Slashdot Mirror
Comcast Kisses-Up To Obama, Publicly Agrees On Net Neutrality
MojoKid writes Comcast is one of two companies to have earned Consumerist's "Worst Company in America" title on more than one occasion and it looks like they're lobbying for a third title. That is, unless there's another explanation as to how the cable giant can claim (with straight face) that it's in agreement with President Barack Obama for a free and open Internet. Comcast issued a statement of its own saying they back the exact same things, it just doesn't want to go the utility route. Comcast went on to list specific bullet points that they're supposedly in wholehearted agreement with, such as: Free and open Internet. We agree — and that is our practice. No blocking. We agree — and that is our practice. No throttling. We agree — and that is our practice. Increased transparency. We agree — and that is our practice. No paid prioritization. We agree — and that is our practice. Really? Comcast conveniently fails to address the giant elephant in the room whose name is Netflix. Earlier this year, Netflix begrudgingly inked a multi-year deal with Comcast in which the streaming service agreed to pay a toll to ensure faster delivery into the homes of Comcast subscribers, who prior to the deal had been complaining of frequent buffering and video degradation when watching content on Netflix. Comcast would undoubtedly argue that it's not a paid fast lane, but it's hard to see the deal as anything other than that.
Me love you long time. Ten dolla.
Comcast's goal, is.
will now come from Comcast.
This is just Comcast trying to get some good PR before they force their agenda through. There is no purpose in companies kissing up to President Barack "Lawnchair" Obama, as he has consistently caved to the demands of conservatives and big businesses every time it was important to do otherwise during his administration.
Every. Single. Time.
Remember how he said he was going to stand up to insurance companies, and offer a single-payer option for health care? Remember how that was going to be his crowning achievement as president? Did we get any of that? No.
Remember how he said he was going to help the middle class instead of helping wall street fat cats? Remember how that worked out?
Comcast is just waiting for the attention to blow over. Eventually public attention will wane and then Comcast will kill off the net neutrality proposals and get their way.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Comcast throttled me. Fuck them.
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
ope8ating syst3ms
It's pretty much a well-established fact at this point that Comcast, its executives and the majority of their employees are ALL full of shit. Kind of like Harry Reid claiming to be fighting for "sweeping reforms" of the NSA and their global voyeurism fetish. Nobody actually believes anyone in Washington wants to stop the NSA, they're the ones that wrote them the fucking blank check in the first place. It's no different with Comcast, just because they "publicly agree" to something does not mean, in any way, that they actually agree or will do anything that resembles agreeing. These are the same people who charged victims of Hurricane Katrina fees for lost equipment. Oh sure, they reversed course on that because apparently people didn't appreciate it much...but we wouldn't still be talking about how universally shitty they are if they changed much since then, which they haven't.
I think a more appropriate title for this article might have been "Comcast Kisses-Ass in Washington, Publicly Agrees to Anything That Will Get the Time Warner merger off the ground." Perhaps even a subtitle; "(at which point they'll do exactly what they felt like in the first place)."
Full Disclosure: I am a network ops engineer for Comcast.
Anyone who believes that buying private links into a providers network is the same as your traffic getting paid priority knows jack shit about network ops. In the case of Comcast, Netflix traffic gets no special priority once it's on the internal network. The direct links simply lets them bypass the naturally occurring bottlenecks that occur at internet peering points.
Now I'm sure a bunch of people (who are not network engineers) are going to argue over the wording and philosophy as to whether or not buying paid links into a providers network constitutes priority or not. It's not. In network operations, priority is a very specific concept. It means that you treat one class of traffic better than others, usually to the detriment of other classes of traffic. As an example, e911 voice traffic has the *highest* priority on the Comcast network.
Comcast does not treat Netflix traffic any better than anyone else's traffic. Nor is it treated any worse. It is forwarded as Best Effort within the Comcast network.
The only difference that buying direct links in meant was that they got to skip the congestion in the peering points. Comcast has alot more bandwidth internally and once traffic makes it into the network, congestion is not usually a problem (things do break, redundant links become saturated, etc. It's a big network, but in normal operation mode, congestion doesn't exist). What little prioritization we do has alot more to do with latency than with congestion (ie, your phone call is more important than your massive porn transfer, since voice is alot more sensitive to delay than bulk data transfer).
