The Wall Street Journal posted this article about Netflix and other online video providers stepping up their lobbying efforts in Washington to combat what they perceive as Internet service provider use of network management in order to make their services less accessible to consumers who may want to cut the cable cord.

Yes, net neutrality raises its ugly head again. The FCC has a choice. Allow ISPs, including cable and telephone companies, to manage their networks, or invite congestion. Congestion will only lead to higher prices and poorer quality of service.

The FCC could allow Netflix to pay a toll to run in a “high occupancy lane”, but the die-hard net neutrality proponents like Free Press would cry foul. The FCC dug this hole when it promulgated these ill-advised rules. They can’t dodge that hole forever.

According to Gigaom.com, Consumers are uploading 72 hours of video to YouTube per minute. That’s a lot of content.

YouTube is owned by Google, Inc.

With all the smart phones equipped with cameras, uploading video is easier to do. This increases demand for access to the airwaves or spectrum. Will technology, and more importantly, regulation be able to keep up?

What this also tells me is that Google is a much bigger threat to Facebook as we know it. Google has a much more lucrative advertising business. They are able to get more eyes to their content because of YouTube. All that is missing is the social networking piece. They will either keep plodding along with Google+ or go after Facebook.

Now that would be fun to watch on YouTube or anywhere else.

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.