[glitchc]

Please don't do this. Not only is this a violation of the agreement between you and the ISP, but consumer internet pipes were never designed for this type of service. This is only feasible if the internet coming to your house is a business line, which it won't be if you live in a residential area.

[KingMachiavelli]

If I pay for unlimited data at XMbps, I expect to be able to use as much data as I want. If I cannot then ISPs should advertise more honestly.

Plus, I'd be very surprised in Comcast Business was actually using separate infrastructure.

[echelon]

Your license probably doesn't have a provision for subletting.

[Nextgrid]

Does screen-sharing and letting someone control your screen count as "subletting"? Does inviting someone to join your local Minecraft game (which internally starts a server and exposes it to the internet) count as subletting?

If your ISP sells you a service of X Mbps (and if they want to be more precise, X packets per second and X total data transferred in a month) you should be able to use it for any purpose you want. The purpose or content of said packet don't suddenly make it take more network resources.

If ISP's networks suddenly can't cope because people start using what they've paid for then it's on them and they need to price it accordingly and market it more honestly.

[przemub]

I'm surprised by how downvoted you are. It is kind of obvious that it is a violation to me here, since we have a history of people reselling their bandwith in blocks of flats.

[glitchc]

People feel entitled to their internet access without consideration of infrastructure costs, especially in North America. They see symmetric multi-GB connections commonly offered in countries such as Japan, South Korea and Singapore, and wonder why it can’t be done in the US.

Population density is why: Singapore is ~8400 people per square kilometre, while the US is a scant 36 per square km. That’s two orders of magnitude difference. Everything else follows from this (high prices, single provider, spotty last mile service, etc.)

[PeterisP]

Population density is often used as an excuse for this, but it's a weak excuse.

Finland has less population density than USA and manages to solve these issues; NYC has more density than Singapore and still has the same problems with internet access and pricing as the less dense areas of USA.

No, it's not about the population density, the key difference is in the lack of competition.

[Nextgrid]

> People feel entitled to their internet access without consideration of infrastructure costs, especially in North America.

What? People are paying the infrastructure costs through their internet bill. If the ISP is pricing it wrong or is mis-representing what they're selling then it's the ISP's fault and not the customers'. The ISP is free to change prices and/or change their marketing to represent the true nature and capability of the service they're selling.

[icedchai]

This is true, but even in US locations with high population density, we still don't have symmetric multi gig connections. Instead, we 1 or 2 choices for a wired ISP: generally cable / DOCSIS and DSL. And around here, PSTN copper is literally rotting on the poles, so DSL is out. Fiber is supposed to be installed "soon" (I estimated 1 to 2 years.)