This is exactly the model that Comcast would like to see in effect. It's exactly how they manage their cable television service and they've been extremely resistant to even allowing customers to choose channels a la carte. Let's face it, this model works well for them. They aren't arguing with the FCC to change it. They're arguing with the FCC to change how they're allowed to manage their Internet traffic.
There are several different forms that a multi-tiered Internet may take, and the differences matter. Charging customers to access content (as in that fictional strawman image) is not the same as charging content providers to access customers (which is actually happening).
Money is fungible. Costs to service providers /must/ be passed to those paying bills. There is no logical difference between costs to content providers and direct charges to customers.
The argument provided is an illustration to demonstrate who is paying in the end.
Seriously, though, when has Comcast indicated it wants to charge its ISP customers per-website? When has any ISP ever put a surcharge on someone connecting to certain websites?
I had the option of putting an LA times link and several others that said the same thing, but the John Oliver link has the same information, draws conclusions without my having to repeat them, and is funnier.
Fact is that Comcast is lobbying big time to allow multi-tiered Internet access. That's public, easily-googleable information, so I don't understand why you're arguing otherwise.
