There is nothing illegal about torrent traffic any more than any other form of traffic. "It's streaming-like, but legal." "It's VPN-like, but legal." "It's cyptolocker-like, but legal." "It's SSL-like, but legal." "It's Tor-like, but legal."
I am surprised that ISPs haven’t started cracking down on WfH, and start saying it violates their TOC because this is a business use. Public uproar would be immense.
You listed the reason why yourself, you shouldn't be surprised. Maybe -after- the pandemic, when WfH people can be painted as "tech elite" or something, but not while everyone wants to WfH and it's a mixed bag who can.
Actual, I might be wrong here with how contact law is handled ... anyone?
A related consideration: when we moved into our terraced house the land was under leasehold and the lease specified 'no business use'. We bought the freehold some time back, but I've often wondered what my position might otherwise have been. Presumably breech of the lease conditions would be a tort against the landlord and so I'd have been fine as long as they didn't sue.
No, it's not unreasonable. They sell consumers unlimited high bandwidth connections and at no point are they told they can't actually use the service they're paying for. What's unreasonable is cutting off paying consumers and suing streaming services when the company's dumb business model starts failing because of their own invalid assumptions. If oversubscribing is such a problem, they should stop doing it instead of blaming consumers for overusing their low capacity network.