I am infuriated that practically every (US) carrier claims an unlimited data plan, but then proceeds to limit your hotspot usage. It's just data. Let me use it.
Yes, I know about (and sometimes use) the ttl=65 loophole, but I'd like to see a major carrier launch a truly unlimited plan.
I went from 0.3Mbps on T-Mobile to 50+ Mbps with this; on providers that limit hotspot speed by examining TTL, this can be an effective way to get around it.
(They assume if they see TTL as one lower than expected, data is passing through a hotspot/phone instead of directly from the phone.)
Unlimited data is gym membership model, the businesses has to change its pricing if too many members actually used it. Phones before iPhone were much less efficient at wasting data, and therefore that distinction could "save" traffic for carriers by a lot.
You completely missed the point. There is no difference on the "shared medium" whether you use that data directly on your phone or on your PC through your phone.
Also, service providers shouldn't be allowed to make false advertisements. It is not the job of the consumer to think "clearly infinite data isn't realistic, I should have no expectation to actually get infinite data even though they advertise that". If it isn't technically feasible, it is the service provider's job to clearly state what they actually offer in practice.
The network doesn't necessarily[1] care that it is "phone" data or "hotspot" data, no.
But I, for one, certainly use more data doing stuff with a real computer (or a LAN full of real computers) than I do with my pocket computer by itself.
It's not something I normally pay much attention to, but I did check just now. My LAN at home uses an average of around 1TB of WAN data per month, with just me using it. Meanwhile, my pocket computer uses around 10GB of cellular data (including instances of tethering) in an normal month.
That's a rather gargantuan difference. And it'd be the same ~1TB at home whether it was over GPON, DOCSIS, or cellular tethering.
One may be inclined to say that something like "There's no difference -- it's just data!", but doing so seems to willfully ignore the usage patterns being a couple of orders of magnitude apart.
Meanwhile, advertising: The truthiness of advertising can always be improved, but that's a different discussion entirely.
Advertising "unlimited" leads to the need for limitations like that. A wireless provider probably can't provide 1TB of data for a monthly price that most customers are willing to pay.
Service with a fixed data limit, however should treat all data the same.
That's convoluted and difficult to describe, much less enforce.
Here's a better method: All advertising must be truthful, and all details must be spelled out plainly and visibly.
If the price seems great but there are gotchas, then: Keep the gotchas in plain sight so that a consumer can make an accurately-informed decision without having to go dig in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.'
No fine print. No asterisks. No illegible footnotes. No man behind the curtain. Just truth in advertising.
Yes, I know about (and sometimes use) the ttl=65 loophole, but I'd like to see a major carrier launch a truly unlimited plan.