I don't want the FCC to have any authority over the Internet. I don't want the FCC giving $25,000 fines to web sites that publish dirty words or wardrobe malfunctions. If "fast lanes" ever really become a problem requiring government intervention (which to my knowledge they haven't yet), it should be in the form of direct Congressional action and very limited in scope.
Nobody can compete with Netflix because it's nigh impossible to match the breadth of their content licensing, and it will take an enormous marketing investment to displace their brand. (Even Amazon and Google have weaker brands to the extent that they compete with Netflix.)
"Fast lane deals" would/will be an expense for Netflix and give smaller competitors a slight advantage in that respect (if they can get the content and publicity, and improve the experience for users).
If ISPs degrade their services to the point that it's impossible to deliver streaming video without paying fast-lane protection money, that's something that could be resolved directly by lawmakers. E.g., prohibit marketing "up to 100 Mbit" if users can't even stream 2 Mbit video reliably. They could call the service "1 Mbit plus Netflix" or similar. This wouldn't grant any new authority to unelected FCC censors.
That's the whole reason Netflix buying fast lanes. Comcast throttled netflix to the point of being unreliable. The whole issue started with malicious throttling.
I'm not convinced title ii is the answer. But I am convinced that fast lanes don't make for good internet. Its unfortunate that this isn't a competitive industry because then consumers could just resolve the issue through their purchasing decisions.
