said by ossito16:
I understand what you are saying, but the problem is that 98% is not the average user. If a paltry 2% of users are using P2P applications, streaming video/music, & online gaming and it degrades your giant network then you need to expand it. These telecom/cable isp's are providing bare minimum capacity with the hope that people will not actually use their service to its full "described" potential.
If ISPs had to buy enough capacity to guarantee that all users could simultaneously use the full advertised speed, internet access would cost around $7 per Mbps... Bell's 16Mbps service would need to cost over $150/month instead of the current $75/month.
The low costs we see from most ADSL providers ($30 to $40 for unlimited) rely heavily on the assumption of intermittent usage. As ISPs get infested by heavy users on low-cost unlimited plans, unlimited plans will either disappear or get marked up to compensate - this is exactly what TSI did two days ago after noticing the Unlimited average shooting up 60% over little more than a month, presumably in large part thanks to ex-Videotronites and October's 100GB/month cap.
Another issue with capacity is that in order to deliver consistently low latencies and reliable service, the external links actually need to have significant overcapacity to keep traffic queues short on all links at all times and provide headroom for fail-over.
There are very real costs to bandwidth and they do not go much below $0.04/GB in North America for the cheapest complete solutions.
Bell and Videotron are clearly overcharging for the caps they have regardless of speeds... but the burden is very real for the smaller ISPs who compete on price with the rest like TSI.