[corresation]

why is a computer bought specifically outside of a contract obeying these directives

Because your data plan exists under a contract with your carrier. Because most users would be angry if their carrier suddenly terminated their connection or layered on additional tethered data costs because of detected second-device traffic (both of which have happened).

The Nexus devices are targeted at everyperson. Not just hackers and rogues.

No-tethering flags exist because wireless resources are actually a finite resource, and because carriers desperately rely upon certain usage models which is basically that you overbuy and underuse, which tethering tends to significantly offset. Should they? Probably not. But if you want tethering, talk to your carrier.

[jkldotio]

"Not just hackers and rogues", well it was billed as a premium device with the full Android experience.

It's a data SIM specifically for use as a modem SIM not as a phone, so while I understand they want to do that I don't see why Google has to go along with it. Despite all the comments in this thread unless it's mandated by law somewhere it's still on Google's head as I see it.

[kbenson]

"Not just hackers and rogues", well it was billed as a premium device with the full Android experience.

Since when has the whole Android experience included being able to ignore contractual limitations? That's a different experience than I've ever had.

[jkldotio]

You are just assuming there is some contractual tethering ban. It's a data SIM designed to go in a usb 3G modem or a tablet. There's no contractual agreement between Google selling an independent computer and a telco in central Europe as far as I am aware.

Edit:

Therefore Google should prioritise me and not the profits of another company.

What's the company going to do, ban non-contract devices from their services? Another company will just scoop up all those users.

Google is disadvantaging me and trashing their own brand for the profits of another company. Nobody in this thread has produced any evidence Google is legally required to do this in any jurisdiction. And if they do have a compay-to-company contract with them it certainly wouldn't be a disadvantageous one, it would likely be a contract to do this so that the telco would have the Nexus 7 on their paid plans too. Again that's Google crippling my device for their own profits. Again it's a deception, and again it's on their head.

I don't know why people are coming into the thread here so strongly to defend huge corporations that are selling computers and Internet connections and arbitrarily cutting people off from legitimate features. All the bandwidth is metered anyway so it doesn't matter whether the first device or a second device via the first uses it anyway. Or they could readily implement shaping (as in Australia, full speed to Xgig, slower speed thereafter) and just state it openly.

There is no reason for any of this besides naked profit taking and deception.

[kbenson]

I don't know why people are coming into the thread here so strongly to defend huge corporations...

I know my reaction when I see statements that seem too strongly worded to be rational is to play devil's advocate, to try to bring a little rationality to the conversation (or, alternatively, learn the reason why the strong working is warranted).

There is no reason for any of this besides naked profit taking and deception.

Saying there is no reason in this case assumes more knowledge of the situation than you could possibly have. Besides that, you begged the question in the previous paragraph.

[deelowe]

So, you'd rather them offer devices that could cause you to lose your contract or that carriers refuse to activate service on? Google has to play by the rules of the carriers or they'd simply not allow the devices on their networks. What exactly would you prefer in this case? I don't believe simply ignoring the flag is an option(if they actually wanted to release the nexus 7 on certain carriers).

Either way, the original assertion that the device is hamstrung by Google in all scenarios isn't true. It's only disabled when used on networks that specifically disallow tethering.