Focus purely on this paragraph from Reed Hastings’ recent article in Wired about net neutrality: 

Customers pay companies like AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon a monthly fee, and some are even financially penalized if they exceed usage caps. Charging us a separate fee ultimately means consumers pay twice—first for their broadband connection and second through higher-cost or lower-quality Internet services.

First sentence: Ok Reed, same goes for Netflix. If I have a single DVD subscription and I want to get two DVDs, then guess what, I have to pay more. Same as with the carriers when I use more or want more than I initially pay for. 

Second sentence: Pick pretty much any product that you have to buy and service, like a car. You buy a car and then you pay to have it serviced. You can choose a higher or lower quality car and you pay more or less; you can choose higher or lower quality service and you pay more or less. Same as with the carriers and Netflix, except that in my example you might be paying the same entity in the case of buying and servicing. Or, different example: toll roads. Furthermore, toll roads that happen to have fast lanes which charge more. Or, toll roads that have fast lanes that actually charge less or are more convenient (for example, EZPass or IPass open road tolling with a RFID transponder). 

Reed – people – what don’t you get about the economics of supply and demand?

Other people – why in the world do you want the internet to be a public utility? Name one public utility that you like the quality, service, and price of now. 

Don’t criticize me for taking the above out of context. It’s not taken out of context; the context doesn’t matter. He’s making a general argument about economics and two/mutli-party transactions. Nothing else in the Wired article is relevant vis a vis what I’ve criticized of his writing.