[danieltillett]

It isn't a violation of net neutrality if I don't pay my cable bills and so get cut off. I am not suggesting that it is a good idea for companies to abuse their market power, but it is not an abuse of net neutrality to pay someone else's bill.

[wpietri]

Having no service does not violate net neutrality. But net neutrality is violated when ISPs provide selective service based on who pays them the most. If packets are delivered differently based on business relationships, then it's not a neutral network.

What's being described here is much more akin to cable, where many channels pay for access to consumers.

[b0sk]

Well, from what I understand, they have a Whatsapp package for example where using whatsapp doesn't count towards the bandwidth cap. This is what opponents of NN want.