No, they should (and will) pay for themselves. On the other hand they will subsidize the rest of us. Kinda like how first class subsidizes the economy class. We let them board first, but our ticket becomes cheaper because of that.
You mean, like governments in capitalistic nations like the US running at the mercy of some say a 100 billionaires. I don't believe that is a viable model to follow in a egalitarian society of the internet. Currently, internet is the best example to prove in a different sense that anarchists (virtual)society can survive, lead and guide people to their goals. When people try to build establishment on top of this, thing take a different route altogether.
Internet is like Marx's virtual economy ;)
Yes we know that big ISPs regularly raise examples like this as a reason why they shouldn't have to provide neutral service, but that is manifestly self-serving on their part.
Net neutrality only prevents your provider from making this decision on your behalf.
I currently run Samsung's Smartthings hub at home(and I love it), I would like the video feed and other notifications be available to me at real time speeds (don't ask why), you're suggesting that I upgrade my whole line for that?
Wouldn't it be preferable that when I use Netflix, the video goes on a deprioritized network, and when I use Skype, it goes on priority network without me having to upgrade the whole service.
The point is, from the consumer's point of view, the services he uses are a mixed bag of priority vs non-priority data. On the other hand, from the content provider's POV, the services they use are either priority, or non-priority (or a mixture, for instance paid subscribers are run through a faster network, etc etc).
Net Neutrality prevents that, not because the conversations I am having in this thread with people is what happens in every NN debate.