This right here is the real lesson. Comcast is not going to lower rates for everyone else because of this.

Actually, that depends on whether Comcast has effective competition. If they do, prices for end-users will improve, trending closer to the cost of servicing them.

If they don't have competition, regulation can't always simulate the same consumer benefits, for a number of reasons. The regulators are often at the mercy of the regulated company. (The FCC, for example, is all telecom/lobbyist/party-functionary lawyers.) The regulated company tends to do fine, as their model and margins get frozen into slow-moving regulatory law. Smaller/newer companies with other models and technologies can't as easily fit into the regulatory mold, which often even bans them from offering the high-value (differentiated) services that could offer a competitive toehold. Can't have some upstart skimming off the cream from the now-tamed monopolist!

Which is why in all cases new competition, not formulaic rules from DC lawyers, should be the policy priority.

I never understood this argument. Comcast doesn't need usage-based pricing to raise rates. They can just raise rates. Their rates change all the time (and vary by where you are). Given that, raising prices for high-usage customers is really kinda the same thing as lowering prices for low-usage customers (give or take a base-rate hike).

I think this argument conflates whether Comcast is too expensive with whether usage-based pricing is necessarily unfair.

Put another way, why is it ok to charge less for a capped speed but it isn't ok to charge less for a capped monthly transfer?