So you pay for a link to the internet, use the service and they call you "abuser"? If I payed for 20mb then it´s my right to use 20mb 24hrs a day. If you can't provide 20mb THEN DONT SELL IT. 
It´s their fault when this happen... They use statistics to sell bandwidth, like how many users are on at a time and the average bandwidth they use. The pratical effect of this is selling a virtual service, since there's no bandwidth for everyone. It´s like: you can buy a tasty food, but can´t eat it all! Strange days indeed...

I don't thing it's fair to block P2P traffic, and I am thankful I was able to switch from Ecplise to UKONline after identifying the same Packet Reset trick being used (for extremely low bandwidth use) we never got near our 50GB cap once and only used P2P perhaps a tenth of the time.

I think 250GB will satisfy even the most demanding P2P user (who is using the network fairly) even into the rise of IPTV and other high bandwidth services which will become more commonplace over the next few years.

The throttling that will occur is vague, but I don't think a 250GB cap is a problem, and I would be content with any ISP that caps to 50GB, as long as my traffic is prioritised on the high cost packages at times of high use.

I think people who complain need to be realistic about this.

ISP letter to customers: Dear customer, to improve quality of service we provide you with fair-share internet connection bandwidth. We have not invested in increasing bandwidth in our network since beginning of Internet and therefore your share-bandwidth can be very small and ultra small when you need it. You can blame and sue your neighbors for interrupting your-fair-share internet activities, but not us. We are working hard to insure there is no competitor in our area of operations by paying extra donations to our government and therefore don’t try to find better service and bigger fair-share bandwidth for lower price. Your ISP.

The customers providing the feedback in question were the executives who also happen to subscribe to their own service.

This was already tried in Canada. The sneaks just kept throttling all nodes citing congestion or previous congestion(throttle for days after a bit of congestion) on unconnected nodes as an excuse. 

Why build more infrastructure when I can just screw customers? Muahahaha!
*chomps cigar enthusiastically*

It's not the amount of traffic over the month, it's their stupid "speed boost" crap allowing customers to use more bandwidth than whats available on already overloaded nodes.


They need to pull their heads out and actually manage the connections. HEY COMCAST STOP TRYING TO APPEASE THE COURTS AND GIVE US SOME UPGRADES SO YOUR SYSTEM GIVES THE CUSTOMER THE 8mb transfer rates we are paying for!!!! (Or maybe simply stop signing up 250 customers on a node that has a hard time handling 100.) Ooo there's an idea!.

Whoever thought of this latest BS needs to be hauled out back and shot!

LoCatus

I've been told by someone I trust(You don't have to trust them, I'm just saying this is second-hand info) that the problem isn't bandwidth at all. The problem is that Windows computers fragment the packets they send over the Internet.

It isn't that there's too much information being sent, it's that the silly Windows boxes break it up into too many little pieces, and make it more costly for the servers to deal with it.

If anybody needs to be sued over this stuff, it's Microsoft. I would also like to suggest the possibility that Linux boxes(and possibly Macs) might be less likely to get penalized, since the same amount of bandwidth usage would probably harass the servers a lot less on a LInux or Mac, than a Microsoft(Windows) computer.