Don't like Net Neutrality? What about "Structural Separation?"

Taking note of Comcast's admission/confession that they "shape" BitTorrent and other high-bandwidth Internet traffic in order to manage their network, very smart blogger David Isenberg chooses not to join the chorus that maintains a comprehensive Net Neutrality law would effectively restrict or halt these practices.

Instead, David is calling for a concept often referred to as Structural Separation.

The way he sees this going down is that broadband Internet service providers would not be allowed to maintain any sort of financial interest in any content provider website, network or service carried on that network.

David speaks:

If, instead, we had a law that said, "Network operators must not have a financial interest in any of the content carried by that network," we could be assured that any network operator's network management would be for the sole purpose of running the network. Such a law would keep government out of the network management business. Enforcement would be via financial audit. Such a law is called Structural Separation.

Then the network operator could manage its network any way it wanted, and we would be assured that it was not gaming the system to favor its own apps, services or content, because it would own no apps, services or content. And we would be assured that any innocent consequences of network management that inadvertently disadvantaged some other app, service or content were indeed innocent and would be quickly remedied.

I like the idea of Structural Separation, but I am a Network Neutrality advocate as well. IMHO (In My Haughty Opinion) Why can't we have both?

What do you think?