People dont realize that comcast gives tones of money to the current regime, also they subsidize MSNBC at a lost just to placate the Communist Party Apparatchiks in the FCC
It's quite like me saying -
I agree, and is my practice, that I can outrun an Olympic sprinter.
That word "Practice" gives them an easy out.
The term "net neutrality" is bounced around over and over and now even our technically challenged president is for it. But what exactly is "net neutrality?" What does it prevent from happening. What is required to happen?
I'll bet that three different people will have five different definitions.
the corporates in the private sector has been kissing govt butt and the govt been kissing the wallstreet investment banker's butt for decades, this nation is run by gang of psychopathic kleptocratic oligarchs
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
But rather the packets aren't getting bogged down by people using Tor or Bittorrent or Silk Road or some other network service known for trafficking in illicit content? For those of you who have had the experience of driving on an L.A. freeway during rush hour (which means pretty much any time of the day), you have no doubt seen the effects of a motorcycle squeezing between the lanes. People driving in cars end up slowing down out of fear of hitting one of those. Technically, the motorcycles' activity is legal but only for outdated, no-longer-necessary reasons. But they do slow down the flow of traffic. What if Netflix wants to be sure that some motorcycle packets aren't giving them trouble on a network that was designed for traffic that plays by the rules?
Comcast, Time-Warner, ATT, etc. should embrace the regulated utility model.
By splitting their businesses into two companies, a regulated "bit pipe" company and an unregulated "content provider" company, they all but guarantee that the regulated company will have modest profits and more importantly they guarantee that the "content provider" part of their company will have access to every DSL and cable customer nationwide on the same terms as all other "content provider" companies. This means that Time-Warner's and Comcast's content arms can both compete for my eyeballs.
The only "gotcha" here is "always on for everyone" (i.e. non-switched) TV channels over cable. Because of the nature of those channels, only one company, presumably the local "bit pipe company", will have a say in what those channels are. But as the industry moves to switched-channels that are only "on" when a customer is watching them (sort of like UVerse TV), this will become unimportant. I envision a day when less than 10% of the available bandwidth on a typical customer's "bit pipe" is used for "always on for everyone" TV channels.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Look Comcast has a history of net neutrality violation. Look up what they did with BitTorrent - sending fake connection reset packets in order to throttle the downloads. That's a real net neutrality violation. The original submitter has conflated peering agreements and net neutrality. Wrong! At the time, ANY traffic on the connection between the tier 1 provider that Netflix used and Comcast was slow due to the insufficient connection from Comcast. There was no violation there as all traffic on that connection was affected the same way; Netflix just happened to be a big user of that connection. Comcast has said they won't do things like the BitTtorrent debacle anymore. Trust but verify, anyone? The Netflix shenanigans are an issue we need to work - how peering should work with last mile ISPs who claim that content delivery networks and tier 1 providers are "sending them more traffic than they send back" are in denial about who requested that traffic and who already paid for it. But that isn't the same as net neutrality. Two separate things to work on. In this case please stop conflating the Netflix / Comcast thing with net neutrality.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmLAj9iIfQk
Comcast throttled me. Fuck them.
Looks like you got off easy. When some ISPs fsck their customers, they don't throttle, they go full-bore with the giant corn-cob, all the way, to make sure the customer feels the pain.
Or so I've been told.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
[I lead the IT department of a political organization and so I'm posting this anonymously...]
I've been in DC the past couple of days, talking to those directly involved in the net neutrality debate in DC. These meetings were setup because I'm an ardent believer in net neutrality - an open internet is critical for innovation, for businesses, and consumers. I walked into this meeting ready to draw blood over the issue. And after an hour of arguing, I realized something extremely important: What we tech nerds think of net neutrality is different than what's being debated as net neutrality. "Net Neutrality" is being used as a political tool.
Obama recently pushed for Net Neutrality and recategorizing the internet under Title II. Except that arguments for Title II gets quickly dropped from the headline and so it becomes "Obama wants Net Neutrality". But nn is being used as a key term to garner support for Title II and reclassifying the telcos as common carriers.
