That said, I'm a customer. They're my only good choice in broadband. And honestly I've been reasonably pleased -- it's reliable and fast, if not cheap.
> clear violations of the network neutrality principle by discounting their partners' content over their IP network
That's isn't real. They are not doing that. Someone analyzed their TV over IP service a little while ago and verified it.
> the scale still tips toward the "evil" side for Comcast
Not me. They were evil when they did the bittorrent thing, but ever since then they've been great.
But the network neutrality thing is very much real. They enforce a cap on general traffic, but lift it for partner streaming. That's a discount. The analysis merely showed that the packets were distinctly labeled for the routers, and thus they were (plausibly, technically) within the letter of network neutrality. They were quite clearly violating the spirit.
They don't prioritize it over other traffic - it uses a totally different channel which you pay extra to get. It's exactly what they should be doing.
> The analysis merely showed that the packets were distinctly labeled for the routers
No, that's not correct. The packets used a different DOCSIS channel, after the cable modem the packets were not special.
If the packets went over your regular connection AND were prioritized, then that would be a violation. Anything else is not a violation, not the letter, not the spirit.
Comcast is a video provider, I bought some video and they used their wires to provide it to me. Other providers don't have the same access to the customer, but that's because they have no wires to the customer.
For network neutrality, other providers should have the same internet access as the customer as comcast, but this service doesn't use your internet connection, so network neutrality simply doesn't apply.