These aren't analogous at all. The situation that Net Neutrality is about preventing involves four parties: a website, a comsumer, the website's ISP or datacenter, and the consumer's ISP. Call these W (website), C (consumer), D (the website's ISP), and I (the consumer's ISP). There are network connections between these parties, and the graph of who has a network connection to who looks like this:
W---D---I---C
The website and the consumer each pay their respective ISPs for connectivity. Those two ISPs typically have a connection between them, in an arrangement called "peering". If they don't, then instead they will both pay a third ISP (a backbone provider, B) to bridge the gap. So the graph of who pays who for network connectivity looks like one of these two arrangements:
W-->D I<--C
W-->D-->B<--I<--C
If the connection between W and D is too slow, then W pays for an upgrade. If the connection between C and I is too slow, then C pays for an upgrade. If the connection between D and I is too slow, then D and I haggle over who pays, under threat of losing business from W and C.
Now suppose a I, a consumer ISP, decides to block or slow down traffic coming from W. The key fact of this situation is that in the original state of affairs, there is no business relationship between W and I. The website only has business relationships with C and D. Basically, I is threatening to sabotage W's relationship with C, by degrading C's service, unless W pays up.
Jim, this is a really fantastic breakdown. thanks. The part I still don't understand is - how can I threatening W other than by violating their terms with C? Doesn't C, the party who pays I, ultimately pay for a service spec? Is the spec too loose such that it allows I to throttle specific W's?
Now suppose a I, a consumer ISP, decides to block or slow down traffic coming from W. The key fact of this situation is that in the original state of affairs, there is no business relationship between W and I. The website only has business relationships with C and D. Basically, I is threatening to sabotage W's relationship with C, by degrading C's service, unless W pays up.