Had the US and rest of the world had similar practices, requiring users to carefully watch their megabytes, YouTube and similar services would never had been conceived, let alone put into practice. Perhaps the carriers would have hosted content, under the cap, but then we would be in a world where they decided what we saw rather than the demonstrably better one where that choice is truly free.

There are costs to bandwidth. But rather than being 15¢ a megabyte, they are in the order of 15¢ a gigabyte - or 1000 times less. So if you are using 500GB a month, you are costing your carrier $75 a month. It seems reasonable that you pay for it. But, in Australia, if you want to use 50GB a month, you'll pay $2.60 a gigabyte to Telstra. Paying for bandwidth is fine. Getting gouged for it is another matter.

It is not just Telstra, although it has a special role. No internet provider in Australia offers a plan like they do in the US. The best ones are cheaper than Telstra but offer more by dividing between peak and off-peak use.

They have not tried to grab market share by going for it and freeing people from dreaded usage monitoring.

Why isn't competition working here? It is difficult to say but consider what would happen if a smaller provider lifted its cap to 250GB and charged 15¢ beyond that. It would attract a disproportionate share of those who would use that much. That may represent a small part of the market but a large part of its customers. Add to that the potential congestion caused by such usage - if concentrated in the evenings - on the equipment installed in Telstra exchanges, and that 15¢ a gigabyte may be something much larger.