[citation][nom]matt87_50[/nom]@teknomedic: with what money? exactly?but sure, maybe if you complain enough, a massive national wifi broadband service will just magic itself into existence for free... it was fine to have unlimited plans when the networks were only used by early adopters, that is no longer the case. and don't kid yourself into thinking the few early adopter's $40 every month was in anyway enough to cover the infrastructure. it was an investment for the future, when it would be mainstream.quite apart from the fact that paying the same amount no matter how much you use is completely unfair... maybe water and electricity should work like that...[/citation]
Water and Electricity are physical mediums that consume many other physical mediums to be processed or created. Network bandwidth, regardless of the theoretical or approximate limitations of said network (in speed only) consumes nothing physical regardless of how much is downloaded or uploaded per month. It is downright ludicrous to say they can limit a network as such, it's like going to the store to buy a 10/100/1000 PCI NIC and reading on the box "Price includes 100MB of combined transferred data."
If a network cannot handle providing each and every customer the speeds that they offer at any given time, then they should be capping the speed lower, not the combined UL/DL per month. It makes perfect sense to regulate the transfer rate due to maximum limitations of their backbone but there's nothing there to say that if I download 10TB or some ludicrous amount in a month, that some limit is going to be reached and no one else can download after this point. It's just not going to happen.
As for the "with what money?" question, I don't know about the company in question, but Verizon and AT&T are in the Fortune 500 top 20 so I'm pretty sure they're not doing too bad.
I'm sorry but it's just narrow minded pro-capitalist thinking like yours that drives me crazy and is inevitably stunting the growth of today's technological infrastructure.