@Garyvdh
You are wrong on the basis of not understanding what quantifies an 'uncapped' service.
Capped:
A capped service has a finite amount of data you are able to transmit within a particular timeframe irrespective of your connection's throughput capability.
That is to say, if you could push around data at a full-blown rate of 24mbps (or approximately 2.5mb/s after packet overhead in real-world terms), you would be able to achieve roughly 200gb worth of throughput in a 24 hour period. If the service has one of the two following structures, it qualifies as a capped service:
1. A rolling window. This is a model where you have a time period during which you are able to transmit x amount of data. For example, 100gb/day maximum, then your service is throttled to a fraction of what your line speed may be capable of (example: 128kbps) or even completely disconnect you until the next window period.
2. A monthly cap. This is a model where you have no daily, 3-day, 5-day, 10-day, 15-day or other 'rolling window', but where you do have a finite amount of data you can transmit back and forth for a calendar month - that is to say, the first of a month until the last day of that month.
Uncapped:
Uncapped services have neither of these limitations. What they may have, however, is throttling policies; a degree of ambiguity exists here blurring the line between capped and uncapped depending on the model in use. An example of this is in Afrihost's model, where after x amount of data transmission, your service levels are specifically degraded, and after x amount of further data transmission it is further degraded.
What does not quantify a 'cap' in this regard is where certain protocols are completely blocked or 'shaped' to incredibly slow speeds, as these are policies that the user is (generally) made aware of and agrees to prior to signing up for the service.
That peer2peer networking and torrenting for international links is 'shaped' on most of our uncapped accounts does not mean that these accounts are 'cons' as far as uncapped services are concerned, it merely means that the ISPs are unwilling to provide, on that level of account, what users would consider 'reasonable levels of service' where said service is utilized by a minority in comparison to the rest of the userbase but may still have a negative impact on the service levels for all other users as a whole.
To argue that these should not be limited because they are used for legitimate purposes is, also, not entirely true. I can guarantee that the majority of the data transmitted over peer2peer networking for residential users, whether direct-transfer or torrenting, is wholly illegal. Think copied games, videos, music, copyrighted pictures and the sort.
To complain about this as a user where you are unwilling to pay for the more pricey model that does not impose limits on this sort of traffic is to be childish and ignorant as to what you are agreeing to as a user. To claim that the cheaper services, aimed at more average, less power-user oriented consumers, are 'cons' due to these fairly lax limitations, can be regarded in the same manner.
Even on the cheaper models we see currently, most of these protocols that people are complaining about became at the very least partially unshaped after business hours and over weekends. Service levels will improve over time as the network engineers and administrators are able to improve and optimize the infrastructure they are operating on, and until that happens, those that want to be 'bandwidth hogs' need to learn their place and suck up the prices they have to pay for 'premium' services or learn to deal with the 'limitations' of the cheaper services.
Free TV, DSTV Compact or DSTV Premium. You get what you pay for. It's no different here.
