Hola,
I'm not Randy, but I did state the previous definition.
> A = Little ISP
> B = Sprint or MCI
> C = Other transit provider
In this case, the resource is transit purchased by A from C, for the
use of A's customers. In this case, B is "stealing" A's transit
resource for the use of B's customers, without compensating A.
I don't agree. B is utilizing A's transit resource in the manner
A intended.
C is a
hapless bystander who now has to carry a lot of unneccessary traffic
which could be flowing directly between A and B.
Again, I don't agree.
C is compensated by A to provide flow from B<->C<->A.
C is not a hapless bystander, C is a provider to A, who provides A
with a path out to the world, and provides the world (of which B
is a subset) a path back to A. C is rewarded for their compliance
through an agreement with A.
Please explain to me how this creates a better, faster, cheaper, more
reliable Internet.
It creates a better internet as A is encouraed to purchase QOS X
from C in order to allow A's customers both nice access and a nice
presence on the Internet.
C is encouraged to grow through economy of scale by providing
transit for various entities, and, if they're really clever, will
hit A and B coming and going 
A wants to have nice connectivity to the world/B, so it is
(assumedly) in their (A's) best interest to pay for such.
The interesting thing in all of these discussions is to consider
if A wants to talk to B more than B wants to talk to A. If C is
not at either endpoint, then C must recover cost of transit from
one or both. In a socialist world, some rule of law would
establish an "equal" method of paying for such. In a capitalist
world, we get to have discussions like these
At least, that's how I see it.
-alan