Hi, meet me.
I support internet fast lanes "if" they can be implemented without slowing any other connection speeds down to below what the customer actually pays for. I also support QOS prioritization of VoIP traffic.
I also think net neutrality can be realized today by enforcement of existing laws and rules. When an ISP sells you service advertised at 10 megs or up to 10 megs, if they purposely and intentionally slow any part of it below that 10 megs, they are not delivering the goods sold to the consumer. And no, up to is not a cop out because the up to number will never be above what they limit. That means if they limit a connection to 1 meg, regardless of what they sold you, they are delivering goods of up to 1 meg. But if they sell a 4 meg connection and Youtube wants to stream at 10 megs, I have no problem with them paying to do so as long as it doesn't slow anyone else speeds to below what they purchased.
Also, many of these ISPs get money from the governments to roll out broadband or service areas not profitable to them. Well, if they limit their service or any parts of the service to below 4 megs, it is technically not broadband and they would be in default. Also, if they manipulate packets in ways like with the bit torrent in which they injected packets to cause the connection to reset, wouldn't that be a copyright violation as well as under the fraud abuse laws? For instance, Ohio law considers it bait advertising to " Delivering offered goods or services which are unusable or impractical for the purposes represented or materially different from the offered goods or services. ".
But more than all, I think the way the FCC is trying to create and or change law by wrangling reinterpretations and classifications without any intervention of congress (elected officials) is dangerous to freedom and directly contradictory to democracy. This should be true whether you support it or not. Get it done right and get congress or even your local state governments to pass the laws. Even at the state level, the state can extend it's jurisdiction to actions by the same company in other states so if Verizon in Indian is barred from restricting packets based on payments from any third party, Verizon in California doing so for traffic originating from or destined for Indiana would put them in violation and under jurisdiction.