Hyper-V is just.....wrong. Feature wise (and maybe just in in how the features are implemented) it doesn't compare to vmware. Take networking for example. In vmware it's easy as pie to setup VLAN's, VM only networks, etc. In Hyper-V it's a somewhat complicated process. The thin provisioning of hard drives by default is bad, bad, bad. Give me the option during VM build like vmware does.
Chrome is about as joe basic as you can get. Small'ish download and it starts fast (as well as renders fast) and has plenty of support for plugins if you so desire. What is there to be "weary" about? Maybe look at Opera?
How does throttling make them more money? It doesn't but it keeps the customer there and happy. "My connection is slow, oh hey I just went over my initial usage limit and I am stepped down to the next speed"
The old satellite ISP's did (do?) this. They give you a bucket of bandwidth per day. You could download at full speed until you emptied the bucket at that point it dropped to 56K (brutal). That 56K was a constant and was "filling" the bucket back up all the time. So if you drained your cap quickly, letting it sit there for a couple of hours charged it up enough to get full speed for a while.
I think this is a good solution for ISP's looking to manage their over sold pipes. Just change this to the monthly quotas that many ISP's have done and set a minimum speed that you'll hit when you exhaust your quota that isn't absolutely terrible.
Increasing the amount of bandwidth just means people will use more of it because it's there. So if it takes them 2 hours to download a movie at max speed just means it would then take them only 1 hour. They'd still be saturating the pipe.