You have it absolutely wrong.
To correct your analogy ....it would be like the water company charging everyone the SAME fee. ...but the restaurant and the auto car wash can use as much water as they want for the same total price per month as what you get charged. So you, the homeowner, might end up paying $200/month where you used to get charged $40....but the commercial establishments also get to pay only $200/month - even though they might be using 100 times the water you used.
ISPs would be forced to upgrade the ‘highway’ to allow all users to us it...and the home user who rarely streams videos ends up subsidizing the internet superhighway for those that stream Netflix videos all the time. With net neutrality - the user who uses minimal bandwith would be charged the same as the user who routinely wants 30 Megabits/second for hour after hour.
I’m paying Comcast for Xmbps (for OP: _____ million bits per second) service. Yes, I expect that if I start playing a Netflix movie and it runs at Xmbps that I’ll get that service for however long I play it. Alas, Comcast promises “up to” rates, with no intention of ensuring that rate when things get busy. Knowing they’re already under-delivering on my end, they’re now out to under-deliver on Netflix’s end - and insisting both of us pay more for allegedly better service where we’re already paying for that very service and not getting it.
The problem with the water analogy (admittedly) is we’re not paying for product, we’re paying for delivery rate - and, as stands now, few ISPs are delivering what they promise but demanding higher prices for those who actually use/need it. Few people have the slightest clue about how much data they’re actually using, nor how fast they need it, nor do they have much control over either.
The point is that when anyone - me, you, or Netflix - contract for Xmbps we should get Xmbps as needed, and not get squeezed for more $$$ when the content indicates the ISP might be able to negotiate a greater cut of the action. Right now, the world’s biggest ISP (Level3*) and Netflix literally have two network hubs sitting next to each other, with all the capability to fully supply Netflix’s needs at no additional cost, but the other refuses to install the ONE short cable needed to make it happen (there’s like 8 pairs of ports with 5 connected, the missing cables throttling performance); AFAIK Netflix has offered to pay for the cheap cable and its installation, but Level3 refuses to unless paid many millions of dollars.
Sometimes there IS a place for government interference: telling product/service suppliers to stop uniformly acting like jerks (analogy: the banking industry used to apply daily withdraws to accounts, charge fines for problematic results, THEN apply deposits; several times I had to call my bank to complain that I made a deposit to ensure subsequent withdraw wouldn’t bounce, but they reversed the order and charged me fees because it “bounced”...they don’t do that now that the gov’t told ‘em all to cut that [expletive deleted] out). ISPs are doing the same, and need be told to just provide the service they promise and stop systemically screwing all customers.
At least we’re bickering over the right analogy, as opposed to most posts on this thread who are trying to randomly bash the Obama.
(* - Might be Verizon, I’m too sick to recall right now.)