> Eh, Youtube is a Google destination. Lots of people make content for the express purpose of distribution on Youtube. Those people could put the content on other services, but they would likely have lower viewership. So, I'd say you're wrong on that. Google is the destination.
You could equally well look at it this way: Lots of people make content for the "express purpose of distribution" on the Internet. The Internet, which is provided to you by Verizon, is the destination.
> About search. You don't have to use it. You could go straight to the content producers website if you wanted. Chances are nobody would ever find that content. As a means to fund the search, Google presents ads.
You don't have to use the Internet. You could walk straight to your favorite brick and mortar store or the movie theater. But you don't want to do that. Verizon wants to be compensated for its service, just as Google does.
> Everything needs to go encrypted. From DNS, all email to all webpages. All the ISP deserves is a bunch of random characters.
This is a better argument, and one I mostly agree with, though I'm not a fan of the moral implications in the word "deserve". Rather, I think, from a public policy point of view, the benefits of secure communications outweigh the interest from ISPs in monetizing their traffic.
For what it's worth, I'm uncomfortable with the idea that Google deserves all the advertising revenue, when it benefits indirectly from services that ISPs provide, sometimes at a loss due to regulation (being forced to serve remote areas and so forth, regulations that companies like Google do not have). I don't know what the right solution is, but I do acknowledge that it's a complicated issue, and Rayiner's point is not so easily dismissed.
Note that, as I stated before, I'm pro-net-neutrality in that it encourages a better public policy outcome, so you don't need to convince me of the benefits of the policy—I'm well aware.