Re: 2 questions
Sadly, the "pipe" concept is false.
The electricity and water companies deliver "pipes" of electricity and water to consumers, yet nobody thinks they should be all you can eat.
ISPs and cable companies do actually have to invest to maintain and improve pipelines - the reality is that the massive increase in video traffic imposes a real cost to them.
The real argument behind net neutrality is that we all hate the ISPs and cable companies, so we want them to suffer by having them subsidize the Googles, Facebooks and Netflix of the world. I actually have no problem with this argument.
But really, why are the gigantic internet companies any better?
The real problem is that the ISPs and cable companies - at least the internet portion, should be fully regulated industries like water and power under the FERC.
If Ajit Pai were to regulate the ISPs and (internet) cable companies as public utilities, then all would be good.
Of course, under an FERC type regulation, all you can eat internet goes away and so does net neutrality.