Comcast / AT&T / etc absolutely do not want this. Being classified as common carriers is about the worst business move they could forced into. Why? Because Title II equates to a lot of regulations - that's what Title II is. Title II is why phones are heavily regulated by taxes, where they must be laid, and other regulations that have been in place since 1934 (and updated in 1993). If Comcast / AT&T / Verizon / etc get lumped into Title II, then it'll cost them millions of dollars in employee costs, plus any additional costs from possible additional regulations that may be imposed now or down the road. Remember that in 1913, AT&T was granted a full monopoly of the telco service (and then regulated so that only AT&T phones could be used on the lines until 1956). Times have changed, for sure, but government involvement and over-regulation certainly has a historical precedence. Imagine having to get approval from FCC for any new internet protocol, device, or anything that might "break" the regulated internet. So... the telcos want to stay away from Title II as much as possible.
Ted Cruz recently said that Net Neutrality is the "Obamacare for the internet". (This is what prompted me to get in touch with people in DC). The accurate re-wording of this statement is that "Reclassifying the internet providers as Title II companies is similar to more government regulation as done in Obamacare." I personally hate the analogy, but now that I see the real debate, I can't fully disagree.
There IS still the debate on whether Comcast is genuine on wanting net neutrality. I've been told that there's more to the Netflix story than is being told (and that Comcast was only looking to be paid for the bandwidth consumed), but I don't have enough evidence to substantiate this either way. We currently mostly have net neutrality now, without regulation, due to market forces.
I'll be the first to admit that Comcast is perhaps one of the most vile companies that currently exist in the US. However, what we have now mostly works *without* additional regulation. I'm fearful what additional regulation may do to this - our government doesn't have a great history of making things better with more regulation.
Just be sure you look through the politics and look at the actual arguments. This isn't about Net Neutrality. Rather, Obama is using Net Neutrality as a keyword to push for Title II. And *that* won't end well.
Thank you for having the guts to come here and say that. On behalf of the Slashdot community, I apologize for the rude tone of some of the replies.
Having said that, the replies above are essentially correct: It is part of Comcast's job to make sure its peering points don't get saturated under routine use. They owe that much to their customers (and of course they can pass that cost on to their customers).
Now, if the problem is at an upstream peering point that Comcast does not participate in, then I can understand that Comcast is not to blame. However, a company as big as Comcast should participate in peering points around the country, Comcast owes its customers that much. Every major network provider - including Netflix's provider - should be peering directly with Comcast* in the regions in which they and Comcast have a significant amount of traffic to exchange and in which both companies have a significant physical presence.
The same goes for ATT, Time-Warner, and the other major ISPs and network providers.
*If the peering at the peering point isn't, technically-speaking, direct, it should have the characteristics of a direct link from a customer-satisfaction point of view. That is, the connection is good enough that if you turned it into a direct-peering connection there wouldn't be much improvement.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
is that Obama is willing to listen to Comcast for exclusive multi-decade political support for his party. Imagine if it wasn't just bittorrent/netfllix users being throttled, but all registered voters who didn't sign up for his party.
We agree — and that is our practice. No blocking. We agree — and that is our practice. No throttling. We agree — and that is our practice. Increased transparency. We agree — and that is our practice. No paid prioritization. We agree — and that is our practice. Really? Comcast conveniently fails to address the giant elephant in the room whose name is Netflix.
You don't ever have to read any of Comcast's positions on regulation of the Internet. Anything that Comcast advocates is not in the interest of their customers. It's really that simple, because they are that bad.
The BitTorrent debacle wasn't so much a network neutrality issue as it was a possible* violation-of-contract/false-advertising issue with its affected customers and potentially* a "tortuous interference" issue with respect to any contract between its customers and the company attempting to deliver data to them using BitTorrent.
* I am not a lawyer. A lawyer could tell you if there was an actual violation of contract or an actual "tortuous interference" issue.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
The Fallacy of Equivocation.
You've substituted the more specific network-jargon "priority" for the usage of "priority".
Once Netflix PAID Comcast then Comcast gave Netflix PRIORITY access to the Comcast network. The PRIORITY access means bypassing the choke point that Netflix was previously restricted to.
No one is saying that Comcast changed the QoS or priority of individual Netflix packets. But that is what you are denying.
