Netflix charges me the same monthly fee whether I use it or not, is that fair? After all, on their end they only pay license holders per-stream (AFAIK).
Yes. Verizon and other wireless telecoms have built their businesses on the back of a limited, public resource (namely, wireless spectrum) leased from the government (and therefore the people) of the United States. Therefore, they have a moral (should also be legal, but isn't at the moment) responsibility to act in an ethical manner.
If this were a market without such barriers to entry, I would say that they're free to do whatever they want, because competitors would enter the market and force them to change their policies. But when it comes to wireless telecoms, it's not possible for such competitors to materialize.
I believe that you should be able to purchase data and share it amongst as many devices as you want (a small activation fee per cellular device may be acceptable, but nothing of the sort should exist for tethering, since there is no perceptible difference for the carriers) . This is how it works for wired internet, and I don't see why wireless should be any different (with the exception of any wireless specific network management, but that's not at issue here).
You aren't paying twice for the same thing because the normal data plan explicitly didn't allow tethering.
However there is an additional fee if you want to use that water to water you lawn, it costs an extra $30 a month to have the water directed to the lawn.
However when industrious home owners decides to water their lawn by hand from sink water and avoid the extra $30 dollars a month the water company cuts their service.
Do you have a problem with the water company segmenting their market in this fashion?
Adobe Photoshop is available to college students at a deep discount. Hobbyists who are not in school have to pay more for the exact same product. That's a little uncool, but is it unethical?
Which is a completely artificial and needless distinction. The phones have the necessary hardware and software and have for years. And that's where the outrage comes from - there is no difference between 5gb transferred over a tethered device and 5gb transferred over the device natively.
They're double dipping. Adding no value and expecting more money for it. And everyone knows it.
This might even be remotely acceptable if the wireless marketplace were in the least bit open. It is not. I can't possibly be the only person to notice that the major carriers plans are almost mirror images of each other.
No, but in a competitive market we would expect it to because competitors will lower their prices in line with their costs to stay in business. At least, that's the theory.
When you have companies competing on who can charge the most you have an indication that there is a lack of real competition.