> Net neutrality is not law. There are valid arguments to be made against it - like with your cell plan, everyone can or perhaps should, pay for the bytes they

> Net neutrality is not law. There are valid arguments to be made against it - like with your cell plan, everyone can or perhaps should, pay for the bytes they use, and how much infrastructure (CPU) those bytes use to get delivered fast. The big question that net neutrality answers is which of the two communicating parties is “using” the bytes: The end user. Of course users should pay for the cost of the resources they use; otherwise, the connection provider would quickly become insolvent, and nobody wants that. But users shouldn’t need to know the internal business practices of their connection provider in order to understand their billing. Instead, net neutrality says that the provider cannot charge different rates for different destinations; it’s their responsibility to amortize their variable costs into some kind of destination-agnostic price structure for consumers. This is basic risk pooling, where the actor in position to affect the costs (via infrastructure changes) is required to shoulder the pricing risk of their own actions.