Again, you are substituting a more specific network-jargon usage of "priority" that no one other than you is using.
And you are denying something that no one else is claiming.
That is the Fallacy of Equivocation.
Which is what everyone, except you, is saying.
Once Netflix paid Comcast, Comcast users could suddenly get better access to Netflix.
But Comcast refused to do anything to address that congestion UNTIL NETFLIX PAID THEM.
Could the honesty and accuracy of Comcast's public statements be a by-product of letting their support channel formulate the answers?
A president who leans socialist and Comcast are trying to sell the American public on something, telling us that it will result in "a free and open internet". We better take a real close look at this, because it reminds me of a certain group who presented another with a large wooden horse.
In my opinion, any monopoly that has the balls to pull this type of disingenuous bullshit with the POTUS has demonstrated itself to have gone completely rogue. It's time for the Department of Justice to reign them in. It's up to Congress or the White House who wants credit for splitting up the nation's most hated company during a lame duck session. Hating the fuck out of Comcast should be something that can bring this country together for Christmas. Remember, as long as they're fighting for their right to have unnatural market power(blackmailing Netflix), they aren't trying to corrupt our government with Regulatory Capture. Also: kudos to the FCC for trying to spin being a bunch of bought and paid for crooks as being pragmatism. I wonder if it's the same PR firm responsible for this press release who managed that psyops campaign?
"Comcast is one of two companies to have earned Consumerist's "Worst Company in America" title on more than one occasion..."
Comcast has found that most people don't spend the many hours Comcast makes it necessary to protest over-billing.
It's interesting that Comcast asks employees to abuse customers, and Comcast employees hear that as permission to abuse Comcast, also.
There has been no President who has been more consistently progressive in the last 70 years. The health care overall is a *big* deal; probably the greatest legislative accomplishment since the New Deal. No, you didn't get everything you want--that's not the way the world works. You think you would have gotten more if Obama had stamped his feet like a petulant child and demanded more?
It's morons like you that are going to lead to another Bush as President with a GOP House & Senate.
No one should ever forget that Obama and the CEO of Comcast are golf buddies:
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/08/14/fore-obama-playing-golf-with-world-bank-president-comcast-ceo/
Ever since Comcast merged with NBC-Universal, it might be one his biggest supporters (CEO Brian Roberts raised over $1.4 million for Obama's re-election). Obama might support Net Neutrality, but he'll make sure Comcast gets paid off somehow. I know it's popular to blame Republicans for everything on Slashdot, but Comcast gives plenty of money to Democrats, who have been more quiet about giving support to Comcast.
(Jesus, you'd think conservatives and liberals could somehow compromise on this, but they've solidified into radical anti-capitalism and monopolistic capitalism.)
Word verification: gaslight
but that doesn't mean they have it wrong. I don't agree with this whole "Open Internet" concept. It's like everyone (and every business) paying a flat rate for highway access. It becomes simple to understand: you and I will be paying for maintaining roads that we hardly use (compared to truckers, taxis, commuters and the like).
Or water: flat rate for every city or town water user? I don't think so: the jerk next door with the sprinklers running 24 hours a day, the car wash up the street, paying the same as me? "There's plenty of water. And the town can just add more wells and water processing plants." Right .. and who pays for that?
Or a flat rate for a telephone number. I use it maybe 4-5 times a week. My wife, a dozen times a day. A teenager a hundred times a day. A commercial phone advertiser continuously. The phone companies apparently have figured out how to do this efficiently with land lines; the cell companies are still juggling the numbers. But I'm not subscribing to a cell company who offers family rates, multiple phones, unlimited texting and data transfers, for the same price they charge me! Just wouldn't be prudent: I KNOW I'm paying for someone else's excessive usage.
If everyone pays according to their usage, it makes a LOT more sense, is a lot fairer, etc. Why should I pay my ISP (and everyone else involved in carrying Internet traffic) so that Netflix and any other high-rate broadband user can make money from their extraordinarily higher usage? Instead, let Netflix pay more for that traffic (along with everyone else), and let Netflix pass on the additional costs to their users.
