That's true, and an exceptionally strong argument for forcing ISPs to be utility providers that are not allowed to have content businesses. It's back to Econ 101.

Remember, ISPs aren't utilities. Instead, they are supposed to provide more than just internet access(in theory at least).

Thought of a great analogy. Imagine it's the nineteenth century, and by whatever coincidence the dominant electric power delivery company actually also still owns a thriving kerosene delivery business, i.e. for lamp oil. They don't care if you run sewing machines or home appliances at the going rate for electricity - but every night after dark, they determine whether you're streaming electricity to power your light, and if so they intermittantly dim the power (to well below the level you're paying for), expressly to give you an awful experience and retard the adoption of electricity. Just so they can make more money selling lamp oil.

Net neutrality simply means they are not allowed to go into homes and figure out what you're using your electricity for, and try to charge you more based on that usage.

Nobody says ISPs should ignore short term profit/loss considerations. However, more and more people are saying by ignoring everything else, they are making their customers and themselves a disservice. This is a dangerous game, and a business which thinks they can make money while pissing off their customers is putting itself in danger. Sometimes it can be sustained, but in many cases in the long run the customers would either leave or set the regulators on them.