No. Others have spoken about paying, but let me touch on one of the issues not talked about really so far: Peering. Netflix/Google/et al have peering points

No. Others have spoken about paying, but let me touch on one of the issues not talked about really so far: Peering. Netflix/Google/et al have peering points where they connect to networks like Frontier. (Non-large customers peer with their own ISP and the ISP has peering points with other ISPs, etc). These peering arrangements are either paid or settlement-free. That is, the two networks either pay each other for the traffic for money (details vary), or do it "settlement-free". It's called settlement free because there is no process needed to settle out the charges between the two peers. One thing to realize is that large ISP's (AT&T, Time Warner, Comcast, and Verizon) have always had paid peering for larger customers. They are oligopolists, so they have no reason not to. To be fair, some also have settlement free agreements, but they generally would not apply to most customers: https://www.xfinity.com/peering https://www.xfinity.com/peering To give a sense of scale: comcast has 40+ settlement free agreements in place, and 8000+ commercial agreements in place. Additionally, netflix/google/etc often do provide benefits for settlement free peering. For example, for netflix, if you allow them to peer settlement free, netflix will place caching appliances with significant portions of their content library, inside your datacenters. https://openconnect.netflix.com/en/ https://openconnect.netflix.com/en/ The alternative is generally "not peering with netflix".That alternative means the ISP is probably paying for the bandwidth transit (to someone) for their customers to view that netflix content. Since netflix represents 30%+ of traffic at peak times, I would bet frontier/et al save more not paying for the netflix traffic. Instead what you see is that they want, essentially, netflix to be forced to peer and pay. (like they are with oligopolists). That way they pay essentially three times for the traffic - customer a, interconnect, customer b. In practice, this game is mostly a waste of time. In truth, silicon valley could end this game end time it wanted by getting together. The top 10-20 websites account for most of the time spent daily on the internet. If 10 of them (Google, Netflix, Facebook, etc) got together and said "okay, great, there is no net neutrality, we are no longer serving comcast customers because it's too expensive", i'm pretty sure i know who would win that and how long it would take. (At worst, you end up with a net neutrality bill being approved!) It's the lack of togetherness that enables the "divide and conquer" strategy. (It would also be hilarious to watch comcast complain about unfair competition).