Doesn't sound too palatable to me. All you're doing is taking the cost to the consumer and passing it from payment to ISPs to payment to content providers. Mean

Doesn't sound too palatable to me. All you're doing is taking the cost to the consumer and passing it from payment to ISPs to payment to content providers. Meanwhile you are entrenching the few large content providers that can afford the fees. Moreover, you're doing nothing to address the lack of competition among ISPs, meaning ISPs have an incentive to raise prices above the market clearing equilibrium in order to extract greater rents. Tangentially, I don't understand why anyone is talking about fairness here. Corporations don't care about fairness; they care about profit. If corporations were individuals they'd be psychopaths; they are a necessary evil to aid the price mechanism in efficiently allocating resources, nothing more. The goal is to get them to perform this function while minimizing market distortions and rent extraction. If this entails being "unfair" to a corporation, who cares? I also don't understand the problem in principle with regulation. Of course it can be abused, but so can a complete lack of regulation. The only economists who believe that the solution to all our woes is completely unregulated markets are a few wingnut Austrain economists and people who fundamentally misunderstand the Coase theorem.