# Telus iPad data plan



## RiceBoy (Aug 1, 2009)

*TELUS offers Data Plan for iPad with Wi-Fi + 3G in Canada*

_$20 for 500MB per month - additional data is charged at 5¢ per MB up to a maximum of $30 for a total of $50 per month_

TELUS offers Data Plan for iPad with Wi-Fi + 3G in Canada


----------



## thadley (Jul 8, 2008)

Yay for some differentiation! Though I'd rather it was a data bucket than have overage charges. But 20/500 might be the sweet spot. I've got the 35/5 plan for now, will see where I am in a month.


----------



## Lagerstatten (Aug 23, 2007)

Not bad but definitely not great. If only it was compatible with WIND and WIND had MicroSIM's...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I can't believe I'd have to play for a 3rd, internet connection.

home internet, iphone 6gig internet, and then the ipad?

Am I the only one that thinks this is freaking highway robbery?


----------



## vfr (Jul 22, 2009)

groovetube said:


> I can't believe I'd have to play for a 3rd, internet connection.
> 
> home internet, iphone 6gig internet, and then the ipad?
> 
> Am I the only one that thinks this is freaking highway robbery?


Welcome to corporate capitalism.

:greedy:


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

groovetube said:


> I can't believe I'd have to play for a 3rd, internet connection.
> 
> home internet, iphone 6gig internet, and then the ipad?
> 
> Am I the only one that thinks this is freaking highway robbery?


I often think I am the only one who disagrees with you. You are contracting three services from them. So why shouldn't you pay for each of them?

As for the actual price of each service, well, that's a different argument.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

no it isn't. I'm accessing their data network with a plan. I can connect multiple devices on my home internet, why not a 3g plan? I have a 6 gig limit, so why is it I need -another- plan just because I have another device?

You're free to send them all you money if you wish however, if you're good with that. But then you like the conservatives, so that explains everything.


----------



## iJayTee (Apr 20, 2010)

groovetube said:


> no it isn't. I'm accessing their data network with a plan. I can connect multiple devices on my home internet, why not a 3g plan? I have a 6 gig limit, so why is it I need -another- plan just because I have another device?


I didn't even think twice about it. Turned my phone into a wifi hotspot and my iPad accesses data that way on those rare occasions I'm not in wifi range.

All Android phones can do it and so can JB iPhones, although it's irritating to have to JB just for that when my carrier (Telus) allows wired or bluetooth tethering of laptops. I don't see why Apple can't make wifi tethering carrier-specific the same way they do for wired and bluetooth...the functionality is obviously there waiting to be turned on. Or why they don't turn on that type of BT functionality on the iPad as some have already done on JB iPads (iBluever.)

All this stuff will come in time--it'll have to especially since Android just publicly thumbed their nose at Apple by using an iPad tethered through wifi in their latest demo...it's pretty ridiculous that an iPad + Android phone has better functionality than with an iPhone.

Anyone who could previously tether their laptop or is aware of what Android phones can do is not going to be too pleased when they run into these artificial data seggregation models and limits.


----------



## equisol (Jan 12, 2008)

Groovetube;

I agree with you 100%, this is highway robbery. Robbers Canada and all the others take advantage of the consumers. 
If you pay for 6 GB it should not matter how you use it it. Its like if you buy gas, nobody's business if I use it in my lawn mover, boat or car.

I told that to Robbers Canada, but they see it another way, well, I am leaving them and switch to the Bell 5GB plan, not much better, but better coverage and speed.


----------



## fyrefly (Apr 16, 2005)

This Telus plan is junk and yeah, Groovetube, you're 100% right, why are we all paying AGAIN for more data? 

But if you must have an iPad+3G, then go with Bell/Rogers. The Telus plan will charge you (up to) $50/month for (up to) 5gb of Data when the Rogers/Bell plansare $35 for the same amount of data.

Another problem I foresee with this new $35/5gb plan is that now they won't give us the $30/6gb plan again when the iPhone 4/HD/whatever comes out. Now they know that they can charge us $35 for only 5gb. Us "lucky" people who pay $30 for the 6gb plan will have it grandfathered, but new people will only "get" 5gb for $35, I bet. :S


----------



## ldphoto (Jul 9, 2009)

Well, technically, on Telus, it would be 50$ for an unlimited connection. Once you;ve passed the maximum overage charge, they don't say they will cut you off. Rogers is the same for cable internet.

