The problem is that the ISP resources are shared resources. Some day we might all have 1Gbps+ fiber to our houses but today this doesn't exist. Many parts of the network you use to access the internet are common to some other set of people. So if you were to saturate your internet line, your neighbors (or possible more people) would have seriously deteriorated access. There is no way around this problem without upgrading the last mile connections everywhere, which is expensive. You're essentially paying for the most profitable and acceptable internet the ISP is willing to provide.
Maximum throughput and quality of service are not their goals. They want as many people as possible paying for service on a line they paid $X to install. And they get this by being able to throttle their user's traffic in order to allow as many people to use the same line as possible.
What you're saying is basically the same as the "unlimited" argument in terms of internet access or even cell phone plans. You don't have a personal internet connection just for you that you can use in an unlimited way. The internet line run to your neighborhood is essentially zero sum. If you take a huge chunk of the bandwidth, then other paying customers get less. Charging you more doesn't help unless you fund entirely new network lines and installation. They want everyone to have an equal size of the pie. You can't have a dozen households sharing a connection to the internet and all be streaming netflix in 4k. There simply isn't the infrastructure to support that right now, in most places. No matter how much you're willing to pay.
I can't speak to what ISP's want and I do not know what is truly going on here. But, from my vantage point I get the sense there's open warfare going on between these companies. Everyone is using their pipes on the internet and in Washington, trying to knock the others off their game. Net neutrality appears to be one side's weapon in the war. The fact that net neutrality might work in my favor may just be accidental.
I can speak to what I want. I want to be charged for service. If the ISP's aren't charging me enough to make the money they need to make off the service they provide to me, I want them to charge me more. And, if they get too greedy, then let a competitor try to come in and charge me a bit less for similar services.
What I'm saying is basically let the market do its thing. It can't do its thing if we have these ISP's unfairly using their position to snipe at competing companies' streams flowing over their pipes. It's not transparent, and they're going to double-dip anyways - charging me AND the popular websites for using their pipes.
What I'm saying is basically we can't have the market do its thing when ISP's are allowed to be more than a dumb pipe and a host for near caches.
Maximum throughput and quality of service are not their goals. They want as many people as possible paying for service on a line they paid $X to install. And they get this by being able to throttle their user's traffic in order to allow as many people to use the same line as possible.
What you're saying is basically the same as the "unlimited" argument in terms of internet access or even cell phone plans. You don't have a personal internet connection just for you that you can use in an unlimited way. The internet line run to your neighborhood is essentially zero sum. If you take a huge chunk of the bandwidth, then other paying customers get less. Charging you more doesn't help unless you fund entirely new network lines and installation. They want everyone to have an equal size of the pie. You can't have a dozen households sharing a connection to the internet and all be streaming netflix in 4k. There simply isn't the infrastructure to support that right now, in most places. No matter how much you're willing to pay.