Finally some insight. 150GB is trivial for a "modern" family, and would easily be dwarfed if comcast billed their "cable" as "data."
Cable is for the most part a broadcast system though.
The real problem is that we need internet access provided and regulated as a utility. No, i don't much relish the thought of paying per-(prefix)byte, but I'd rather have an enforced system where everyone pays a rate that reflects what the service actually costs than the current hideously broken regime.
You'd have to be pretty careful how the system was set up through. In particular the definition of "what the service actually costs"
The real cost in providing internet access is replacing infrastructure. When you build new infrastructure you (if you have any sense) build it with ample bandwidth but gradually the bandwidth becomes less and less ample. Most people still get their internet through infrastructure that was really designed for phone calls or broadcast TV and has had patchwork upgrades.
The people at the telcos/cablecos look at the cost of the forklift upgrades to handle the growing traffic and get sticker shock. Then they look at the usage patterns and find that households like your ""modern" family" are the exception not the rule (and I fully admit that i'm probablly part of said exception). Then they put in place measures so that those households either reduce their usage or pay more.
I fear with a "cost based" model the utilities would be prone to keep running old (and expensive per-(prefix)byte) infrastructure to an even greater extent than they do today. Why install more modern (and cheaper per-(prefix)byte) infrastructure when it just means you get to charge less for the same data.