The narrative that "the internet [is] becoming more crowded" is a gimmick to raise fees. I'm already paying for the capacity I expect to use. My fees should be

The narrative that "the internet [is] becoming more crowded" is a gimmick to raise fees. I'm already paying for the capacity I expect to use. My fees should be applied to upgrade capacity. If that model isn't sustainable, there is no business. Microsoft doesn't get to send me a bill for buying the console (hypothetically low margin), but no games (higher margin). Differently: I pay X dollars per month for a maximum rate. Somewhere along the lines, people (who didn't want to upgrade their networks) started talking about "toll booths", and "bandwidth hogs", saying that there are "capacity" problems, implicitly requiring that my maximum rate for a month - which I can compare easily to alternative providers - be turned into a maximum rate (... based on a model business person, or senior, who checks email twice a week, or some other idealized average subscriber). It was a grift to turn a fungible commodity into a value-added, highly tiered, set of offerings (which I can't differentiate between readily, and so am less able to switch providers), but with larger margins. In short, it's not a surprise to see network neutrality dismantled now that this billing model is completely swallowed.