blair1q writes: Belgian ISP Telenet recently offered a rare picture of the individual subscribers on its network who download the most data. The company offers several tiers of service, with bandwidth caps up to 100 Mbps, and monthly consumption caps on the lower tiers. But if an upper tier is deemed to be hogging the network, the ISP will throttle their multi-megabit service down to 512 Kbps. Which forces the question: If it's possible for someone to use up all the bandwidth and interfere with other users' service, why did you organize it that way, Telenet? Why not sign up only the number of subscribers you can support even if one or more are running their pipes at full rate? Or is it that you oversubscribe your bandwidth to make more money, and then blame the users for using the service they bought from you? And why punish them for the rest of the month, instead of apportioning bandwidth while multiple high-volume users are online? Is it their fault for paying you to get the bandwidth they need, or yours for charging them for bandwidth they will never get?
The only possible interpretation of any research whatever in the `social
sciences' is: some do, some don't.
-- Ernest Rutherford