Luc


----------



## KMPhotos (Jun 17, 2008)

ldphoto said:


> Well, technically, on Telus, it would be 50$ for an unlimited connection. Once you;ve passed the maximum overage charge, they don't say they will cut you off. Rogers is the same for cable internet.
> 
> Luc


I was told by Telus that it IS capped at 5GB of data use. So it's $50 for 5GB of data.


----------



## mikef (Jun 24, 2003)

I guess I missed the day at school when "unlimited" was defined to actually mean 5/6GB


----------



## fyrefly (Apr 16, 2005)

mikef said:


> I guess I missed the day at school when "unlimited" was defined to actually mean 5/6GB


Hah. I think we *all* missed it - 'cept for the Telcos. But to be fair, they've never advertised these plans as "unlimited". In the US, however, AT&T says "unlimited", but caps iPhone usage at ~5gb. 

Apparently the iPad gets no such cap:

Guy Tests “Unlimited” iPad 3G Data Plan, Pumps 31GB Of Data So Far | Cult of Mac


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

groovetube said:


> no it isn't. I'm accessing their data network with a plan. I can connect multiple devices on my home internet, why not a 3g plan?


No, you can't and you don't. You connect one device - your router. Your computers connect to your router. Your cable modem may have a router built-in, but that doesn't negate the fact that Rogers only has to manage one network device on their network. Try asking for separate external IP addresses from them - they'll be happy to charge you for them, because they have to manage different devices.

You want to do that with Mobile devices? Get a MyFi. Rogers will be happy to sell you one - one plan - all the devices you like.



> I have a 6 gig limit, so why is it I need -another- plan just because I have another device?


Because they have to manage different devices. There's more to providing network service than simple bandwidth.


> You're free to send them all you money if you wish however, if you're good with that. But then you like the conservatives, so that explains everything.


I like the Conservatives?!? I think you are confusing me with someone else. No, I don't want to send them all my money money - did you miss my point about the actual pricing being another matter? I was only talking about charging for providing connection to different devices, not the rates themselves. I thought I made that clear. This non-sequitor doesn't make your point at all. This is a non-sequitor.

Should they cut you deal? Sure, like a bulk discount, but the idea that they shouldn't charge anything for multiple devices is far-fetched, as it costs them more to manage them.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

equisol said:


> Groovetube;
> 
> I agree with you 100%, this is highway robbery. Robbers Canada and all the others take advantage of the consumers.
> If you pay for 6 GB it should not matter how you use it it. Its like if you buy gas, nobody's business if I use it in my lawn mover, boat or car.
> ...


They see it another way because it's a bad analogy. Who is selling the roads in your analogy? What about insurance, tolls, etc.? Your local gas station isn't paying to build and police the roads.

A better analogy would be if you subscribed to newspaper delivery and expected them to deliver the first section to your home, the sports section to your cottage, and the city section to your office, all for the cost of a single subscription.

I'll agree with you all you want if you want to complain about the rate structure and the prices themselves, but in the matter of expecting you to pay extra for each device, no. It costs them money to manage multiple devices, and they're a business. It's simple logic as to who should pay.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

mikef said:


> I guess I missed the day at school when "unlimited" was defined to actually mean 5/6GB


I think companies should never have advertised "unlimited" in the first place. They know very well that it costs money to deliver service, so why would they think nobody would actually abuse their "unlimited" plans.

Of course, I also think it's silly when customers think the providers owe them an actual unlimited plan. Even the all-you-can-eat restaurants will close at the end of the day and send you away.


----------



## equisol (Jan 12, 2008)

hayesk said:


> They see it another way because it's a bad analogy. Who is selling the roads in your analogy? What about insurance, tolls, etc.? Your local gas station isn't paying to build and police the roads..


Well, as a matter of fact the gas companies collect the money to pay for the roads (in theory) in the manner of fuel taxes, which lawnmowers and boats should be exempt (but that is another story).


