Re: reduction in revenue.
You admitted that everyone using the library would increase costs to the library. Internet is required. Schools communicate with text messages. Everyone using the library is not a solution.
I addressed the /potential/ scenario that you suggested;
You don't understand how the Internet works.
The ability for intermediary networks to interfere with Internet traffic isn't bogus. That is why the FSF has and is fighting for it.
The physical limit is low enough that it is the min tolerance the market will accept.
Companies do not act as idealized politically neutral agents. For example right wing media has distorted news reporting because it is what the owner wants despite the loss in profit from alienating part of their customers. A tier 1 network can now restrict content both for profit (a competitor pays the tier 1's to shut down the competition) or simply because the owner wants it despite the lost profits.
Your analogy has failed you
Your claim that your littering causes absolutely no social cost is absurd. Every dodge you have used failed.