download caps are already bullstuff as it is: You have a hard drive in your computer for a reason and your ISP should not be storing anything you download anyways. They sure as hell don't have a limit on the number of newspapers or books you can collect, as long as you have room to store them right? They don't have a limit on the amount of DVD's or VHS tapes you can collect, do they? NO THEY DONT
I call this "bandwidth cap" pulling a classic "Hughes Net"
as long as you pay for service, you should be able to download as much as your hard drive(s) can store
This is the dumbest understanding I've ever seen someone come up with.
Download caps are not because anything is being stored at all. It in fact, has absolutely nothing to do with storage at all. Not a single thing.
You could hit your download cap by storing absolutely nothing from a server that's also holding nothing. So long as the server had a system running that just sends garbage bytes to any client that connects to it.
It has nothing to do with how much they want you to collect. If you want to make stuffty comparisons, imagine this:
You subscribe to a newspaper. You pay your monthly fee. And you get your daily newspaper. You don't get two newspapers a day. Just one. If you wanted a second one. You'd have to go to the store and buy it.
But of course, that has nothing to do with how the internet works.
Data is passed by sending electrical currents. These electrical currents do not come from nowhere. They are produced from some kind of power source. That power source costs money.
Sure. Using a bunch of this power isn't going to put the ISP in any sort of debt. Otherwise there wouldn't be ISPs that offer unlimited for free. (Start.ca for example)
But that doesn't mean they don't want to make more money off it.
That all being said. Bandwidth caps are still loving stupid.