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

hayesk said:


> No, you can't and you don't. You connect one device - your router. Your computers connect to your router. Your cable modem may have a router built-in, but that doesn't negate the fact that Rogers only has to manage one network device on their network. Try asking for separate external IP addresses from them - they'll be happy to charge you for them, because they have to manage different devices.
> 
> You want to do that with Mobile devices? Get a MyFi. Rogers will be happy to sell you one - one plan - all the devices you like.
> 
> ...


Maybe you should write a commercial for them. You can start it with a prize line like, "we do it all, for you".

If rogers cannot come up with a plan that can effectively combine multiple device beyond selling yet another device for 50 bucks a month on top of everything, and anyone sees that as a solution, then they, are a real -sucker-.

I expressed my opinion that I think this is a cash grab, and that stands. The day when my internet access bills exceed well over a hundred dollars a month and it's only me and my wife accessing it, that's absurd.


----------



## Tulse (May 26, 2005)

hayesk said:


> Because they have to manage different devices. There's more to providing network service than simple bandwidth.


I don't see how this is different than allowing multiple phones to share minutes. This is more an issue of accounting than networking. Adding an additional device to a network is technically extremely simple (obviously, since they do it every day). The issue is simply assigning a bucket of data to two devices, and tracking the usage across those devices -- this is an accounting problem, and one that they have solved previously with tracking minutes across devices. 

I could understand charging an initial set-up fee to add devices to a data bucket, but it is silly to suggest there are large outstanding costs associated with the technical side of doing this. (That is not to say that there may not be costs associated with increased data use, but that's a different issue.)


----------



## techgirl (May 14, 2010)

groovetube said:


> Maybe you should write a commercial for them. You can start it with a prize line like, "we do it all, for you".
> 
> If rogers cannot come up with a plan that can effectively combine multiple device beyond selling yet another device for 50 bucks a month on top of everything, and anyone sees that as a solution, then they, are a real -sucker-.
> 
> I expressed my opinion that I think this is a cash grab, and that stands. The day when my internet access bills exceed well over a hundred dollars a month and it's only me and my wife accessing it, that's absurd.


It *is *a cash grab, they're a business accountable to their shareholders. 

An iPad is not a necessity, its a purely discretionary device that I quite enjoy having, but I knew before I bought it what the cost would be to own it and am willing to accept that. I don't *have *to pay Rogers anything, I can use wifi. 

As with any discretionary expense, each of us will make our own choice. Could Rogers have a bundled package? Sure, if it made them money, which is the reason they exist, to provide returns to their shareholders, nothing evil about it, just business.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

techgirl said:


> It *is *a cash grab, they're a business accountable to their shareholders.
> 
> An iPad is not a necessity, its a purely discretionary device that I quite enjoy having, but I knew before I bought it what the cost would be to own it and am willing to accept that. I don't *have *to pay Rogers anything, I can use wifi.
> 
> As with any discretionary expense, each of us will make our own choice. Could Rogers have a bundled package? Sure, if it made them money, which is the reason they exist, to provide returns to their shareholders, nothing evil about it, just business.


wow that's quite a revelation.

I never would have considered this.


----------



## miniphone (Jul 24, 2008)

groovetube said:


> I can't believe I'd have to play for a 3rd, internet connection.
> 
> home internet, iphone 6gig internet, and then the ipad?
> 
> Am I the only one that thinks this is freaking highway robbery?


here is a couple of not so practical ideas, have your iPhone and MacBook*along with the iPad, tether to the MacBook, then share internet connection over the AirPoint. Make sure you use a password.

Or ditch the iPhone and get a an android phone ( wait for Android 2.2 to come out some time in Sept. ) Android 2.2 has hotspot support. 



Like I said not very practical idea


----------



## imobile (Oct 6, 2007)

*See today what AT&T are offering come June 7?*



fyrefly said:


> This Telus plan is junk and yeah, Groovetube, you're 100% right, why are we all paying AGAIN for more data?
> 
> But if you must have an iPad+3G, then go with Bell/Rogers. The Telus plan will charge you (up to) $50/month for (up to) 5gb of Data when the Rogers/Bell plansare $35 for the same amount of data.
> 
> Another problem I foresee with this new $35/5gb plan is that now they won't give us the $30/6gb plan again when the iPhone 4/HD/whatever comes out. Now they know that they can charge us $35 for only 5gb. Us "lucky" people who pay $30 for the 6gb plan will have it grandfathered, but new people will only "get" 5gb for $35, I bet. :S


Great article...
'there's a slap for that'
'like test driving a lamborghini in a school zone'

Apple Says: "Thanks for Nothing, AT&T!"

