Suppose you are an ISP with a new streaming video service as a customer -- ComFlix. You sell a 1Gb/s pipe to ComFlix. You buy a 10Gb/s pipe from Google.
If Google limits, deprioritizes or drops traffic from ComFlix, that's Google committing a NN violation.
If you limit ComFlix's 1 Gb/s pipe to 1 Gb/s, that's not a NN problem.
If Google limits your 10Gb/s pipe to 10Gb/s, that's not a NN problem.
If Google offers to replace your 10Gb/s pipe with a 20Gb/s pipe at the same price on the condition that video streams will be intercepted and limited so that they cannot support more than 480P, and you accept, both you and Google are violating NN.
If you ask Google for a 10Gb/s pipe but they refuse to sell it to you solely because ComFlix is a competitor for YouTube, you have an interesting court case.
Basically, NN violations occur when someone drops packets that they otherwise would have carried, based on the content, source or destination of those packets. But paying more for a bigger or more direct pipe by itself is not an NN problem.
If Google limits, deprioritizes or drops traffic from ComFlix, that's Google committing a NN violation.
If you limit ComFlix's 1 Gb/s pipe to 1 Gb/s, that's not a NN problem.
If Google limits your 10Gb/s pipe to 10Gb/s, that's not a NN problem.
If Google offers to replace your 10Gb/s pipe with a 20Gb/s pipe at the same price on the condition that video streams will be intercepted and limited so that they cannot support more than 480P, and you accept, both you and Google are violating NN.
If you ask Google for a 10Gb/s pipe but they refuse to sell it to you solely because ComFlix is a competitor for YouTube, you have an interesting court case.
Basically, NN violations occur when someone drops packets that they otherwise would have carried, based on the content, source or destination of those packets. But paying more for a bigger or more direct pipe by itself is not an NN problem.