodity/utility service, and therefore there's resistance to various kinds of provider control/segmentation of uses. Basically, this view holds that pipes should be treated as utility or common-carrier type provisioning. Having that kind of view does correlate with being a heavi…

[deleted]

Re: Let my Wi-Fi go: FCC rules Verizon can't charge for Wi-Fi tethering

#127

Post by kalleboo »

nilsbunger wrote: post #59
tkahn6 wrote: post #28

This is a no-brainer. As others have pointed out, this is a wholly artificial fee. You still have to pay for the data. They're just charging you for how you access the data. Basically it's extortion. Here's something that congress should do. Telecom companies are government-granted monopolies. Why not acknowledge that it's already not a free market situation and cap the profit margin that these companies are allowed…

They do it to segment their customers. A lot of us startups do it too when we offer one plan for $9 per month, another for $19 per month. The delta isn't necessarily because our costs are different, but rather because the value to the consumer is different. You could argue that cellular networks should only be allowed to be dumb pipes because they are a government-granted monopoly (of spectrum). That would put them i…

> So would they still deploy new stuff like LTE quickly? Would they still subsidize phones?

GSM was developed and initially deployed mainly by the old european government telecoms before privatization took hold in Europe.

Re: Let my Wi-Fi go: FCC rules Verizon can't charge for Wi-Fi tethering

#128

Post by robomartin »

vacri wrote: post #122
robomartin wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am having trouble finding where in my post I said anything about using a service to saturation. Not that the cable TV analogy holds up. If you are using an iOS device to download a 100MB game app over WiFi via AT&T DSL --that you pay for-- while, at the same time paying for a cellular data plan, AT&T is making making more money on you because their cellular data bandwidth is not being utilized by they still charge…

The actual cost of the data itself is trivial in comparison to the cost of connectivity in the first place. If you really hate it that much, and claim that you effectively never use it, then get a phone plan without data and just use your wifi. Problem solved. The thing is, you do use your cellular data, and maintaining that service is more than just pushing a few ones and zeros. I am having trouble finding where in…

> Your post is complaining about paying for unused data, and why can't you just pay for the data you're actually using - in short, you want a plan that you saturate and just want to pay for that.

Nope. Sorry. Didn't say that. This is your interpretation and nothing more. And that's OK.

All I am saying is that I a starting to think that we are over-paying for connectivity. I don't know exactly where or how, but something about it just feels wrong. I can't point to it directly because in order to do that I'd have to know more about the internal numbers of a telco. I don't have that data. For all I know we are getting a deal. I am more than willing to concede that. But I need data.

Right now, without said data it feels very much that paying $250 per month for connectivity when most of the data is going over DSL is not quite a good fit.

Obviously we all (or most) have a need for cellular data outside WiFi zones. The question is how much and whether or not pricing is fair. I don't have the answers, just an overall feeling of rotten tomatoes somewhere.

Your suggestion that I personally drop cellular data has nothing whatsoever to do with the idea that cellular data might not be priced correctly in the context of multiple devices and the availability (and payment for) parallel connectivity over DSL/WiFi.

In other words, whether I personally drop cellular data service or not has no effect over whether or not cellular data is correctly priced.

So, I guess I am not getting your point. Does cellular data service become fairly priced for everyone else if I -single handedly- drop my service?

Re: Let my Wi-Fi go: FCC rules Verizon can't charge for Wi-Fi tethering

#129

Post by ComputerGuru »

I genuinely do wonder whether or not this will change anything for (current) Apple customers.

As the iPhone/iPad are non-LTE, CDMA-only devices; I don't foresee this ruling impacting the current restrictions that bar the entry-level 2GB data plans from having tethering support.

Re: Let my Wi-Fi go: FCC rules Verizon can't charge for Wi-Fi tethering

#130

Post by AngryParsley »

ComputerGuru wrote: post #129

I genuinely do wonder whether or not this will change anything for (current) Apple customers. As the iPhone/iPad are non-LTE, CDMA-only devices; I don't foresee this ruling impacting the current restrictions that bar the entry-level 2GB data plans from having tethering support.

For the most part, you're right. There is one exception: The Verizon 3rd-gen iPads have LTE. The cheapest prepaid plan is $20/month for 1GB of data, and it comes with tethering.
Post reply on HN