You cannot convince me that enough investment in Internet links, throwing in more comm links, etc. will magically solve all the problems. I know damned well there will NEVER be enough bandwidth: look how land line phones (and even cell phones) are switching over to Skype and equivalent VOIP services. And who's paying for that? Yeah .. me and thee.
So Comcast is pulling some scummy tricks, no question there. They lie: surprise, surprise. Doesn't change the basic economics.
Because everything is already coming through your Internet or is about to come through your Internet provider shortly, Netflix, phone calls, music streaming, youtube, home security, etc.
And then, they will apply datacaps.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
If, through one means or another, Comcast becomes the de-facto Internet in the U.S., it won't matter what they 'agree to publicly', they will be able at that point to do whatever the hell they want with it, and it'll take an 'act of God'-level effort to dislodge them.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
works out.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Obama is a center-right politician as are most Democrats serving in national office in the US. Dennis Kucinich was about as far left (well, since Bella Abzug left Congress) as it got in recent times. There are a few still in congress who are center-left, but most Democrats in office today would have been considered moderate Republicans even twenty-five years ago.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
It seems to work for the GOP.
I've noticed over time that you like using the word equivocation. Let me suggest that since you like word, you might be interested in looking it up to see EXACTLY what it means, then maybe using Google to see how other people use it.
I believe the derivation is equi (equal) and voca (as in vocal), meaning to say two things equally, to avoid taking either side.
When asked who was most qualified to be chief, the president said that Ms. Smith had 15 years of related experience, and Mr. Jones had 10 years working as the assistant chief.
I can't wait until the FCC assumes control over the internet. They could never wrestle control over cable television, but once everything is distributed over the internet, they'll get their grubby little claws on every form of communication, finally! Even better, if you're not a giant corporation, you're just a "consumer". That's right. The glorious internet where everyone was once a creative force building things and commercialism was shunned is now just a place where corporations can sell stuff to "consumers" that the FCC will work hard to "protect". You know, by determining what is and is not "legal content" as per the wording of their (and the president's) recent statements. I'm sure encrypted content and VPNs and others will fare just fine, right? Of course... yep... sure.... *ahem*
You all excitedly looking forward to the FCC coming in to "teach big bad comcast and other ISPs not to be so mean to Netflix" are going to fucking sell out the internet forever, just so you can get your stupid fucking netflix and youtube faster. Fucking dipshits.
There has been no President who has been more consistently conservative in the last 70 years
There, I fixed that for you. Look at what has actually been done under President Lawnchair:
When the history books are written, Obama's actual actions will make Reagan look like a socialist.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Comcast is right. Netflix didn't buy a fast lane from Comcast. Netflix was put on a slow lane until it paid up; it's now back on the normal lanes.
What would Obama have to offer? Antitrust maybe?
I am not an Obama apologist; however, politics is not a simple game. A great many deals are made behind the scenes. His about face appointment of FCC wasn't unusual. The horrible and obviously corrupt looking choice of somebody who publicly appears to contradict him looks to experienced eye looks like a DEAL. He made a deal with somebody or some group to appoint their man to the position despite the political costs to himself... which means they had something quite valuable to trade. but what? Could be anything from an NSA blackmail (who was tapping him before he was a senator) to a huge "donation."
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Privately, they do everything they can to raise rates, stifle innovation, and milk 20 year old cable technology for everything its worth.
Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -Carl Sagan
Pathological liars?
We agree — and that is our practice.
Listen to what they say, then watch (Netflix) what they do.
Well they're honest about it. Presumably this would mean segmenting the infrastructure under a separate corporation. What they really mean is the current situation allows them to do as they please and a policy to re-classify them would hurt. So they are playing nice for a time until they can write a law they like.
Know what to kiss and when.
Was it a toll, or did Netflix finally agree to pay for direct access to Comcast's network?
I swear that it's amazing that so many supposedly smart people fail to acknowledge the concept of peering, specifically settlement-free/unpaid peering, and how IT makes the internet what it is, and how content providers like Hulu, Netflix, etc. can distort traffic levels and eseentially abuse a provider's network.
Perhaps we both should look up the word. While we're at it, let's look up Obama's preferred policy, "single payer". Wouldn't it be interesting if the two terms were synonymous.
When we look up socialism, I suspect we'll find it has something to do with the government's role in the economy. Let's look up the change in the extent of the government's role in the economy over the last six years.
