That calculation really doesn't apply to 99% of what people use their internet connections for. It takes me 15 minutes to update Office over me 50 mbps connection. I'm not going to download twice as many updates because my net connection is twice as fast. I'm not going to buy twice as many iTunes movies or twice as many games on Steam.

So if someone were to ping-flood a Comcast user's home IP... that could get expensive quickly, and there is almost nothing the user could do about it. So weird, and quite unfair.

The difference is that cable companies want it both ways. They charge you a minimum for a set amount of serivce AND they charge you if you use more than that AND you don't always get what you pay for (since it's "up to" xx mb/s)

With water if I don't use it I pay zero. If I use xxxx gallons I pay for xxxx gallons and if I turn the tap and water doesn't come out I get a bill credit at the very least.

With the internet I pay $50/ month whether I use it or not, if I pay for 100gb and I use 105gb then I pay $20 for the overage and if I have DOCSIS and everyone in my neighbourhood is using their internet then too bad for me that it doesn't work.

I think most other items are usage-based because when you use them they are gone. When you use electricity or water, more needs to be generated/cleaned.

Not so with Internet. It is more like phone service. If I make a call, nothing needs to be rebuilt for another one.

I believe it is obvious to people and that is why there is push-back.

Competition existed in the past.

Quotas become more and more restrictive the higher the bandwidth is (e.g. a 1GB limit on a 2G mobile network is basically unlimited traffic due to how long it takes to fill it. The same 1GB limit on a 4G LTE+ network could be consumed in mere minutes).

> Even people who don't use large amounts of bandwidth can't benefit from high speeds. What does that sentence mean? I don't understand this kind of comment.