This analysis holds up to "unlimited" plans where "tethering" is really a (poor) proxy for "using a lot of data."
But if you have usage-based pricing (which Verizon does), it doesn't matter whether that 4GB originates from an iPhone or a MBP. A packet is a packet and it costs the same to route.
I suppose you could argue that Verizon incurs some additional support burden for tethering. I question whether or not this support burden outweighs the costs of supporting people who call in expecting to be able to tether now.
Almost no business charges strictly by commodity packet, because it would be disastrous for their long-term future: their margins, their ability to learn from their customers, and their ability to dynamically improve over time.
So any criticism of differentiated pricing based solely on the idea that "a packet is a packet and it costs the same to route" may be astute in the static, technical dimension -- but naive in the ultimately more-important dynamic economic and business dimensions.
It may very well be disastrous to Verizon's margins. I do not understand why protecting those margins are my responsibility, or anyone's responsibility other than Verizon's.
We're not talking about some cable in the ground upon which Verizon exerts a legal property interest. We're talking about the airwaves that are the permanent heritage of the taxpayer (or arguably land owner), which we as a landlord collectively and temporarily rent out for our sole benefit, in an adversarial negotiation. The whole point of a negotiation is to increase your own margins, often at the expense of the other party's. To say our analysis does this is to say it represents our interests.
The micro-optimization driven desires of businesses are irrelevant when evaluating the larger picture. Carriers that decommoditize best-effort communications to misappropriate others' value should be taken to court for fraudulently advertising "Internet" access, and the colors of radio waves they enjoy a government-granted "public interest" monopoly on should be put to better use.
>But if you have usage-based pricing (which Verizon does), it doesn't matter whether that 4GB originates from an iPhone or a MBP. A packet is a packet and it costs the same to route.
Potentially, but I think it's a fair bet that a lot of people with data plans don't use nearly 4GB. Will that set overlap significantly with the set of customers who tether? Hard to say.
To add to what gojomo said: tethering fees can act as a price discriminant for providing a service with significant non-marginal costs. It's possible for price discriminants to have positive effects on everyone, although that need not be the case with tethering.
But if you have usage-based pricing (which Verizon does), it doesn't matter whether that 4GB originates from an iPhone or a MBP. A packet is a packet and it costs the same to route.
I suppose you could argue that Verizon incurs some additional support burden for tethering. I question whether or not this support burden outweighs the costs of supporting people who call in expecting to be able to tether now.