Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It has nothing to do with technical necessity, or even expenses of delivering a specific user's service. Exactly my point. Therefore it's driven by greed, and is an indication of monopoly abuse. To repeat what I said. ISPs already have tired plans for _bandwidth_, and those who are heavier users can pay more for more bandwidth, which has technical necessity behind it. There is completely no need in caps. See https:…
No, it's not "driven by greed", it's "driven by basic math". There's nothing abusive about asking people using your service to pay more than the people who use it the least. And it has nothing to do with "monopoly abuse", we have four (five-ish) national carriers as well as plenty of regional offerings. Mobile providers are the least monopolistic telecoms in the industry right now. The idea of paying for network spee…
Stop the demagoguery please. Calling greed "math" doesn't change it being greed.
> Paying for usage is the ideal situation
You sound like an ISP shill. Are you one? Paying for usage is horrendous, because ISPs who own media services disadvantage competing media services, by excluding their own from caps. This should be forbidden not just by Net Neutraility, but simply by antitrust law. But I suppose you think monopoly is ideal situation too, right? And you'd claim there is nothing wrong with "asking to pay more" because people have no choice but to use the abusive monopolist if they want service, and it's not greed but "basic math". Yeah, right.
Arguing with shills is pointless though, so I finished here. Everything was said above already anyway.