I second the motion. I think he means that people who pay for internet access and then barely use it subsidize the people who do use it. Just like gym membersh

I second the motion. I think he means that people who pay for internet access and then barely use it subsidize the people who do use it. Just like gym memberships that aren't used subsidize those that are. But it's a specious argument. Just because some users are more profitable than others doesn't mean that it's OK to charge money to providers to not degrade the pipe that I'm paying for. If I want to download at full speed 24/7, I should be able to do that (barring any specific limits in my contract with the ISP). Yes, I will be a less profitable customer than one who sends an email once a week, but those are the breaks: Either change the contract so its limits are clear, or make sure that the average profit stays enough in the black to cover the cost of the outliers. I'm paying for a service. If they aren't providing that service, and they are limiting my connection to try to shake down providers, they're doing it by hurting my service experience. And if they're doing that in a market where there are no ISP options, then it's an abuse of monopoly power. And any "half way decent free market economist" should recognize that monopolies can and should be regulated. Especially when the monopoly is on something that the UN has declared to be a human right. [1] [1] http://www.thewire.com/technology/2011/06/united-nations-wikileaks-internet-human-rights/38526/ http://www.thewire.com/technology/2011/06/united-nations-wik...