You mixing what seems fair with what a legal contract prescribes. In your restaurant example the patron did not sign a contract with a lot of fine print, with your iPhone contract you did. AT&T is free to put all sorts of clauses into their contract (unless theses clauses are illegal by themselves), whether you consider it fair or not is irrelevant. AT&T has decided to offer a certain service, if this service does not include tethering, you are free not to sign a contract with AT&T. Crying that it is unfair won't help you, unless it 'unfair enough' that it is deemed illegal.
What you might consider unfair to the point of being illegal is that the iPhone is only available at (and SIM-locked to) AT&T. In some countries this is indeed illegal.
No, I am not mixing anything up. I said nothing about legal or fair, neither did you until just now.
You threw out a comparison of cellular data to a buffet restaurant to suggest my thoughts were flawed, but cellular data and restaurant food are not the same thing, and your analogy was flawed.
I threw in a 60's cop show example not for the purpose of addressing the legality of this; it was for the purpose of demonstrating how even 40+ years ago, before we had any kind of data plans to argue about, the meaning of "all you can eat" and the implications of it were confusing to the public. The phrases "all you can eat" and "unlimited data" are still abused by those trying to take your money, and still confused by those whose money is trying to be taken.
I'm well aware of the fine print, and that it's what gets we consumers in the end all the time. In fact, just last night I commented on a
Wired article where some guy was bitching that Sony sucked because they were taking away Linux as a boot option with the latest PS3 software upgrade, and his assertion that it was illegal because he owns the product and the manufacturer shouldn't be allowed to change the device he owns. I pointed out that many products you own come with attached conditions of use (DVDs, books, iPhones, etc) and that he had to agree to a EULA to activate his PS3, and the EULA allowed Sony to make whatever changes they wanted to the service. Pretty much the same thing you're saying above.
Ultimately, as to crying about it being unfair, when did I do that? I'm not crying about anything, I'm quite satisfied right now. I've jailbroken my iPhone and am happily tethered away on it via AT&T as I type this. Been doing it for a year or more with no repercussions, and no going over my 5GB cap. I've also moved one of my lines to T-Mobile, who doesn't care if I tether or not, and charges me less for their service than AT&T. When my contract on AT&T expires, I'll probably move that line to Sprint and WiMax (which also lets you tether and even share your connection). So, nothing to cry about on my end.
AT&T might though in the long run. I tether with AT&T despite them not officially supporting it currently, and if they don't soon, I'll go to a better/faster/cheaper service in a few months. AT&T loses, because between their not ponying up with a tethering plan for what is supposed to be their flagship phone, and Apple's long-in-the-tooth iPhone and it's locked down state, AT&T loses another customer. How many more will do the same, for the same reasons?
