NET NEUTRALITY://An attempt at dissecting

Net neutrality keeps fueling debate, sometimes very funny indeed. I've written about it before and maybe this drilling down is helpful.
I read some interesting stuff coming out of Australia. Dan Warne opens the possibility for ISPs simply never to offer a piece of the pipe. Say you have ADSL2+ installed, you do not market it as 20 or 24 Mbps, but simply as 8 Mbps. Google et al will have exclusive access to that portion, whereas the ISP can claim the rest.
Lastly, one tricky element is how sometimes channels pay carriers, and sometimes it is the other way around.

The net neutrality movements mainly claims this:

1. Voice is an application.
2. The network is a dumb pipe.
3. The end user uses it, not Google et al.
4. Google already pays.
5. The client already pays.
6. There should be equality of services, from both Google et al and the ISP.
7. Without it, innovation will be stifled.
8. We need regulation.

In the same order, ISPs answer somewhat like this:

1. Voice is a service.
2. No, we add value. Besides, we have shareholders to reckon with.
3. Google uses it as a service provider.
4. OK it does, but not to us.
5. The client pays for internet access, not for a broadband pipe.
6. Agreed.
7. No, since your arguments are flawed. Besides, look at France Telecom issuing APIs to developers.
8. We do not.