The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation today held a hearing on the emerging online market. Senator John “Jay” Rockefeller (D-WV) and chairman of the Committee wanted to know how the emerging online video market would impact quality and affordability of online video content. Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) wanted to see, of course, less regulation in the marketplace so that innovation could thrive.

I was not surprised to see net neutrality raise its ugly head. Barry Diller, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of IAC raised the issue most prominently as he expressed concern that gatekeepers may try to negatively impact the flow of video between platforms like his or Amazon and the consumer.

I know. Same old arguments we’ve been hearing since Genesis.

What I found interesting was that Mr. Diller also wanted to see light touch regulation when asked about the appropriate regulatory framework for the online video marketplace. He also said that if someone wanted to start their own broadcast network online, no one could stop them simply because of the Internet’s openness.

It’s not like consumers need help getting to the Internet. They have a number of wired and wireless broadband options. There is still the issue of broadband networks being built out to rural and insular communities. The Federal Communications Commission’s modification of the universal service fund is designed to help in that area.

The biggest challenge may be network capacity, specifically spectrum. It’s for this reason why I believe net neutrality proponents will find themselves in a conundrum. They want consumers to have access to all platforms vying for consumer protection, but take issue with two free market methods for obtaining or conserving access to the electromagnetic airwaves: mergers and data caps. The net neutrality types can’t have it both ways.

If Mr. Rockefeller wants consumers to experience affordable access to online video, he and his net neutrality minions will have to accept tier pricing based on data caps. If not, all the “anybody show up and chow down” demand by content providers as well as consumers will result in poor quality of service. Access to the airwaves is finite. Just because it’s invisible doesn’t mean there is a lot of it.

In a letter to the Federal Communications Commission, the Motion Picture Association provided details of an ex-parte conversation between MPA and staff of the FCC’s Media Bureau. Specifically, the MPA is urging the FCC to consider the advantages of the existing closed captioning regime for television when implementing the regime for IP-delivered content.

Cox Communications yesterday announced that its subscribers can now view on-demand programming on Cox’s website. Miss a show or news? No problem. Go to Cox’s website after the show premieres and check it out there.

The idea makes sense. As a distributor of content, a cable company should take advantage of as many platforms as possible. It’s good for the content provider because greater access by consumers means that there is greater engagement with the content provider’s product.

This is also good for promoting wired broadband adoption. Since only subscribers to Cox can take advantage of this feature, it encourages consumers to get wired, which leads to benefits that only wired broadband access can provide.

One downside may be the digital recording industry. If I can access my programming online, why bother going through the machinations to set up a recording of a favorite TV show?

As an unapologetic he-man and respecter of good theater and acting, I blew a sigh of relief and uttered “good riddance” when I heard that ABC daytime dramas “All My Children” and “One Life to Live” were finally leaving the air. Forty plus years of poor writing and poorer acting were 40 years too much. I literally grew up with Susan Lucci having seen her first performance on “All My Children.” I’ll probably watch the last one for the hell of it.

As a die-hard capitalist I’m mad that I don’t own the rights to either show, especially AMC. If you want to increase broadband adoption, move all that content onto a website. That bad boy would crash because of the amount of hits that website would take. Could you imagine ladies sneaking off at lunch with their smartphones watching that joint? AT&T and Verizon would make a killing. Apple would need to create an Erica Kane app. Spectrum crunch? Please. We would be talking spectrum crisis.

Oh well. The people at the FCC would probably find a way to douse water on that idea, too.

Hopefully CBS will move “The Young and the Restless” back to 12:30 now. Ooops. I digress.

Within the past five years there was talk, especially out of the U.S. Senate commerce committee, about promoting ala carte cable programming. This is where consumers could pick and choose their own bundle of shows.

Kind of like the old Burger King commercials where the cute actresses would sing, “Have it your way, have it your way.” It may have been in response to McDonald’s “two all-beef patties, special sauce, cheese, lettuce, pickles, on a sesame seed bun.” (Don’t ask me how I remember that.)

Bottom line, the argument was that consumers should be given more choice. The counter to that from the cable industry was that it was cost prohibitive to provide consumers with a la carte and that the sum of the pieces would be more expensive than the whole for consumers.

Well, it looks like Internet technology is providing us with a way to get a la carte programming. By purchasing televisions with applications from Yahoo! and Google, we can surf the Web for programming.

Unfortunately, some content providers aren’t ready to provide access to their content by televisions embedded with Internet apps. They don’t want to upset the current business model. Biz speak for they haven’t figured out how to get paid for the content that would bypass traditional cable and go directly to my web television.

Fair enough. Hopefully they can figure out something soon.