> But it’s not that simple. The “cable” lane traffic (let’s call it Lane 1) includes not just traditional pay TV but also a host of data services — which today

> But it’s not that simple. The “cable” lane traffic (let’s call it Lane 1) includes not just traditional pay TV but also a host of data services — which today could be Stream and tomorrow could be telemedicine, business conference services, or anything else. And Lane 1 uses the internet protocol! This means that data packets are routed around independently, both upstream and downstream, and all that efficient internet magic is happening. From the user’s perspective, when he or she interacts with these things it will “feel” just like online, internet services are responding. I think this definitely violates the spirit of net neutrality even in its current form. However, I don't see how they can move from streaming services which are sourced much further down the line than any internet traffic to dynamic traffic that needs total contact with the internet proper. From what I can tell, Comcast is arguing this service doesn't violate FCC regulations because it essentially works the same as on-demand cable. The media available for streaming is located close to the customer so it can be downloaded once from the internet proper and then streamed on demand without incurring any of the more valuable bandwidth further up the chain. I don't even think they need to prioritize the streaming traffic over regular traffic, since it is only eating into the much more plentiful local bandwidth. If this distinction evaporates (as it would for telemedicine, business conference services, etc.), then they'd clearly violate the letter of FCC's net neutrality regulations. The fact that they used IP seems irrelevant; using anything but IP would require huge investment in custom hardware, so I don't see that as evidence of a future general internet services Master Plan (past the current streaming media Master Plan coming to fruition). To be honest, I'm somewhat on the fence about closing this loophole (though more towards the side of closing it) because it really is just like on-demand cable. It's clear that the data caps are being used in a predatory way, but I'm not sure that is the way to attack it. I'm intrigued by the author's proposed solution, but it seems like something of a moonshot.