> On Jun 10, 2015, at 11:36 AM, Jeff McAdams <je...@iglou.com> wrote: > > There is no other rational way to interpret your statement than to be a > statement of Google's position.
As someone who posts from a personal email but my management has told me that I’m well identifiable as who I work for, I’m sympathetic to the way one can suffer a bit of personality split when certain business realities come into play. I’m sure people might mock me for it, but lots of people have mocked me for years so why should I care about this one so much? When a business reality or necessity hits you in the face, sometimes you can’t do anything about it. Would I have preferred if Apple and AT&T let me tether on my grandfathered unlimited plan? Sure. Could I do this before on my unlimited GPRS/Edge plan with my Nokia? Of course, but the reality is I can just carry another device/SIM and use a tablet to tether. As google is in a business of selling ads on the internet, I can see why they might not want to pick a fight with a carrier at every stage in the process. The ROI just isn’t there is my guess. IPv6 is mature enough to be widely deployed, but some of these cases need to have some give/take on both sides to work out. I’m reminded of the adage of if both sides are unhappy you cut the baby properly in half. - jared
