[–] RiverWind 5 points (+5|-0)

Except that the "lane" won't actually provide a speed increase, it will be one where speed is throttled (deliberately slowed) less.

I seem to remember some data indicating that, by quantity of data alone, Netflix accounted for about 1/3 or so of the entire world's internet traffic.

If anywhere, Netflix ought to be paying a subsidy.

[–] jobes 4 points (+4|-0)

Netflix was already paying Comcast for a fast lane. I don't know if they still are, but given that they are ~40% of US internet traffic during certain hours of the day, I agree that they should pay extra.

[–] RobertoAnderson 2 points (+2|-0)

Fast lanes and Net Neutrality bullshit were a distraction from what the issue actually is. It was a bunch of multi-billion dollar companies trying to compete in the court of law rather than offering a better product.
The biggest supporters of Net Neutrality were the same people making up the majority of the traffic (Streaming in general is 70% of NA traffic). They thought they could use Net Neutrality legislation to enforce a discount on service under thread of litigation by claiming they weren't being treated fairly.
The biggest opponents of Net Neutrality were ISPs and traditional cable services. They thought they could fearmonger their customers into siding against Google, Netflix, etc. while continuing to offer shit service, not compete, and not have to upgrade their aging infrastructure.

[–] jobes 0 points (+0|-0)

I don't disagree with you. Megacorps all at once protested against any legislation that would hurt them and disguised it as a "free speech" issue a long time ago. They just were looking out for themselves, not anything to actually do with freedom of expression.

[–] RiverWind 1 points (+1|-0)

For me, the fundamental problem with (spuriously named) notion of so-called 'fast lanes', (they will be less slowed, rather than hastened) is that of censorship.

I would not be surprised if the primary motivation behind so called 'fast lanes' (remember, it just means slowed less) is to introduce the means by which communications can be censored and throttled. Censored and throttled by cunts, of course.

Don't let it happen.

[–] jobes 0 points (+0|-0) Edited

I agree and disagree. Yes ISPs throttle, but they can make agreements with companies like Netflix (which use AWS) and host content locally to reduce bandwidth when a new show or season is about to drop (fast lane). Netflix is one of AWS's largest customers, it's not really a redirect game for "fast lanes" but more of a caching game for serving the content faster in various localities.

Edit: I work under AWS not at all on this, but that's my understanding of it

[–] fusir 3 points (+3|-0)

Yes they should. Diversify your offerings. It serves your customers better and you can get more money out of people who want the *BEST* with little improvement while charging the standard customer at cost just to retain market dominance.

[–] green_man 3 points (+3|-0)

"Fast lanes" already exist in the sense that I can purchase faster or slower internet from my ISP, so can enterprise level customers. I don't think anyone is trying to remove that, the problem arises when ISPs in the middle (the ones in between me and what I'm trying to access) start to throttle things, and to a lesser degree when consumer level ISPs start to throttle and want to charge their customers more to access site x especially when there is a conflict of interest. A good real world example for the latter that is actually in place today is when a cable company imposes bandwidth caps designed to hit cord cutters, and when you work out the pricing of an internet subscription plus overages it comes to roughly the same amount as an internet subscription bundled with a cable package. Things like this are concerning as they are a giant conflict of interest, and companies have been subject to antitrust legal action for less.