The video addressed the net neutrality issue by warning against artificial barriers to investment and innovation . . . like “net neutrality” legislation (ie Snowe-Dorgan). They are correct in noting that an old woman who checks email twice a week shouldn’t be forced to subsidize the teenager streaming
video 16 hours a day downloading HD movies. As proposed net neutrality legislation would prevent innovation, investment, and the ability to efficiently manage the networks, leaving us with a dumb internet.

This is the sentiment echoed in warnings from some of the most senior network engineers such as Robert Kahn. As this Guardian article notes,

“The Neutrality amendments rejected by Congress last year would have made many of today’s private contracts illegal, and outlawed the techniques such as ‘traffic shaping’ that ISPs use to curb bandwidth hogs, says Bennett.

Even worse was the long-term chilling effect. Neutrality would have made designing a better internet much harder, says the man commonly described as the father of the internet.

Dr Robert Kahn says that Neutrality legislation poses a fundamental threat to internet research because it misunderstands what the internet really is; it’s a network of networks, and experimentation on private networks must be encouraged.’The internet has never been neutral,” explains Crowcroft. “Without traffic shaping, we won’t get the convergence that allows the innovation on TV and online games that we’ve seen in data and telephony.’”

http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,2049763,00.html