I don't think we actually disagree on any of the basic facts or technical details here. (Well actually I do disagree with your general claim about minimum bandw

I don't think we actually disagree on any of the basic facts or technical details here. (Well actually I do disagree with your general claim about minimum bandwidth guarantees not being possible on shared systems, but that's probably getting a bit far afield.) I don't object to very limited, neutral, and above all good faith traffic shaping taking place in order to mitigate sudden spikes in usage that would otherwise cause problems for the network. I also wouldn't object to peak (ie time of day) or usage (ie quantity) based pricing, a practice already engaged in by the vast majority of public utilities. I do object to any sort of throttling targeted at specific applications, protocols, or use cases. Utility services need to be neutral, and to the extent possible blind. They deliver a service and nothing more. Directly related, I also object to the collection and sale of usage data. I don't want any of my utilities collecting unnecessary usage data or selling information about me. I also object to false advertising. The fact that it's currently the status quo only serves to illustrate a systemic failure of the current regulatory system. > I feel like the mistake here is making it sound like the person who's consuming the video content is the only party that matters. ... yes? That wasn't a mistake. I purchase bandwidth from them. To the extent physically possible, it is absolutely none of their business how I use the bandwidth that I purchased. > Presumably you're okay with your water company charging more for industrial use. > The same with video content, just because you as a consumer request the video doesn't make the company delivering it not a different class of customer, a high-volume bulk-sender. Actually my understanding is that utilities often charge less for industrial use, albeit with other more complicated conditions attached to the service. Water or electric utilities having special contracts for particularly high volume customers isn't an issue, but charging residential customers different rates depending on whether they were taking a shower or doing the dishes wouldn't be acceptable. Equivalently, on the commercial side of things charging office buildings different rates based on whether they were hosting insurance agents or software developers wouldn't be reasonable. Relating this to our ISP analogy, isn't it roughly equivalent to peering agreements and other commercial provisioning options that currently exist (versus residential subscriptions)? Rereading the comment chain, it seems a misunderstanding occurred between us earlier. I wasn't claiming (and never meant to imply) that commercial and residential customers need to be given the exact same contract terms. I only objected to discrimination based on how the provided service is used. Charging a residential customer different rates (or providing different speeds, or etc) based on the content or source of their streaming or downloading isn't okay. Equivalently, discriminating against commercial entities based on what their business does with the bandwidth they purchase isn't okay.