[HTC Rezound] Marine6680:
Wonders why no one said anything about my prior point... but moving on.

(I do believe I have found a legal precedent that proves tethering without paying the fee is in fact NOT stealing... It can be something else entirely though... Read on to the bottom to find that info)

The tethering/data Terms of use is simply there to force people to pay more money for something.

What if the power company put in there terms of use that you could only use the power for your main dwelling, and that using the power outside of the main dwelling requires you to pay an extra fee (lets say 50% extra per kilowatt hour)... Oh and no getting around this fee by getting a separate power meter, only one power meter per property.

This means that if you have a detached workshop, garage, or other such building; running power to that building would require you to pay a fee on top of the cost of the electricity used. And due to the terms of service, you can not get around this fee by getting a power meter for that building.

But wait there's more...

Due to the wording, you must pay this fee for any electricity used outside of your main dwelling. The next step in logic is... Mobile devices with rechargeable batteries fit this terms of service. This is because you take electricity from your home and store it in a device that then leaves the property.

So terms of service... can be used for morally/logically dubious things.

When you have no options or alternatives for a service you wish to use, then you can be forced to sign anything. The terms of service are not negotiable at signing, its all or nothing.

And the fact that cell phones are not necessities is irrelevant to this debate.

The real debate isn't whether or not tethering without paying for a tethering option is against the terms of service... or really even if it is stealing/breaking the terms of use.

The real debate is whether or not this limitation on a service we pay for can hold up to moral/logical scrutiny. Could someone be convicted of a crime in a court of law, or would the judge find the limitation unenforceable, due to customer protection laws/rules.

Just because you sign a contract, that does not automatically give that contract full legal status. The contract must fall into certain rules and laws to be valid. You could not write a contract to exchange money for some service that would be considered illegal for example.

The carriers do not take people to court over tethering, this may be because they don't think it would fly in the courtroom and a judge ruling against them would set a precedent they do not want.

Lets look at current laws that pertain to stealing and using items without permission or in ways not agreed upon before hand.

Lets say your friend asks to borrow your car to run to the store and you agree.

Then lets say that instead of just going to the store they drive across the country and never return. They don't answer the phone, or even let you know the car isn't totaled somewhere. They simply keep the car. They keep what you only agreed to let them borrow/use for a limited time for a specific purpose.

Now you have to go to the police and report this incident.

Do the police create a stolen item report? No... they create an "unauthorized use of a motor vehicle" report.

Why not stolen? He obviously took your car without giving compensation/payment of some type... that seems like stealing right?

Well the difference is that you allowed this person to use your car. You gave consent to use within guidelines. They merely broke those guidelines. The severity of the crime is usually mush less.

Bandwith... I can see that for those that have the unlimited data plans, (if they didn't have data caps, but they do have caps, so unlimited is a misnomer) but not for those that are on tiered data plans.

Those on tiered data plans are most assuredly paying for "data" or at least a specific amount of data use.

Whether or not you own it is a bit irrelevant. You pay to use it, you should be able to use it.

Your analogy breaks down because they do not give you a refund for any unused data. Electricity and water are billed by what you use... if you had to pay $100 a month for water even if you was gone all month and didn't use a single gallon you would be unhappy about it.

Like I said, it isn't stealing, its using in a manner that is outside what was agreed upon. The networks get bogged down due to over-saturation of users, not due to stealing of services. It is prohibitively difficult to actually steal cell service.

The case can be made that those with unlimited data plans that tether frequently are in the wrong.

But for those on tiered data plans, I believe that charging for tethering definitely falls flat on the logic/moral front. It may even violate customer protection laws.