Add to the list of broadband’s benefits: a cleaner, greener planet.

At the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners’ annual convention this week, regulators heard remarkable testimony about how broadband can help reduce carbon emissions. A lot.

That was the conclusion not only from an expert panel but also from a recent report by the Global e-Sustainability Initiative , a Brussels-based organization. The group concluded that information and communications technologies, including broadband, could cut annual Co2 emissions in the United States between 13 and 22 percent.

That translates into energy savings of between $140 and $240 billion (depending on fuel prices) and a drop in oil usage of between 11 to 21 percent.

Of course, none of this will happen unless broadband deployment continues and networks are upgraded to allow for telework, videoconferencing and other fuel-saving options.

But this discussion puts a useful context to all the recent jabbering about net neutrality. Simply put, Net neutrality does not mean that a single additional fiber line is deployed or cell tower is built. It does not provide even a one rural resident with better access.

The benefits of broadband are self-evident: economic growth, jobs and now, a greener planet. What purpose is served by letting new regulations interfere with all this?

Today Christopher Wolf made this statement: “Effective immediately I am stepping down as co-chair of Hands off the Internet.”

When it comes to paying for broadband deployment, there’s an 800-pound gorilla in the debate: the Net’s rapid evolution into a conduit for data-rich audio and video entertainment. But as NY Times blogger <a href=”http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/31/video-is-dominating-internet-traffic-pushing-prices-up/ “>Saul Hansell noted</a> just before the election, all that data carries a price tag:

<blockquote>You are watching a lot more video on the Internet, and you may start to pay your Internet provider more for it.</blockquote>

Few issues bring the Net neutrality debate into sharper focus than a discussion of how to pay for tomorrow’s networks. Hensell’s blog cites participants at a recent seminar at Columbia University business school who commented about the direct link between the amount of data traveling through the country’s network systems and the cost to maintain the quality of these systems.

That’s the gorilla and it takes the net neutrality debate inevitably to why Congress or the FCC could possibly wish to establish a mandate that would shift the entire residential network build-out and maintenance cost onto consumers, instead of allowing for the possibility of “shared financing” involving the Web’s heaviest corporate users.

That’s the issue – and the impact on consumers – that the Net neutrality community refuses to face.

Sorry for the radio silence the past few weeks but when we saw this new study by Ipsos MediaCT on videostreaming, we had to speak up. According to the study, the number of women and older adults streaming online video has increased by 20 percent during the past six months, virtually closing the gap with younger male users.

So the Exaflood is coming, folks. The growth of the streaming media market is following the classic path of consumer product adoption:

• First, the early adopters (in this case, the young and 20-something tech-savvy males) plunge in and start the buzz.
• Next, companies large and small recognize the potential and begin rushing content online to take advantage of the new opportunities.
• Finally, a truly mass market develops, which is exactly what’s happened here.

Now the only issue to resolve is who pays for the networks needed to carry all this data. The silence from Net neutrality’s corporate lobbyists is deafening.