If it were true that 99.9% of all users never ever saturated their lines, then no one would ever be having these kinds of conversations. The only reason network

If it were true that 99.9% of all users never ever saturated their lines, then no one would ever be having these kinds of conversations. The only reason network neutrality has become such an issue is precisely because there are ubiquitous technologies that can and do saturate your link, and consumers love them. Napster, Kaaza, Morpheus, Bit Torrent --all popular (or once popular, anyway) P2P technologies that take advantage of as much bandwidth as you want to throw at them. Consumers can, have, and do saturate their lines in great numbers. The ISP industry's response was to throw a hissy fit that consumers were taking advantage of what was sold to them, institute throttling and deep packet inspection, and dig their heels in on upgrading network infrastructure, even when the government threw billions of dollars their way to make it happen. Google's public image on the matter has strongly revolved around shaming these practices, going so far as to file amicus curiae briefs to the courts in relevant cases condemning the very practices they're now attempting to implement. The rhetorical "think of all the things you could do with a connection that fast!" questions are pervasive in their marketing. They've gone so far as to say that the reason they're getting into the ISP game is precisely to incite the development of technologies that can take advantage of those links. These public faces are at odds with the words of their legal department that wants to hide under "reasonable network management" in ways that make them indistinguishable from the very competitors they claim to be shaming.