Now you get 2GB for $25!
And tethering costs yah $20 EXTRA!


Makes Mr Rogers seem generous!


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

groovetube said:


> Maybe you should write a commercial for them. You can start it with a prize line like, "we do it all, for you".


Please stick to my actual arguments. When you deviate from them, all I am left to conclude is that you don't really have a counter argument to what I had said.



> If rogers cannot come up with a plan that can effectively combine multiple device beyond selling yet another device for 50 bucks a month on top of everything, and anyone sees that as a solution, then they, are a real -sucker-.


Sure, I agree the price is too high. But why do you think that someone using a single device should be charged the same as someone using multiple devices, knowing full well that it costs Rogers more to manage more than one device on their network, and knowing full well it provides a value-added service to you? It's silly to think that Rogers wouldn't or shouldn't capitalize on that. They are a business, after all.

I'm not arguing that it costs too much, I'm only arguing the fact that it should be completely understandable charging more for multiple devices.



> I expressed my opinion that I think this is a cash grab, and that stands. The day when my internet access bills exceed well over a hundred dollars a month and it's only me and my wife accessing it, that's absurd.


What exactly is a cash grab? Is it a company selling a product at the price the market will bear? That is what they are doing. If they don't sell enough, then they will lower their prices, it's that simple. I think it's ridiculous that BMWs cost as much as they do, given their reliability record isn't better than Toyota. But that doesn't mean I think they should lower their prices - they've made a product that sells at a price their customers will pay. Why should it be any different?


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

Tulse said:


> I don't see how this is different than allowing multiple phones to share minutes. This is more an issue of accounting than networking. Adding an additional device to a network is technically extremely simple (obviously, since they do it every day). The issue is simply assigning a bucket of data to two devices, and tracking the usage across those devices -- this is an accounting problem, and one that they have solved previously with tracking minutes across devices.


Phone companies do charge extra when they allow multiple phones to share minutes. I know of no single phone plan where I can add additional phones for free. The only plans that have multiple phones are family plans, and they cost more than a single phone plan with the same number of minutes.



> I could understand charging an initial set-up fee to add devices to a data bucket, but it is silly to suggest there are large outstanding costs associated with the technical side of doing this. (That is not to say that there may not be costs associated with increased data use, but that's a different issue.)


There is cost associated with making sure the network is capable of handling multiple devices, in addition to the cost of providing the raw data bandwidth to each device.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

hayesk said:


> Please stick to my actual arguments. When you deviate from them, all I am left to conclude is that you don't really have a counter argument to what I had said.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


jesus H christ you need to get the heck off your high as hell horse, and just accept the fact I think it's both a cash grab, and ridiculous.

I couldn't give a crap what you think about what it costs rogers. Sorry. 

I trust that that's close enough to the "actual argument".


----------



## iJayTee (Apr 20, 2010)

groovetube said:


> I couldn't give a crap what you think about what it costs rogers. Sorry.


Yeah. The poor dears only made $4 billion in profits last year: rogers-earned-4-billion-in-profits-in-2009 ...must have been the recession.

So they certainly couldn't afford to let a second device use the same data like, for example, Movistar. I wonder how this quasi-socialist carrier finds a way to operate with all the increased cost to them of managing that 2nd device or how they can give you that 2nd sim for free?

But hey... Rogers, Telus and Bell have every right to gouge because it's all about non-essential devices so they can create remarkably similar plans--which were all developed independently without any price-fixing collusion, of course--and charge the suc... er... customers whatever the market will bear.

And of course the CRTC should just butt-out because government (aka "the people") have no business interfering in things they don't understand.

Pheww... I feel so patriotic after writing all that, I feel like going out and kissing a conservative.


