Not sure if this was rhetorical, but if not, it's because they payment wemt directly from the payer to the payee.

Using that same logic:

if you asked someone to pick up a pack of smokes at the store when they're out, they might be a money transmitter.

if you order something from uber eats, I believe they would not be the case. As I understand it, you pay uber and uber pays the business, so in each transaction is a direct payment.

As for the people who are suggesting ISPs would qualify as a money transmitter... the only logic I can think of for exempting them would be under "common carrier" rules.

I don't agree that these regulations are reasonable, just trying to explain where they're coming from. I am not your lawyer. 

 Thanks for the detailed response. Yea I don't think this stuff will actually hold up in court because it would be ludicrous.  But that is partially my point.  People on the Internet are trying to get us all riled up with this bullshit, but tbh I don't really even know where this shit comes from.  IMHO any reasonable lawyer could point out the absurdity of this garbage and get a jury to agree.