No they don't. They lay a pipe between the tier one network providers and the user. It's the tier one providers (who by the way are not part of ISPs, nor have a

No they don't. They lay a pipe between the tier one network providers and the user. It's the tier one providers (who by the way are not part of ISPs, nor have an issue with net neutrality) who lay the pipe between everyone (google cloud, netflix, ISPs, etc.) and create "the internet" as we know it. Everyone pays these tier one providers for access, Netflix pays (a quarter of a billion if I remember correctly), ISPs pay (that's part of why you give them money). The ISPs only run the last mile pipe from a tier one provider who provides access to "the internet" (which is the other reason you give them money). So if you view "the internet" as a singular type of utility like electricity then the analogy works. It's also how most people (correctly as it happens) think about it. IF the internet didn't behave that way it would be a very different place, where things like cloud providers, emails, and link aggregates wouldn't and couldn't exist. The real problem is you only have one choice of ISP in most areas. If the ISP markets were competitive this likely wouldn't be a problem, because all the ISPs would be offering "the internet". But now the ISPs are trying to use their market position to extract additional money. It's called economic rent, and we've basically known it's a bad idea (economically and morally) since feudal lords were doing it (cough a certain tea party).