You think it's more cost effective for a company to artificially restructure itself into a obscured collage of vanishingly small cells than for them to offer a fixed-price minimal-service tier to a specific set of low-opportunity customers who probably have high collections issues under normal circumstances?
This assumes you only have one TV doing 4K streaming, but most households might have more devices consuming bandwidth.
Also, between $15 for 25mbps and $20 for 200mbps, the telco is making more profit off the latter, because at that scale bandwidth is dirt cheap and most services like Netflix deploy servers on-premise inside the telco's network.
> This assumes you only have one TV doing 4K streaming, but most households might have more devices consuming bandwidth
But no households are doing 8 simultaneous 4K streams. The "but you might be doing more than one thing at a time" case is really uncompelling once you get up past 100Mbps, as much as ISPs want to make people believe otherwise in their marketing.
