That ISPs need to charge unrelated content providers in order for their traffic to not be QoS'd into oblivion. I get it that government regulation is bad, but not all free markets are self correcting, and that's assuming the ISP biz is free market in the first place. Anti net neutrality people make out that Google, Netflix, your grandma's blog, some startup company's SaaS offering is somehow getting free access to the 'net. This is so patently false, so egregiously incorrect that it's hard take anything else they say seriously.

The ISP customer pays their subscription. The content provider pays their own access charges (see cloudflare's blog post [1] for some insights). And all the networks of the world in between charge each other transit fees wherever the interconnects are cheapest, convenient, and efficient. Free markets truly are, at this level of the internet: when a transit/peering agreement goes south, they simply end their relationship and traffic will have to flow through a mutual third party (or set of third parties, whatever). But ISPs have a monopoly on routes to their customers: so the free-market forces which operate deeper in the core of the internet don't apply here.

You get to charge (and pay!) For transit with your peers. You DO NOT get charge Netflix, your grandma's blog, startup company's cat picture site UNLESS you have active transit agreements with them.

The biggest problem is people build contrived analogies which are hopelessly inadequate, and then run with them in lieu of actual research of how the internet is actually run at an whole economy scale.

[1] https://blog.cloudflare.com/the-relative-cost-of-bandwidth-around-the-world/