A couple days ago, Comcast Executive VP David Cohen talked about the company's plans for data caps at a meeting with investors.

"I would predict that in five years Comcast at least would have a usage-based billing model rolled out across its footprint," he said.

Cohen is now saying that his remarks have been "picked up out of context and misinterpreted in a number of places." In a blog post yesterday, Cohen repeated Comcast's argument that the company doesn't put caps on data for any of its customers. In 2012, Comcast suspended its 250GB data cap "in order to conduct a few pilot programs that were more customer friendly than a static cap," he noted.

Because of those trials, customers in seven states are allotted 300GB a month and get charged $10 for each extra 50GB. Most people call that a cap. Comcast calls it "usage-based billing." As such, Cohen said the company has "no data caps for any of our customers anywhere in the country."

People outside the trial areas don't get hit with overage fees. Cohen's statement the other day made it seem as if all Comcast customers will end up on a usage-based billing plan within five years.

But that may not be the case, he now says. "It’s important to note that we remain in trial mode only," he wrote. "We're now also looking at adding some unlimited data plans to our trials. We have always said that as the Internet, and our customers’ use of it, continues to evolve, so will Comcast and our policies."

That leaves things a bit unsettled. One potential interpretation is that Comcast will roll out plans with data limits to its entire national footprint within five years but offer customers a pricier, unlimited data option.

Comcast customers are paying close attention, none more so than our own Senior Reviews Editor Lee Hutchinson, who has explained before why he pays Comcast for business-class Internet. Lee chimed in this morning on the e-mail thread in which we discussed Comcast's shifting position on data caps. Here's an unedited look at the kinds of e-mail threads you're missing because you don't work for Ars Technica: