natasftw
Well-known member
But there isn't even a need to make analogies in this case. There is an actual law on this. And the car analogy doesn't work because private property ownership is in no way analogous to license restrictions placed in a license granting the right to use particular frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum.
The analogies are simply there to help explain the concept. It's clearly a confusing concept so sticking with pure discussion of regulations and inserting "electromagnetic" doesn't help make things more clear.
The analogy includes several aspects: both include private ownership. In one, you own the car. In the other, you own the phone.
Both involve an additional service regulated by the government. Ironically, i7 posted the act that prevents car manufacturers from voiding their warranty because you seek third party solutions. Similarly, the FCC has restrictions on the bands Verizon uses.
Both include some presumption from one side claiming the company can refuse service if you use third parties.
Analogies aren't made only when another explanation doesn't exist. They are made when the other explanation isn't offering clarity to the conversation, as it clearly hasn't worked in this conversation. It is interesting to me you haven't bothered to point out Verizon changed their plans to include Mobile Hotspot shortly after having legal issues related to their restrictions. They figured it made more sense to market it as a free feature than to try to charge portions of their users for the service others could easily acquire without their fee.