Bandwidth caps are almost universally loathed, except by the companies that implement them. Consumers hate them because they have to treat the Internet not as an inexhaustable resource, but as something that's doled out to them. Each page they view, video they watch, or song they stream moves the needle closer to zero with the resultant overage charges. Tech companies don't like them either. Video services such as Joost and Vuze rely on P2P to deliver their goods, and that, too is going to keep the bandwidth meter spinning, as will an HD rental from your Apple TV. Even sites like Hulu and YouTube may see less traffic from metered households.

How did we get into this position? It's a result of cable ISPs essentially doing the equivalent of an airline overbooking a flight. But instead of getting bumped to the next available flight and being given a free roundtrip ticket anywhere in the lower 48, like airline passengers, cable customers get lower speeds and bandwidth caps. Although there's plenty of fine print about actual speed and performance from cable ISPs, they've historically marketed their services as fast and unlimited in scope. Comcast's admission of throttling BitTorrent traffic has led to, among other things, class-action lawsuits accusing them of false advertising.

To their credit, some cable ISPs are working on modernizing their networks and infrastructure to handle increased demand. But others are relying on traffic shaping, throttling, and bandwidth caps to keep traffic at manageable levels.

Some people find little to object to when it comes to bandwidth caps. Proponents of caps argue that they offer a fair option for those whose Internet use is truly minimal, and require those who plan to run their connections full throttle 24/7 to pay for the privilege.

Profiting from piracy?



What about those customers who want to treat their connections as an all-you-can-eat buffet? It's that group of customers that have the potential to rake in the most revenue for bandwidth-capping ISPs. Like it or not, a lot of the traffic from heavy users comes from P2P and other forms of file-sharing. Sure, some of that is legit, consisting of content from legitimate P2P companies and things like Linux distros. But much of it is illicit content: movies, TV shows, and music. P2P devotees who are forced to live under caps may still choose to exceed their allotments, or pay for a higher cap to satisfy their bandwidth jones. The illicit traffic will still be flowing through the ISP's tubes, but with one important distinction: the ISP will now be profiting from their subscribers' use of P2P. Want to download the crappy camcorder cap of Kung-Fu Panda? You can still do it, and you'll now be paying your ISP extra for the privilege should you be exceeding the cap.

With all of the attention that Big Content has been throwing ISPs' way this year (filtering, anyone?), it's a sure bet that the possibility of ISPs making still more money from their users' nefarious activities will draw their attention. "We understand why ISPs might want to experiment with tiered pricing models, given the rapid growth of legitimate high-bandwidth content online," RIAA spokesperson Cara Duckworth told Ars. "But it would be troubling if ISPs were to profit from piracy, by charging more for bandwidth used for illegal downloading."

If anything, the possibility of this happening is likely to turn up the pressure on ISPs to begin filtering out all infringing content from their networks, and neither the ISPs (with the exception of AT&T) nor their customers are anxious to see copyright filters deployed. In the meantime, bandwidth caps appear to be here to stay. It's a fact of life in Canada and many other parts of the world, the second-largest cable ISP in the US is experimenting with them, and the largest one is watching it with interest. We have many freedoms to reflect on in the US on this Independence Day. Hopefully, independence from filtering won't prove too fleeting.