Topic: Fast Lanes

Verizon is criticized for a television commercial promoting a "dedicated lane" for first responders, which the hosts argue is a direct violation of net neutrality principles. This follows a PR scandal where Verizon throttled the data of California firefighters during a wildfire emergency, leading to accusations of hypocrisy regarding "fast lane" network prioritization.

A Recode report on MSNBC explains the "fast lane" concept as a service where large companies like Netflix or Facebook pay for prioritized traffic to consumer homes. The hosts argue that the public only cares about net neutrality because of potential impacts on binge-watching entertainment. They contrast this consumer outrage with the lack of public concern over drone strikes or government spying.

The hosts debunk common analogies used to explain net neutrality, such as "fast lanes" and "speed bumps." Curry explains that the current debate was actually sparked by Netflix's demand for specific performance guarantees on ISP networks. He argues that the "road" analogy is technically inaccurate and that ISPs have no incentive to slow down the general internet, but rather want a legal framework to charge high-bandwidth users.

The hosts play and critique a "condescending" video explaining Net Neutrality using road and pipe analogies. Adam argues that no ISP is actually asking to "remove" Net Neutrality because it isn't a formal law, and that the "fast lane" debate was actually sparked by Netflix seeking specific peering advantages, not by ISPs wanting to "speed bump" the web.