When we look up socialism, I suspect we'll find it has something to do with the government's role in the economy. Let's look up the change in the extent of the government's role in the economy over the last six years.
Perhaps we both should look up the word. While we're at it, let's look up Obama's preferred policy, "single payer". Wouldn't it be interesting if the two terms were synonymous.
by paying for the roads to be available for everyone, we derive benefit even when we're not using them, for example when we purchase goods brought to the store by truck.
A user fee libertarian might argue that if trucks wear the road more, the road's owner (state DOT or a private toll road) should charge higher road use fees (plates, tolls, etc.) for such vehicles. (The rule of thumb is the fourth power of axle weight.) This would be passed on to trucking companies, to retailers who receive goods by truck, and ultimately to shoppers who benefit from the goods' having been brought by truck.
Putting Netflix's cache box in the ISP's data center occupies rack real estate that could have been used for other paying colo customers' boxes.
There might not have been so much "abuse", there might have been more balanced traffic, if the terms of service for residential Internet connections didn't ban home servers and if the speeds were symmetric instead of uploading far slower than they download. Recall that once Verizon was called out on allowing its links to congest, it upgraded its FiOS customers to symmetric speeds.
they could have just let Netflix install caching servers in their data centers like Netflix has done at other ISPs
If Comcast gives out free colo to Netflix, won't its paying colo customers grow envious?
People can switch by renting an apartment in a different ISP's territory.
Well, for Comcast anyway, not for their customers, competitors (also known as future acquisitions), business relationships, etc. They all pay Comcast or, well, you know, that nice internet you have there, it would be a shame if it broke now wouldn't it?
Name one, JUST ONE, utility that you pay for right now that does not have a tax levied against it. These guys can't even get a website right with $2billion and we want to trust them to regulate the Internet?
Each customer of a broadband company buys a plan that states the bandwidth limit. Netflix can stream 720p with a 3 Mbps DOWN limit (I know I do it). The supplier should provision their network to support the aggregate needs of its customers per the promised bandwidth. Obviously this is not done.
Doesn't common carrier forces ISPs to unbundle their services, like ADSL was in the beginning ? I recall having Bellsouth phone line and ADSL from earthline through the same copper wire.
Perhaps that's the real issue. Comcast is terrified of all common carrier obligations.
Another possibility is preventing Obama from doing anything until he gets replaced. Perhaps they think that even if a democrat win, that new president will be more business friendly.
... it just doesn't want to go the utility route...
I'm sorry Comcast, but no. You can be like Atmos, that's about it. A good percentage of people don't have any other service such as phone or maybe even access to their homes without the Internet, we even check the time through the Internet. I sincerely hope POTUS doesn't succumb to this sly public Comcast facade.
My Comcast cable connection is fucking fast and regularly gets faster. I noticed 100Mbps downstream a couple of days ago - good thing I purchased a router with gig-e - when I'd tested it a few months earlier I was clamped at 60Mbps which was still in the "doesn't-suck" category. With that kind of performance (and excellent reliability) I just can't hate them.
[FrLz]
Joe Biden is a square shooter. Joe Biden for 2016
What about all of the customers not downloading that data, should they also pay for these upgrades?
Those customers who will use more data as a result of NetFlix being a more usable service should pay more, those who do not use NetFlix or whose usage doesn't change as a result of the improvements should not.
However, whether they will or not depends on Comcast's pricing model: If Comcast were to sell marginal-metered service ($X flat fee for low-use users + $Y GB in $0.01 increments for everything above the low-user allowance, where $Y is no more than than $X/allowance), they would. If Comcast were to sell tiered service in a way that approximated metered service ($X for A GB, $Y for B GB, etc. with reasonable increments and reasonable incremental pricing), they would but only with respect to customers who upgraded to the next tier.
As far as I know, Comcast does have a tiered pricing model but it's not as reasonable as it needs to be to entice most customers to upgrade "to the next level" just so they can use more NetFlix. Yes, the NetFlix upgrade may encourage a few customers who were already considering upgrading to do so, but it won't have the broad effect on Comcast's bottom line that a more reasonable incremental pricing structure or a marginal-per-GB fee would have.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.