I wish they'd stop calling it a "fast lane"--it's the slow lane for anyone who doesn't want to pay up. Somewhere a cable industry Frank Luntz-alike probably focus grouped the term and now everyone in the media is using it.
The ISP discrimination and censorship lanes are the real problem.
While I care about connection speed, it's not the critical issue at the core of net neutrality. The issue is that the ISPs can choose discriminatory speeds based on any criteria they like, including censorship. And because they are known monopoly abusers, this is an especially critical issue. slow/fast ignores it entirely. It's possible this is deliberate strategy on their part, instead of just a simple marketing attempt.
I propose we take the phraseology debate to them, and use phrases like "ISP discrimination lane".
They insisted (through their proxy, Level 3) that Comcast shoulder the expense of building a new racing lane.
How is that Comcast's problem?
Comcast can't ask its subscribers to pay for that either, the subscribers have already been brainwashed into thinking that such a thing is unwholesome.