I've hired many people in Peru for projects over the past few years. Your strategy is a good one. Having a solid Github portfolio and/or references from other people you've worked with is very important.
Heavily trafficked sites are already paying for a "fast lane" in the form of CDNs that cache everything but dynamic content. These CDNs already have interconnect agreements with the large ISPs (and have for years).
Interconnects are exactly what the "fast/slow lane" argument is about. Netflix bought interconnects from Comcast and Verizon. Just through buying interconnects to the ISPs, the CDNs ensure their traffic won't be slowed down by an intermediary like Cogent.
They're not intending to provide higher QoS for sites that pay up -- that's insane and it wouldn't work anyway.
It's my understanding that interconnect agreements solve congestion on the network by having a larger connection to infrastructure.
Fast/slow lane practices throttle that connection, regardless of how large the pipe is.
So, my small business website could be using a large internet connection that technically has plenty of bandwidth to carry my traffic but, unless I pay Comcast a premium, traffic from my website will be put in the slow lane and throttled back.
Then your understanding is incorrect (sorry; not trying to be flippant). Interconnects are the entire story here.
The media has framed a lot of the congestion issues in the context of "fast/slow lane" but what they come down to are business disagreements between the transit providers and the ISPs. The solution to these disagreements from the viewpoint of a large service provider is to purchase an interconnect directly to the ISPs. If you are a small service provider, the solution is to purchase delivery through a CDN. Netflix used to purchase delivery through CDNs until it got too expensive for their business model; so they started building their own CDN that they called "OpenConnect". They used their positive brand image in conjunction with the ISP's poor brand image to launch a PR campaign with the goal of knocking down the price they would have to pay for interconnect service. It worked; they knew they were always going to have to pay the Comcasts and Verizons of the world but they were able to talk the ISPs down a significant amount.
Strategically, it's a bad position to be in for a service provider because the ISPs can raise the price at any time (which is why Netflix has continued complaining about it). But realistically, the ISPs sit on such a strong market control point that nothing can really stop them from setting prices (common carrier status just means they have to offer the same price structure to everyone; not that they can't arbitrarily raise prices).
No, you wouldn't. The thing is that all that top wealth is managed by a group of accountants and lawyers. Highly professional accountants and lawyers. (My friend is an accountant here in Silicon Valley who manages wealth for billionaires in a large accounting firm. He describes me some ways how they manage wealth.) So these people's role role, their only role, is wealth preservation, meaning tax minimization and avoidance. They know all the laws, rules and regulations, and they have fiduciary duty to manage the wealth efficiently and conservatively. Hence they will go to tax heavens and offshore, if needed.
Yes, but the process of creating and more importantly updating that software would involve so much human input that you wouldn't end up with much of a net gain in terms of time or costs saved.
US federal tax laws change every year, and are so interconnected that quite frequently small changes in one tax law can have massive impacts on entirely different areas of law. And that doesn't even take into account state and local taxes, or the taxes of the foreign jurisdictions you'd be dealing with, or the impacts that tax treaties could have, or even the impact that non-tax laws may have on financial transactions.