If you frame the net neutrality issue as a tax, then sure, set up some rules and make wealthy corps pay more. I can't believe you don't see it being abused by telecompanies within days though.
If my internet was billed like my water bill then it would be something like
$20/month for access
$1/GB for first 50 GB download
$2/GB for any GB over 50 download
$5/GB for upload traffic
I for one am glad that internet is not billed like my water is.
This isn't always true in the UK.
Wealthy people can afford to pay by direct debit, which almost always carries some discounts. They can also shop around and change supplier. Poor people sometimes get locked into a more expensive supplier because they have to clear their bill before they change, and they can't afford to immediately pay that debt.
And some people are on prepayment meters which are usually more expensive than standard rates.
My comment was about how libertarians are never worried about such things -- that in fact the idea of a market player paying for a negative externality is explicitly against their convoluted philosophical perspective. I was arguing that it's wrong to have an expectation for a libertarian to behave rationally when a negative externality is involved.
Nothing about your comment seems to be related -- I'm gathering you are trying to use some kind of slippery slope analogy to show that my thinking when expanded to some imaginary limit actually yields some sort of undesirable result. Thanks I guess -- I suppose next time I make a comment about how environmental damage is mispriced by the market that I will consider the implications of my words when they are reinterpreted randomly as a somehow specific comment about net neutrality ...
On the other hand -- thank you for demonstrating very well the exact experience of having a discussion with a libertarian -- I often find it to be an exercise in being confronted with random analogies designed to separate the topic from any arena of specific facts.