>Then that is the problem than needs fixing, not these "abusers".
Your position on this is uninformed. It is actually possible to build a system that would meet 100% of the user demands 100% of the time, it would just cost exponentially more than you are currently paying. Transit bandwidth typically costs ISP's $15-$20 per meg at peak time every month, the difference is they pay based on actual usage rather than potential capacity. If you have 7 meg of capacity and use it at peak time, your ISP pays a transit provider $100-$140 for you that month, not counting their own people and infrastructure required to bring it to the last mile. The system is literally built on the idea that not everyone is using it 100% of the time.
There is an old formula that says even during peak usage, only about 10% of an ISP's customer base is using their connections at the same time. This is how the system works. When you automate the process of using your 100% of your bandwidth, the company loses money on you with the idea that the other users will help make up the difference to pay for some of your bill. It is for lack of a better term, a form of socialism.
It works when a few people are hogging more than is profitable, but as more and more people find youtube, netflix, hulu, and bittorrent etc., the system is forced to raise costs for everyone or collapse on itself.
With that said, the system is designed to support peak usage, when you torrent during peak usage times it is a greater burden then when you do it on off hours and there is capacity to spare.
I say rather than debate with them over the decision, that you do the best you can do for training the other people without access. If they end up face down in the dirt the minute you walk out the door, that was their decision, not yours.
If they call you after you start your new job charge them a consulting fee lol.
"Lead us in a few words of silent prayer." -- Bill Peterson, former Houston Oiler football coach