It's generally hard to prove a negative, but for this topic simply not having a DPI machine on your network resolves most of the question - route the packet and be done. The remaining constructive hazard is easily analyzed by whether specific links are habitually overwhelmed or not - private peering and edge cache boxen are optimizations, with the service yardstick still being the generic full Internet routes.

You could try not letting your network get consistently congested.

The packet passes through so many gateways and networks between Hulu and the end client good luck proving anything.

I'm not an expert by any means but I imagine that, if anything, there would be increased technical difficulty in the throttling/blocking solutions that they want to introduce since that requires more logic than just giving people access to the Internet. That being said, they more than likely have all the infrastructure for monitoring/blocking/throttling/etc in place already and are just waiting for a green light to turn things on.

Ah, fair enough.

There is a burden, yes, because you've got to ensure that traffic to external networks is not unduly impeded. That means that as you expand your infrastructure, you've got to expand your interconnections to other ISPs. Additionally, if your competition expands, you may need to expand just to keep up. It's could make investment in infrastructure more expensive since you can't just grow; you've also got to upgrade. It the big players will feel like they need to create infrastructure that will be used by the little players, and the little players may feel like .

Of course, the above has to happen anyways because faster networks is one of the best ways to reduce costs and attract more customers. So the real issue is that if you don't do it, you'll get FCC regulators knocking on your door.

Here's what the FCC said Net Neutrality is in the FCC Open Internet Order (2010):

1. Transparency: Consumers and innovators have a right to know the basic performance characteristics of their Internet access and how their network is being managed;

2. No Blocking: This includes a right to send and receive lawful traffic, prohibits the blocking of lawful content, apps, services and the connection of non-harmful devices to the network;

3. Level Playing Field: Consumers and innovators have a right to a level playing field. This means a ban on unreasonable content discrimination. There is no approval for so-called "pay for priority" arrangements involving fast lanes for some companies but not others;

4. Network Management: This is an allowance for broadband providers to engage in reasonable network management. These rules don't forbid providers from offering subscribers tiers of services or charging based on bandwidth consumed;

5. Mobile: The provisions adopted today do not apply as strongly to mobile devices, though some provisions do apply. Of those that do are the broadly applicable rules requiring transparency for mobile broadband providers and prohibiting them from blocking websites and certain competitive applications;

6. Vigilance: The order creates an Open Internet Advisory Committee to assist the Commission in monitoring the state of Internet openness and the effects of the rules.

Interestingly, one of the chief arguments against Net Neutrality has been that it could allow regulatory capture. That's rather hilarious, given what's happened with this FCC chairman.

You get that now. What $encrypted_internet_video_provider wants is a special fast lane directly into the ISPs' networks... at the ISPs expense, of course. Small time video hosting service will enter through the regular lanes. The fast lane will belong to the big boys. It's the opposite of the 'level playing field' argument that $encrypted_internet_video_provider is making. NN all basically comes down to who pays for the fast lane. $encrypted_internet_video_provider says, "Net neutrality! You pay half." ISP says, "It's a fast lane that only you use, and all the traffic is in one direction. You want it, you pay for it."