yes, exactly! the ongoing problem is attempting to run this backwards: presuming there is intent and that common network resources have been 'sold twice' when performance is bad.
if, for example, carrier x has poor performance to customer Y -because- Ys traffic demands back to carrier X's customers overwhelmed a common public connection, the lack of performance is not 'proof' of an evil intent, nor is proposing customer Y buy a larger, private connection to carrier X as a solution to the problem.
it also begs the question if carrier X can hold customer Y responsible for spamming it's public interface with traffic that starves out other legitimate traffic (an unintentional denial of service), and would therefore be justified in taking active measures to protect their network (rate limiting).
the point of the article is well taken, but should not be turned into the old 'engineering vs philosophy' argument again. the philosophy of the open network, we all get. just because some ethusiasticly vigilant philosophers have misunderstood technical jargon, and attempted to hijack engineering's means to deliver their end, doesn't make their points irrelevant, it's just their attempt to force a method based on a metaphor that needs to be stopped cold.
when you shout 'technical foul', and then spout metaphors that fall apart with the most casual of technical inspection for justification, it tends to reinforce the idea that you should keep your hands to yourself.
your wishes have been made clear, and will be respected. now keep your hands out of the config files, please.