What does throttling traffic or charging customers different amounts for different sites have to do with whether the CDN machine will lower network operating costs?
(Other than that the law makes it clear ISP's can't run a over congested line to the backbone in hopes of artifically forcing CDN deals.)
Trump called Net Neutrality "Obamacare for the Internet" and gave Ajit Pai the power at the FCC to kill it. The GOP was all for "ISPs are private platforms" and "regulating ISPs violates their free speech" back then, when they thought they were on "their side".
To their credit, they were, kind of. Twitter decided to give Trump special treatment under their World Leaders policy, allowing him to break rules[0] with minimal consequences. They did this because Trump[1] gave Twitter clout and relevance that they wanted. This all changed after Jan 6; when a mob of extreme-right Trump supporters stormed the Capitol. Suddenly, big tech flip-flopped on Trump and decided they weren't going to serve extreme right-wingers anymore.
Republicans had taken tech companies as public utility for granted, while at the same time they were hard at work ensuring there would be no legal basis for actually regulating tech companies as public utilities. Yes, there's a few right-libertarian arguments[2] against this kind of regulation, but that entire wing of the GOP has been a lame duck for half a decade by now[3]. As far as I can tell, Republicans saw that liberals had been screaming their heads off about Comcast censoring the net, and that was apparently good enough justification to oppose Net Neutrality. The Stupid-Partisan wing of American politics wins again.
I'm not saying it's good that Twitter censors politicians that I don't like; of course. I'm saying that those politicians need to apologize and admit they were on the wrong side of the argument[4], because "censorship is OK when Comcast does it but not Twitter" is not a coherent argument. It's just self-dealing.
[0] Most egregiously: Donald Trump was exempted from DMCA 512 takedown notices, so if he used your song in a video and posted it on Twitter, you couldn't take down the tweet for stealing your song.
[1] More generally, any @POTUS account
[2] e.g. "How does Comcast pay for better routers if they can't double-bill Netflix"
[3] Source: I used to be deep into right-libertarianism back in college, during the "Ron Paul R[3vol]ution" days. As far as I can tell everyone involved either went alt-right, or left-libertarian. Or their name is Louis Rossman.
If you're wondering, I still support Net Neutrality and I think large social media platforms should also be regulated under common-carrier rules. However, I don't think even that should get Trump back on Twitter. The World Leaders policy was itself a common-carrier violation.
So inconsistency on matters of equal treatment and individual freedom is due to cynicism and political expediency? That doesn’t sound good
There's also a related problem in which both sides not wanting something their constituents want will use each other as an excuse to not do the thing. For example, Right to Repair polls very favorably with basically anyone, but politicians do not want to touch it with a 10 foot pole. It is an "antipartisan issue", one that has popular support but bipartisan opposition. One way you can kill an antipartisan issue is by turning it into a partisan one, so that your side's supporters shut up about it and the opposing side's supporters are deadlocked by yours. There have been attempts to do this by R2R opponents, by say, telling angry farmers that R2R actually only benefits rich, MacBook-toting liberals.