"And I think we can all accept the fact that business service costs are ultimately borne by consumers."
The above statement seems designed to cause confusion. The implication is that the total price consumers pay is determined wholly by the costs incurred in delivering the service. This may be almost true in aggregate, but isn't true at an individual level.
ISPs offer an all-you-can-eat internet service, but aren't happy with the customer-level margins for the most heavy users (including Netflix users). They could raise prices for heavy users (e.g. by applying caps in the same way as mobile providers) but have chosen instead to engage in different tactics to limit usage or get additional revenue from other sources. Throttling P2P traffic (I don't know which ISPs in the US do this) and asking CDN providers to pay for ports are two examples.
This seems to be like they're increasing the maximum speed of the local pipes ('unlimited water up to 100 litres per minutes!') without being willing to increase the size of the pipes into (and capacity within) their own distribution network.
Am I missing something, or is it just that the business model of offering unlimited high speed internet only sustainable at a higher price?