Sure, but the argument for caps is that it reduces overall demand and therefore peak consumption, and peak consumption is what the ISPs actually have to pay for.

hmm, spitballing here but if they were really suffering could they not offer a package with lower speeds during peak? (while slowly using some of their profit to re-invest in infrastructure?)

There’s more to running an isp than simply plumbing electricity.

sure, but is your 'profit' to be made in.. charging per byte consumed/sent? it just feels... gougey?

I had to live under an ISP that charged something on the order of $10+/GB after a certain amount and after they were forced to offer unlimited internet it was an actual breath of fresh air just to be able to use the internet and not worry about literally everything in the house, or if I could update my OS, or play this game, or watch this Netflix show, etc.

i'm honestly curious. why not a standard margin on your 'per second' allowances (100/100Mbps, etc) or other 'addon' services?

why should someone with a ring doorbell (or a homekit secure video whatever) be punished over someone who doesn't?