Metaphorically.

That's to say, as an end-user ISP, you can threaten content providers or service providers with not passing their content or their service over your section of the Internet unless they pay you.

I disapprove. As I said, I am paying for an Internet connection that is presumed to be net-neutral - whilst I undertake o!not to use it for copyright infringement, which, admittedly, people do online a lot - but it isn't what we're talking about.

This is all about control of the net. The Telecos, like Big Oil have gotten wealthty beyond means at no cost to themselves. Everything they do is a expense that adds to their total wealth that the world public pays for. Now that were NOT becoming fat, dumb, and stupid sitting in front of our TV screens, or tied to some land line to communicate they want to regain control by pricing the people out of the market. Come to infowars to see the real story behind their actions.

“Should water companies be allowed to charge garden centres, pasta makers and coffee producers for encouraging demand for water consumption?”

Don't give them any ideas.

This man is a genius, how he so concisely speaks the truth. These broadband providers are already being paid by the consumer for internet access. When I pay my monthly internet bill, I am paying for equal access to all websites. If their revenues are really drying up, then their only recourse is to deal with the consumer, not to blackmail/extort these other internet-based companies who pay their fair share for internet access. In a perfect world, though, competition would be stiff enough that these broadband companies are grateful for the profit that they do get. Instead, many of them in the United States are bringing in profits that rival that of the oil companies.

There are a few things I would like to point out about why I’m upset with Net Neutrality being appealed. First and foremost, I pay a certain amount of money each month to my ISP based on the amount of bandwidth I want. They have different packages labeled Bronze, Silver, Gold, etc., and each package offers different amounts of bandwidth. I should be able to use that bandwidth however I desire. If I want to use it for Skype, Bit torrent, or whatever, the ISP shouldn’t be allowed to throttle that data. Let’s look at the REAL REASON telcos want to throttle your data…. Skype takes money out of telcos’ pockets for phone charges, and streaming video takes advertising dollars away from cable providers. This is a steep and slippery slope, and I just hope that a law is past that will protect the consumers and not the ISPs (as if they need more money).

Currently ISPs are essentially gateway infrastructure.
Everyone pays the ISPs to be allowed access to various amounts of the 'water' (that people like to use in their Analogies) whether they use it or not.
The proposed charged is essentially double dipping therefore could be looked on as a Mafia Style Rort.

I agree because Facebook already pays to have it's servers hooked in to the web, and pays for itself with ad revenue/pay apps.

But the analogy is horribly flawed. The existing system is more like, the water company bills a resteraunt that serves water and cooks with water, and the resteraunt doesn't charge customers for water but it's part of the operating cost and somehow factors into the price of the meal.

The real problem I have: the analogy was so flawed, it showed either (1) he is an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about, or (2) he actually thinks he is wrong and is trying to make up BS.

The argument seems to be that if (for example) The Inq want to provide (for example) me with content, they should darn well have to pay to do so.

Well, I pay my ISP monthly. They pay a cut to their backbone provider(s). Meanwhile, the Inq pay their (colo? whatever) provider(s), who in turn pay a cut to their backbone providers.

So, on this journey from the Inquirer to my browser, exactly which part is it that these sleazy, grasping, disingenuous scumbag telcos claim is not being paid for?

This man is clearly speaking sense.

Neil Berk-ett, Virgin Media's CEO, was banging on about doing this a few years ago, just as the Iplayer was starting to kick off.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/15/virgin_media_net_neutrality/

They haven't actually done much about it, probably because they realised they would have no customers left if they did!