Technology

yes. And if i commit to modest contribution to the load, it's nice for me to pay less - I dont want to pay for the extra modems for all the streamers who can't afford DVDs. I'm saving my money for DVDs. I'd rather buy fast speed low quantity, rather than slow speed unlimited quantity.

The regulator should focus on is the market competetive - at what levels, are profit magins reasonable (insofar as they can measure them).

Not limiting choice unless it is obviously part of a price discrimination harming consumers overal (which means colluding to segment marget to drive up the profit margin. Even then the solution is not necessarily to homogenise the service, maybe just regulate prices, or regulate allowed total revenue as a fraction of regulated asset base/customer base.

I'd rarely agree with anything calling itself "economist group" but this part seems reasonable to me. differentiation is not always abuse of market power. So long as the tarrifs on offer are broadly cost reflective.

Does it?

user A uses their full bandwidth from 2am-4am when the network is empty then watches a 720p video at 5pm (or whenever the networks peak is).

User B watches an 8k video at 5pm and nothing at any other time.

UserB clearly contributes to congestion on the network more than user A despite user A using more data. Furthermore throttling user A does less to resolve the congestion than throttling user B.

IMO If the network needs to throttle then the people the most data at that instant in time need to be throttled and the network needs to start upgrading its infrastructure or amending its marketing materials.

Really the current internet model is a little weird, it should be pay to use with on and off peak hours the same as other utilities, and throttling should be seen as a major failure that needs immediate attention.