Yes, they should get extra compensation, but at a price. In return each customer will pay slightly more, but the overall speed and ability to stream would be improved for the better. I still can't understand why money is the only reason EVERYONE in the entire world doesn't have wireless from satellites.
Any company should always strive to offer the best service they can. There is already a charge for the service as it is, and the company should be using that to improve their service. Even if the company chose to add to the charge, in this economy, I believe that the company would lose customers and their profit would actually decrease,
Though it sounds perfectly reasonable in theory to provide extra compensation to Internet providers for more data intensive usage of their services (in this particular case, video streaming), the unfortunate side effect of such a setup would inevitably result in periodic periods of time whereby contracts will have to be renegotiated, terms and conditions between companies updated, etc. and its no secret that such negotiations can end up dragging on and on until one side is forced to give in, much like the service throttling seen by Verizon's services to Netflix users, which will only result in more frustration and, ultimately, greater costs to the user. Seeing as the Internet of the future is shaping up to be an even more data intensive entity, I can only see such conflicts arising more frequently if companies felt that it was a right or a given that they should be compensated extra for simply providing the service that they've advertised.
They should not get extra compensation. Internet providers that offer faster service for streaming will get more business as opposed to Internet providers that deliberately slow traffic to streaming sites. The added increase in sales serves as extra compensation enough. Additionally, the loss in sales that Internet providers with slow service will see serves as an incentive to speed up service.