[chalkandpaste]

So, Apple, the richest company on earth, wants to use more bandwidth without paying more, even though bandwidth is a scarce resource and other people have invested millions to providing the infrastructure to transmit data?

[syrrim]

It would be nice if Bloomberg would explain how this worked. Net Neutrality concerns itself with ISPs charging websites for the traffic of their customers, rather than the customers themselves. Apple therefore doesn't plan on using the bandwidth itself - Apple's users will. If those users want faster speed, then they should of course have the option to pay for it. Net neutrality makes sure that the cost of bandwidth is put directly on users, rather than hiding it by charging Apple.

[chipotle_coyote]

I thought we were by and large for net neutrality, which by definition means "the same internet for everyone, even the richest company on Earth." Is this no longer true? Did I miss an update at the last meeting?

[Veratyr]

Apple's objection isn't to paying for bandwidth, it's to fast lanes:

"Paid fast lanes could replace today’s content-neutral transmission of internet traffic with differential treatment of content based on an online provider’s ability or willingness to pay."

This isn't a "boo-hoo we don't want to pay any more" argument, it's a net neutrality argument.