I don't understand your point. If my computer hooked up to the internet can request traffic from another computer it sees on the internet then from my perspecti

I don't understand your point. If my computer hooked up to the internet can request traffic from another computer it sees on the internet then from my perspective I have that connection. You are trying to somehow say that an ISP offering unlimited access to the internet has to be held responsible for a server that refuses to be seen by my computer. I'm not making that claim. You are trying to refute a claim that isn't being made. I see "unlimited access" to the internet as being my ISP is not preventing me from accessing what can be found on the internet. You are twisting definitions around to make it mean how you wish it to be defined. It's not like I'm claiming "unlimited access" to public roads includes private driveways. If there were no public servers at all on the internet, an ISP can still offer unlimited access to the internet despite there being nothing to see. Also, there's a difference between "everyone paid something" and "everyone paid something twice". Your own argument supports the notion, it's a negotiation and our request in the negotiations is that bits are not paid for twice in the same transaction.