Your entire premise falls flat when you falsely state that anybody is being "forced" to carry anything "for Free." This is utter hogwash.

Literally EVERYBODY in the equation is paying or being paid... the person watching the content and the person providing the content. The provider's ISP is being paid. The peer ISPs that carry the traffic to the consumer ISP are all getting paid. If somebody in the chain needs to raise its price to pay for a network upgrade (or, perhaps, cut its profit margin a smidge,) then it should do that.

What it shouldn't do is hold up rich-content providers as boogeymen destroying their business, and try to leverage that fallacy into a permanent tax on content being charged arbitrarily by the telcos. Those providers are SAVING your doddering ISP business by providing users with a reason to keep paying for it. With mobile-web, video, and VoIP calling, why would most people need a home computer? Or a home Internet connection, for that matter?

"Rich" content providers like YouTube, Netflix, and Hulu aren't "destroying" the ISP business--I'd submit they're actually propping up a model that is on the verge of being obsolete, that being the PC-oriented "residential" Internet connection. I'd suggest that given this reality, the Telcos would be smart to partner with rich-content providers to co-locate their content inside the ISP networks to minimize the cost of access to the content for he ISP. Instead of trying to get your hooks in another company's revenue-stream to make up for your own failed forays into "big-content," how about finding practical "playing nice with others" ways to solve the problem?

It might mean accepting that the "Internet content bonanza" that telco board-rooms have been abuzz with for years will never yield anything to telcos, but that this isn't necessarily that big of a deal because they're already making gangbusters profits in a business that basically didn't exist 20 years ago.