The only real limit is how many wires you lay, how many routers you plug in
So yes, there is a limit (and maybe some scalability issues, but... that's a talk for later) and you're right both in that it is the "obligation" of top tier network providers to invest in increasing those resources and that this change probably has more to do with feeding fat cats than it has to do with investing in keeping the infrastructure modern or anything that could be remotely described as "equitable".
Let's make no mistakes here, this is a reaction to the fact that the cream and honey era for ISPs, where they could charge exciting fees for services that the average consumer would never use, is coming to a close. Unlimited bandwidth offers were made by people who did not foresee the kinds of demands users would be making on networks in 2011 and this is a reaction to shrinking profit margins more than an explicit, projected need in the near future.
But everything I've read about these networks suggests that there is a looming "crisis point" for the internet as we know it, the model would need to change or become, horror of horrors,
unprofitable.
It's a kick in the balls, but this is the scheme I thought of that might be even remotely equitable. I do understand (and it pisses me off) that company accounts are being subsidized at the expense of smaller clients, but encouraging people not to be monstrous douchebags is a problem way beyond my technical scope or ambitions.
You're right, but I
remain convinced that there will be a legitimate need to change in the future.
I'd love to read articles that encourage me to be more pissed at fat-cats though. If you can find the links to the articles that informed your opinion that my belief is a product of AT&T's propaganda, I'd appreciate if you posted it (again?).