----------



## ldphoto (Jul 9, 2009)

There is no canadian wired ISP that will allow you to have modems at two different addresses and allow you to share your bandwidth between the two. What you're asking here is essentially that. The fact that you would be able to utilize twice at much bandwidth at any one time is of great concern to carriers, which are facing severe capacity shortages because of the scarcity of spectrum to operate in. A typical sector on a wireless tower can provide at most 21 Mbps, to all connected users at any time. It doesn't take that many iPhones or iPads to reach the limit quickly, and then the experience starts to degrade.

Luc


----------



## techgirl (May 14, 2010)

iJayTee said:


> But hey... Rogers, Telus and Bell have every right to gouge because it's all about non-essential devices so they can create remarkably similar plans--which were all developed independently without any price-fixing collusion, of course--and charge the suc... er... customers whatever the market will bear.
> 
> And of course the CRTC should just butt-out because government (aka "the people") have no business interfering in things they don't understand.
> 
> Pheww... I feel so patriotic after writing all that, I feel like going out and kissing a conservative.


You may want to save your "evil capitalist" arguments for something other than how you use the newest toy (education? health care?). 

You clearly don't run a business, just because you really really want something (visual of a tantrum here) doesn't mean you'll get it. If you don't like the costs don't buy it, find a carrier you can live with, use wifi, jailbreak... I'm pretty sure your rants aren't compelling to Rogers. Oh, and I'd like to pay less too, but am not going to hold my breath and stamp my feet.


----------



## iJayTee (Apr 20, 2010)

techgirl said:


> Oh, and I'd like to pay less too, but am not going to hold my breath and stamp my feet.


No you're just going to cross your fingers and hope that daddy decides to be nice when he's in a better mood 

You can vote with your wallet *and* your mouth, you know. It's not just a love it or leave it kind of thing.


----------



## iJayTee (Apr 20, 2010)

ldphoto said:


> A typical sector on a wireless tower can provide at most 21 Mbps, to all connected users at any time. It doesn't take that many iPhones or iPads to reach the limit quickly, and then the experience starts to degrade.


How would this be different from the demands on the infrastructure that can presumably already handle tethered laptops?

The other "extra device management" hassles argument makes slightly more sense than the generic bandwidth argument. Except that one has been exposed for the money grab it is by the one renegade Spanish carrier who decided it was no big deal and doesn't charge extra.


----------



## equisol (Jan 12, 2008)

hayesk said:


> Please stick to my actual arguments. When you deviate from them, all I am left to conclude is that you don't really have a counter argument to what I had said.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


For your information, there are 50+ car manufacturers and only 3 cell phone providers. In the car industry there is competition and choice, here there is none, this is what we call a monopoly.

And with your bias, I suspect that you must be working for Robbers.

The main point is that we are paying twice for the same service, and this is unacceptable. If one pays $30 for 6 GB, there is no reason to gouge him and charge another $35 for a separate device.

But there is a solution, and that is called jailbreak, and tether. I am against bending the rules, but in this case I am only taking what I pay for.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

equisol said:


> For your information, there are 50+ car manufacturers and only 3 cell phone providers. In the car industry there is competition and choice, here there is none, this is what we call a monopoly.


Actually, it's an oligopoly, but not the point of this thread.



> And with your bias, I suspect that you must be working for Robbers.


So you can't refute my argument, so you decide to make another non-sequitor, and a poor one at that. Nope, don't work for Rogers, Telus, Bell, or any other service provider. What does making an uninformed guess at my job get you in the context of this debate?



> The main point is that we are paying twice for the same service, and this is unacceptable. If one pays $30 for 6 GB, there is no reason to gouge him and charge another $35 for a separate device.


How many times do I have to tell you that I agree the price is too high? How many times do I have to tell you I'm arguing about there being extra costs in managing multiple devices, not about the price of it itself? Simply repeating "it's the same service" over and over, doesn't make it true - as the only "same" part is the bandwidth, not the management. I agree it's the largest part; just not the only part.


> But there is a solution, and that is called jailbreak, and tether. I am against bending the rules, but in this case I am only taking what I pay for.


Yep - go for it. And to Rogers, it only looks line one device to them - tether is the same as NAT routing at home - seems like a win-win.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

iJayTee said:


> The other "extra device management" hassles argument makes slightly more sense than the generic bandwidth argument. Except that one has been exposed for the money grab it is by the one renegade Spanish carrier who decided it was no big deal and doesn't charge extra.


