[Rewrew]

I think the point that I was trying to make has been lost, maybe because I didn't make it that well. There is a also tendency to assume that because I complained about one aspect of the OP's behaviour that I disagreed with all the points he was making.

That VM should deliver what they offer is not in dispute. Perhaps VM could be clearer what "unlimited" really means. Maybe their traffic management techniques are unsubtle. In the main most users get the service they expect and are not affected by traffic management. It is the heavy users that tend to complain on here. Again I do not have an issue with heavy users per se. If you like to download 5Gb Linux distributions day after day then you have that right (but I also feel that most heavy downloaders are sufficiently savvy to schedule such downloads at times that don't inconvenience others - indeed probably the same times that they are not actively using their PCs).

My concern was the unchallenged statement that it is reasonable to consume an item (bandwidth in this case) that is not wanted. How can it ever be right to deliberately consume an item in limited supply that you neither need or want simply for the sake of it? It will have an impact on the rest of the users of that item and there will be no benefit to the person consuming for the sake of it.

And in case "limited supply" is challenged I refer to the infrastructure of the net (at all scales) which is always going to be limited in capacity to some extent albeit that technology continues to increase the capacity and demand as time progresses.