Not when they understand its limited and communal resource that they are being given unmetered access to.
I have an objection against the usage of the word "communal" here. This suggests it is owned by everyone and one person abuses it. This is not the case.
The user entered a contract with a company one-on-one and exercises the contract to the limit. If they are depriving others from said resource because the traffic is aggregated in the company network, the problem lies with the contract the company issued, not the user.
The word "Abuse" means that she exceeded the spirit and intention of the offer., which is absolutely what was done.
And here is where the problem lies. The company puts "unlimited" on paper and then expects "but nobody will actually use it all". The babysitter was offered a snack and the provider badly misjudged the babysitters' appetite. I say it is rude to offer a snack and then to leave your babysitter hungry.
Spirit and intent is subjective.
For example, I have unlimited service and last week, the Nathan Drake Collection was released, this morning, it was Fallout 4. Together, close to 70GB of data I already downloaded this month. There are probably a few patches for those games coming and in a few days the Nathan Drake 4 multiplayer beta. Add to that my pretty much continuous Spotify usage, several weekly TV episodes @ 1080p or 4K if i can get it, etc....
Is this abuse? I certainly don't think so. But I bet you it is quite a bit more than the average user.
The company is actually putting a smart spin on this. Instead of saying "we badly misjudged this" or, as mentioned elsewhere "we just want to extort more money from you", they are putting the blame on others by saying "a few people abuse it". And since we are having this discussion, they are obviously getting away with it.
Yes. Mandating open firmware, awesome idea. Because we want to need X different compilers compiling code for Y different cpus/mcus running Z basic OSses just to compile our kernel and use our hardware. It will make our lives so much better. Why not just mandate that those embedded cpus must run Linux themselves?
Perhaps it makes sense to differentiate between binary drivers for Linux (bad) and binary blobs running on the embedded hardware taking to opensource drivers (ok)?
Not every statement that differentiates between sexes is sexism.
Men and women are still physically different and experience different environmental pressures when growing up: this influences their behaviour. That is not sexism, that is reality.
What about the cost of downgrading all those machines they buy to an operating system that isn't officially supported anymore? Running a browser that isn't supported anymore? And the increased risk of using old software with known vulnerabilities?
I do admit those are more hidden costs... just like the cost of those 15 departments not maintaining their apps.
It's a bit like the current financial crisis: you keep adding leverage and keep telling yourself it won't break just yet....
When it does eventually break, there is so much "legacy" that nobody can really determine who's fault is all was... and that suits everybody just fine.
I am no laywer and I am assuming the cap is part of your contract with them, I cannot see how they can keep their definition of bandwidth usage a secret. They are now basically claiming that you are restricted in your usage upto the cap but they refuse to tell you what the cap actually *means*. Without clear understanding of how usage is measured, the number of the cap is meaningless.
So you are subject to provions in a contract that you are not allowed to know. It would surprise me very much if they could hold that up in court...
Take care of the luxuries and the necessities will take care of themselves. -- Lazarus Long