> Until this change, customers who have used fewer resources have covered the costs, in a way, for other customers who have used much more resources.

That is utter nonsense. If the customers who are 'covering the costs' have a problem, they can move? Yet even still they are charging those SAME customers who now actually receive less resources, even if they were using them or not.

The problem with their old pricing structure is that it attracts high-utilization customers who will max out their transfer every month. But yes, they raised prices for all of us. Their pricing was so low, my guess is it was never profitable enough to be worthwhile long-term. It brought them a lot of business, some of which they'd be happier without under the old terms.

Maybe that's exactly what happened. So now nobody is covering the free loaders and they need to charge them.

> That is utter nonsense.

Hardly. Some level of cross subsidisation happens in all service of this nature. Depending on use youre either paying or receiving

Most Providers and customers just ignore it as inconsequential though.