Bandwidth is a limited resource. It costs money to produce therefore it has to cost you money to use. Cable/DSL/FiOS connections are sold with the assumption

Bandwidth is a limited resource. It costs money to produce therefore it has to cost you money to use. Cable/DSL/FiOS connections are sold with the assumption that they are fractional connections (in the way that a timeshare entitles you to fractional use). The nice thing is that packet-switching makes that sharing really easy and generally efficient. However, when someone uses more than just fractional use, it affects both the provider and other users. Let's take that 250GB cap. That's 2,000Gb (gigabits) per month, 66Gb/day, 2.7Gb/hour, 47Mb/minute, 809Kbps. So, in order to hit Comcast's limit, you must be using more than half a T1 connection 24/7 without interruption. Does that seem unfair? If you're using more than half a T1, maybe you shouldn't be using a shared connection such as cable/DSL/FiOS? T1s are expensive because they aren't shared. Cable/DSL/FiOS is cheap because it is shared. If you can't share, the economics that make it cheap just aren't there and logic/reality dictate that it just doesn't work. Comcast's 250GB limit isn't exactly low and really only hits people who should really have a more dedicated connection. Also, remember that heavy users place an impetus on providers not to increase bandwidth speeds because they don't have the capacity from their CO to the wider internet. If you're one of the few who can saturate half a T1, you have a huge incentive to be against bandwidth caps. If you're everyone else, they'll probably affect you in a positive way (as long as they are set high like 250GB/mo). And to be fair to people who are completely against this, I am a little worried that American companies might go the way of certain foreign ones with 50GB-ish caps, but as long as their criteria remains using more than 50% of a T1, I say good for them!