And, without it, you're limited to only being able to use the service in the absence of contention over bandwidth.
That is a limit.
True... but that is not a limit that is determined by the provider, that is a limit created only by whatever threshold the current demand exists on the service is as it approaches its own limitations to provide that service. It is limited in the sense of "limited" being an adjective, but it is not "limited" in sense of it being a verb because the provider is not actually limiting anything... the only limits that apply are physical limitations that the provider themselves is just as subject to as any of their customers. If a provider does not have the capacity to cope with the threshold of so-called unlimited bandwidth users without affecting everybody's ability to use the service, and if continued quality service for the largest number of their customers is genuinely important to that company to the point that they will deprioritize packets of particular customers based on their historical patterns of usage rather than only on whatever current demands they are placing on their network, then that company should not call the service unlimited in the first place. And even if everyone's usage suffers during periods of high congestion, nobody suffers during periods of lower congestion, so it is genuinely possible for companies to offer unlimited packages if they wanted.
What you seem to be missing is that deprioritization of users who have already downloaded more than some threshold in the current billing cycle is still a *limit* on the level of service that those heavy users pay for. That they wouldn't be able to continue to get such service during periods of heavy congestion anyways is irrelevant because all users are affected equally at those times, and that is not a limit imposed directly by the provider but by the underlying physical architecture and the real-time demand for it.
You suggest that deprioritization increases your ability to use the service, but it does so by explicitly *limiting* the amount that you are allowed to use the service without deprioritization.
My objection is not that providers do this... my objection is only that they call a package "unlimited" when they have actually set a real limit on how much you can use it without deprioritization before they start deprioritizing your packets.
If they are deprioritizing your traffic only after you exceed some threshold then that threshold is certainly and quite literally a *LIMIT* on that level of service, and they are relegating you to a different level of service after that point. While physical limits to usage will always exist, those limits apply to everybody equally, regardless of what level of service they have paid for, and are not artificially imposed upon you by a policy that the company has chosen to follow, even if that policy only exists to maximize the overall throughput of the greatest number of subscribers.
I have a cell phone plan with unlimited nation-wide calling anytime... I pay extra for this service, and I regularly make use of it. if the company decided to change my terms of service so that if should make too many long distance calls that month because they determine that they don't have the capacity to allow me to make the number of calls that I am and still provide acceptable service to other customers, and so they started limiting the quality of service for my phone calls for the remainder of that billing period, as reasonable as it might be for my cell phone service provider to do this, they aren't offering me the same package that I signed up for, are they? How could they continue to call it unlimited when they are imposing a hard limit on it
Insurance, registration, and maintenance fees are not property taxes, which was the issue I was addressing Property taxes are paid to the municipality for permission simply to use the land for the housing that you *do* own. If you do not live on the land, then you do not pay property taxes, period. You may pay mooring fees, but if you should keep your boat undocked most of the time, and far enough away from the coast, then you only pay such fees when you are docked, and not for all of the time that you are using the boat on the open water.
But waxing a bit scifi here... what if you built a structure at the bottom of the sea, and lived there? I seem to recall there was a James Bond movie where the villain had some sort of set-up like that, actually.
Using self-driving taxis will be much cheaper than owning a car.
Just how cheap are you thinking it will get? Right now, when I take a cab to the airport from my place, I'm looking at it being about $50, while my car, which is not even particularly fuel economical by the way, uses about $3 for the same trip. Uber is cheaper than cabs, but not anywhere close that much.
All constants are variables.