Not a surprise really. One argument for the heavy users could be:
"I am paying for a 2Mb connection, why should I be penalised for using the full potential of it"
There should be a minimum level of service though, so it shouldn't be slow for any users. But how would you define slow? Anything under 30% max capacity (0.6Mb/s)? If heavy bandwidth users paid more for what they use, I think it would actualyl make things worse. Filesharing services would not be as popular (some may say this a good thing), Skype wouldn't exist and a lot of innovative web applications would not be developed.
With more online gaming possible in the future, the 5% will probably grow. Although online games don't take up that much bandwidth (latency is more of an issue) - so someone with a 256kb cable connection would get a better service than someone on super fast satellite broadband. I've run BitTorrent (not big downloads, only a couple hundred megs) and a game at the same time, with no serious problems.
I wonder if the problem can be solved if IPv6 was rolled out more (as there is less overhead than IPv4)? TCP/IP wasn't designed for the kind of traffic and number of users we have on the internet now. A more efficient protocol should be used.
Edit:
I would also like to add that heavy bandwidth usage does not always impact other users. For instance, if you are on a street with very few users, or you are online when others are not you should not be penalised (by paying more, or getting slower speeds).