Earlier quoted context omitted.
This idea is the problem with net neutrality. The reason people support net neutrality is that ISPs are monopolies even more so than Google, Facebook, etc and we understand that monopolies are unfair, corrupt, renters, etc. Therefore it easy to be blinded into supporting rules that purport to punish ISPs, even if the rule itself is illogical and loaded for unintended consequences. Reasonable people can oppose Net Neu…
Internet traffic changes hands between ISPs and backbone carriers before reaching destination. What if every carrier of traffic that your traffic rides on has different prioritization agreements? If someone from Malaysia accesses your site, you would have to have agreement in place for the entire route. Or think other way, anyone can start extorting money from site owners at any point in time. It's bad for you as a e…
If ISPs were not dominated by federal-government-originated monopolies, then our traffic would have a variety of routes available to it, found by a breadth first search of ISP switches and DNS services, with tolls (effectively) charged at each step of the cheapest path. When possible, market forces are always a better solution than government force. If an ISP in Hawaii has no local servers for [big advertising-data company 1] and the cheapest route for that data is more expensive than [company 2 with Hawaii server], it should be legal for the ISP to negotiate directly with to subsidize the cost of using [domain 1] for its end consumers.
What is bad for the end customer is this federal/private monopoly control of ISPs. If cities, regional government entities, and private backbone viaducts controlled ISPs we wouldn't need net neutrality legislation and more importantly the president would have less legal clubs with which to beat ISPs who refuse any government demands. Net neutrality is the wrong solution to the wrong problem. The root problem is these large private monopolies that are under the thumb of, and also lobby federal officials.
> It's like the toll booth on the road charges you extra if you are going to the bank to do a withdrawal.
This is not the closest analogy. One possible analogy is like a gas station defraying the cost of the toll road, in exchange for the right to be built on prime land. Another closer analogy would be like the toll booth on the road charging you extra if you are coming from the bank driving a branded, armored cash truck, which has a quantitatively, provably large value derived from getting from point A to point B. Is this behavior morally ok? I think the answer has to be yes otherwise how can we justify any level of regressive taxation for public services? Indeed how could people trade effectively without taking into account the other parties' interest?
Not sure which analogy is closer to your intent, but to reason honestly by analogy we should get as close as possible to the same situation.