>>"The entire industry is cynically making a profit from a service they're not actually in a position to provide."
They can't *continually* make a profit from a service they can't provide, unless they have
a) customers who don't realise that it isn't being provided (so presumably failing to hit invisible limits?)
b) customers who just complain rather than actually acting.
Whatever 'unlimited' might naturally lead someone unaware of the situation to think when they take out a service, once that person has actually run up against (or even heard ab out) a provider whose service isn't as unlimited as they hoped it might be, they shouldn't be misled by it again (fool me once, shame on you, etc.) even if they are still somewhat annoyed that it still happens.
*Personally*, I think it would be much better if the ASA (or trading standards or whoever) prevented people using the word unless their service was truly unlimited, or at least unless any reasonable use limits were both unavoidably obvious in the offer, and also higher than the limits on almost all explicitly limited services available elsewhere.
However, given that TPTB don't seem to be doing that, I can also see how it's hard for any one company to decide to be noble at the expense of getting business.