It was your example brought up with the hypothetical around someone putting up their own site. I said they wouldn't be hosting their own video content most likely.
I invite anyone to look at the first post you responded to and see if I used the words "youtube", "facebook", or "video" anywhere. Then do the same for Andrew's first post.
I hate what the web is becoming there, and if bandwidth restrictions incentive leaner sites, that's a good thing in my mind.
So you would like to have less for the same download times? Of course, the sites in the fast lane would be encouraged to do the exact opposite.
Would you also like your ISPs to start charging you extra for more popular sites? Or offer package deals of sites you can visit (e.g.: sites run in Europe come in a separate package from those in the U.S.)? Or how about if the site can pay the fee, you can visit them free of charge, but if they can't or won't pay then you will? Or maybe pay a premium on torrents and p2p traffic? Because all of those are things that have been seriously proposed. Basically, ISPs want this to happen because they want to make more money off the same bandwidth use. The only ones who will actually gain a net benefit from this are the ISPs.