The Spanish carrier decided that eating the cost was worth it to increase the customer base. I agree, it'd be nice if Rogers did this, but I don't expect them to. Just like nobody expects family cell phone plans to cost the same as a single plan for the same amount of talk time.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

groovetube said:


> jesus H christ you need to get the heck off your high as hell horse, and just accept the fact I think it's both a cash grab, and ridiculous.


So someone who engages debate with others is on a high horse? Please tell me what threads I'm allowed to participate in, and please tell me which arguments I am allowed to refute.

I can accept the fact that you think it's "ridiculous", but I don't believe you are correct, hence I posted my opinion. The term "cash grab" is bandied about often, and seems to mean "someone who charges for something I don't want to pay for, but still want it" - well big deal. If you said "the price was too high" then there'd be nothing to refute. But you (or someone else) implied that it should be free - I disagree because it costs the vendor money. How much money I'm not debating, just the fact that people think they should get a value-added service that does have material cost for absolutely nothing.


> I couldn't give a crap what you think about what it costs rogers. Sorry.


I never stated what I think it costs Rogers - only that it did cost something.

This is a public forum. If you make a claim, be prepared to have it refuted. You can't just say "get off your horse" whenever someone has an opinion that doesn't mesh with yours.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

hayesk said:


> So someone who engages debate with others is on a high horse? Please tell me what threads I'm allowed to participate in, and please tell me which arguments I am allowed to refute.
> 
> I can accept the fact that you think it's "ridiculous", but I don't believe you are correct, hence I posted my opinion. The term "cash grab" is bandied about often, and seems to mean "someone who charges for something I don't want to pay for, but still want it" - well big deal. If you said "the price was too high" then there'd be nothing to refute. But you (or someone else) implied that it should be free - I disagree because it costs the vendor money. How much money I'm not debating, just the fact that people think they should get a value-added service that does have material cost for absolutely nothing.
> 
> ...


Wow. You're bordering on trolling here...

First of all, I never said anything, about "free". I pay enough for a data plan already that allows so many gigs of data a month. I should be able to utilize this, and if there were a -small- admin fee for this, maybe I'd grumble, but whatevs. I also pay them a crap load for other services as well. In fact, I pay for 3 separate internet accounts from Rogers as well as many other services. Free, my ass!

Secondly, I may want it, but I won't get it. Because I refuse to pay that. I voted with my wallet. Done.

Now, what "claim"... am I making? Beyond that I think Rogers is being greedy...


----------



## techgirl (May 14, 2010)

iJayTee said:


> No you're just going to cross your fingers and hope that daddy decides to be nice when he's in a better mood
> .


Not sure what the point of this is? I am not "bound" to any company, I don't need to cross my fingers and wait, I make business choices based on the options available and respect that a business gets to make decisions in its shareholders interests which doesn't make them crooks. 

I think the $15 data plan is fundamentally fair, I haven't lost anything because I still am using my iphone tethered with my computer when I need it. 

I had to laugh at a colleagues' analogy, "Would these people complaining about the ipad plans expect a gym membership to be shared with 7 people just because I only work out once a week?"


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

techgirl said:


> Not sure what the point of this is? I am not "bound" to any company, I don't need to cross my fingers and wait, I make business choices based on the options available and respect that a business gets to make decisions in its shareholders interests which doesn't make them crooks.
> 
> I think the $15 data plan is fundamentally fair, I haven't lost anything because I still am using my iphone tethered with my computer when I need it.
> 
> I had to laugh at a colleagues' analogy, *"Would these people complaining about the ipad plans expect a gym membership to be shared with 7 people just because I only work out once a week?"*


yeah, all except I'm not expecting to share it 7 other people.


----------



## iJayTee (Apr 20, 2010)

techgirl said:


> Not sure what the point of this is? I am not "bound" to any company, I don't need to cross my fingers and wait, I make business choices based on the options available and respect that a business gets to make decisions in its shareholders interests which doesn't make them crooks.


I thought the point was obvious. You expressed a preference to pay less but you seem to think that we shouldn't complain about the current prices. You seem to think that complaining about them is either pointless or that it somehow offends the so called "free market" system. So how are you going to get those cheaper rates you prefer?

