> Just because it's the same wire, does mean it's internet.

Just because it's not the internet doesn't mean that we shouldn't regulate it. The obvious spirit of the law is preventing the owners of physical infrastructure from favoring certain content providers (themselves, usually) over others whatever the technical means by which this unequal treatment is accomplished.

Yes, this idea means that the FCC should make Comcast count traditional cable against its customers' data caps.

Yes, but they have created an arbitrary cap that they will market to consumers and then turn around and market streamTV to those now weary consumers.

As a previous Comcast phone rep I can see them pushing both of the above hard. Which is shockingly and grossly anti-competitive.

They are terrible and I can't imagine this standing!

The technicalities might be different, that is true. But the end customer can't see the difference without understanding a little of the technical details. The customers experience seems closer to: If I pay $15 per month, I get access to this group of websites (possibly accessed only through comcast's website on a limited number of registered devices so long as I'm at home) without it counting towards my data. Sure, we could start teaching people the technical details, but Comcast doing such has quite a climb, since they aren't exactly liked or trusted to be truthful or treat customers well. The FCC might have better luck with the educational portion.

Is this a broadcast service? (i.e. limited number of channels, everyone choosing the same channel gets the same content).

If so, it is a TV service, otherwise it's obviously not.