I would think there are few comparisons because in the long run the idea is not logical and few would agree to such an arrangement unless they were forced to. T

I would think there are few comparisons because in the long run the idea is not logical and few would agree to such an arrangement unless they were forced to. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with it, but it's not always a sound business model. I'm sure it's great when you can make it happen but it would be easy to disrupt by a competitor. It would be the equivalent of a third-party delivery service charging the buyer a fee to deliver and the seller a fee to deliver the same purchased item with their delivery trucks. Now, some may do that; but it would be easy for a competitor to see the consumer unfriendliness of such a practice to step up and say "we only charge once per delivery!". That would likely be the end of the Double-Dipping Delivery Service because both the buyer and seller would be better off with this new service. But that's the key, many of these ISPs don't have competition so they can try to enforce such a consumer unfriendly practice. The question is whether am I paying to have bits delivered that I request or am I paying to have access to the Internet so that bits can be delivered to me if I request them? Based on the sales pitch and pricing from my ISP, it is clear to me I'm paying to have bits delivered. If the ISPs will lower my pricing to be a connection and then charge companies to deliver bits to me, then that's something different. There would have to be some financial agreement between me and that company as to how to cover that cost. That could either be a direct payment transaction or I have to watch ads to cover their costs. Netflix could charge me $20 a month if my high-speed connection was $5 a month, or even free, since they charge Netflix a nominal fee to deliver bits to me. As far as I know, no ISP has ever sold Internet connections that way. So for them to claim that both parties need to be charged for bits delivered is attempting to double charge on a bill of goods already sold. The argument is more like, "Somebody already paid for it!" and is quite valid. Your magazine example fails because the ads conceivably subsidize the cost of delivering the magazine to me. Without the ads, my pricing for the magazine would be higher. To be accurate to the argument, the magazine would need to charge full price for ads and not subsidize the cost of getting the magazine to me at all, charging me full price as well.