Anti-trust is another set of legal measures that were designed to protect the consumer/market but 'discourage investment'.
This is just another case of the same thing. If I refused to stop texting at work, I'd be fired. They couldn't call the police before even taking that step.
In America, you don't have a right to work, but you do have a right to education (at least, that is the general consensus). By that reasoning, you can be 'just fired', but not 'just expelled'.
Otherwise the stuff coming off, say netflix, seems pretty small and one would have to watch a hell of lot of TV to reach that limit.
Yes, one would have to watch a hell of a lot of TV to reach that limit. I have 6 'users' in my home, all of whom could theoretically be pulling down these movies. Will I hit my cap? Chances are, yes.
OTOH, why should I, someone that is using the bandwidth that I paid for (for completely legitimate reasons, mind), be penalized simply because you use less? You are not subsidizing my use of the internet, you're simply not using all of the internet available to you, and declaring that everyone should be pulled down to your standard, or you are 'losing money'.
Also, are you getting some sort of price break when my usage is capped? I mean, if the point of this is to save you money (in the form of a lack of subsidization), where are those savings?
To put this into perspective, let's consider a hypothetical: You own a gym membership. You use the gym in what is considered a 'standard' manner. Let's say, 1 hour a day, Monday - Friday. I own a gym membership as well. I, however, am a health nut, and devote 4 hours a day to physical fitness, including weekends (when I spend 6 a day). Well, the 'average' user (you) only uses the gym 1 hour a day, and even 99% of the gym members work out no more than 2 hours a day. Well, since it'll only impact a few, the gym decides to implement a policy that allows someone no more than, say, 21 hours per week (7 days a week, 3 hours per day). I mean, I am using up this finite resource (If I'm on a particular weight machine, you can't use it), and I'm using it a lot more than anyone else. Should my usage be capped off, simply because I'm using the service provided to me?
Analogies like this can be created for nearly ANY service industry that offers a flat rate. That is the risk that you, as a company, take when offering a flat rate. The fact that so many companies are trying to back out of it in the tech field now sickens me. Society would be up in arms quite a bit more if it started happening in other industries.
That you mention "arguing in the seats" is part of the problem too, methinks. "Leave this premises right now or we call the police and press trespassing charges" is rather difficult to argue with, it's just not done for PR reasons.
And yet, the same people that will laugh and joke into a cell phone during a movie still find a way to argue with that, the most prevalent being 'I paid for my movie, I'm not leaving'. Sure they eventually give up, but that's beside the point.
Admittedly, I only go to a movie theatre 2 or 3 times a year, but that is more a price point issue than anything else. $22 for my wife and I to go see a new movie once, or wait 3 months and spend the same amount to own it forever... the choice is usually pretty clear.
If you push the "extra ice" button on the soft drink vending machine, you won't get any ice. If you push the "no ice" button, you'll get ice, but no cup.