You also keep talking about your business choices as if they were black and white buy/not buy and you seem to have a problem with the buy but grumble about the current policies concept. 

And I'm surprised that in 2010 anyone is still referring to the ruse of "shareholder interests" as a justification for greedy corporate behavior. Did you sleep through the recession? ...through the bail-out and the bonuses paid using the bail-out money? ... Goldman Sach's over-the-top greed and sleaze?

Sorry but justifying excessive greed on the basis of "shareholder interests" doesn't play well for most intelligent people these days. You're not supporting your argument--whatever it may be--when you use such tired and discredited cliches.

Hopefully that was clear enough for you to get the point.


----------



## techgirl (May 14, 2010)

iJayTee said:


> And I'm surprised that in 2010 anyone is still referring to the ruse of "shareholder interests" as a justification for greedy corporate behavior. Did you sleep through the recession? ...through the bail-out and the bonuses paid using the bail-out money? ... Goldman Sach's over-the-top greed and sleaze?
> 
> Sorry but justifying excessive greed on the basis of "shareholder interests" doesn't play well for most intelligent people these days. You're not supporting your argument--whatever it may be--when you use such tired and discredited cliches.
> 
> Hopefully that was clear enough for you to get the point.


Despite your condescending tone, you don't need to worry about whether I'm intelligent. "Shareholder interests" isn't tired or discredited, it's the basis of the corporate system, those of us running businesses see it as more than an artificial concept, it's a legal requirement. 

Good luck with your complaining, I'm getting back to my business.


----------



## iJayTee (Apr 20, 2010)

techgirl said:


> Despite your condescending tone, you don't need to worry about whether I'm intelligent. "Shareholder interests" isn't tired or discredited, it's the basis of the corporate system, those of us running businesses see it as more than an artificial concept, it's a legal requirement.
> 
> Good luck with your complaining, I'm getting back to my business.


You feign not understanding my earlier post as your way of belittling and I was explicitly condescending.... Different styles is all I see there.

You miss the point of my remarks about "shareholder interests." there indeed is (or should be) something genuine about it. But it is often used as the justification for unethical behavior and greed.

It's not unlike religion: not a bad thing in and of itself but it has always been used to justify atrocities.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

groovetube said:


> Wow. You're bordering on trolling here...
> 
> First of all, I never said anything, about "free".


On the first page you said "I can't believe I'd have to play for a 3rd, internet connection … Am I the only one that thinks this is freaking highway robbery" I assume you meant to type pay instead of play, which I think is a safe assumption. When you complain about paying for something, you imply that you want to not have to pay, i.e. get it for free.

My only point was yes you would have to pay for a 3rd internet connection because well, they would give you a 3rd internet connection.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

everyone... SHADDAP!

Jailbreak your iPhone and move on. Sure, ya gotta watch the OS updates from The Mothership but tethering to use your iPhones killer 6GB data plan is worth it.

Suck it, Apple -- and it IS Apple who is the culprit, here:
AT&T: Talk To Apple If You Want iPhone-to-iPad Tethering. We Don’t Care. | Cult of Mac


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

hayesk said:


> On the first page you said "I can't believe I'd have to play for a 3rd, internet connection … Am I the only one that thinks this is freaking highway robbery" I assume you meant to type pay instead of play, which I think is a safe assumption. When you complain about paying for something, you imply that you want to not have to pay, i.e. get it for free.
> 
> My only point was yes you would have to pay for a 3rd internet connection because well, they would give you a 3rd internet connection.


christ will you eat your wheaties already.



Macaholic said:


> everyone... SHADDAP!
> 
> Jailbreak your iPhone and move on. Sure, ya gotta watch the OS updates from The Mothership but tethering to use your iPhones killer 6GB data plan is worth it.
> 
> ...


and you sir, I will call and hear you tell me personally. I know you will though.


----------



## Macaholic (Jan 7, 2003)

groovetube said:


> and you sir, I will call and hear you tell me personally. I know you will though.


Lol bring it, buddy!

Dont get me wrong, I agree that it is dumb that tethering is not supported. It's a cash grab by Apple to get us to cough up for the 3G version, yet that flies in the face of what technology can do today. Greedy bastards. 

Meantime, use the "Spirit" jailbreak on your iPhone. Works for me!


----------

