I'll give alonger answer later but just to be clear: in 2014 both Comcast and Netflix announced a deal where they agreed that Netflix would pay Comcast "for faster and more reliable access to Comcast’s subscribers." https://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/business/media/comcast-and-netflix-reach-a-streaming-agreement.html. They BOTH announced this deal, how can you deny it??? I maintain what I said about the video. This was before the more strict 2015 net neutrality regulations; legally, this deal may actually not be illegal, the lawsuit was probably lauched because of the context of the Time Warner-Comcast merger.
This doesn't matter. The facts are here: Netflix had to pay Comcast so they could survive, and Comcast itself admitted to this. This for the consumer is extremely negative since it means an increase in price for netflix subscriptions; it is also negative for Netflix since it is at the mercy of what Comcast wants to do with them. It puts every online business at the mercy of major ISP's. In many areas of the US, Comcast has no competition; it doesn't matter why (well, it does, but as I said I currently don't have time for a long answer). It is a fact. No competition. The only thing that stands in their way from bullying both counsumers and online companies is the net neutrality legislation.
A "deal." Quite different from arbitrary restrictions, and quite reasonable considering the results of hi-def video streaming. It's how the real world works. People cooperate and find solutions. It doesn't sound at all like the boogeyman of censorship and restricted access.
eeh, I won't bother. If you want to transfer more power to corporations that are already rigging the free market, so be it. Typed from my laptop in Switzerland where I can choose between 3 different ISPs and never had to complain about the quality of their services (no one does here).
Who do you think writes the legislation for the us laws that invariably do the opposite of their noble-sounding titles?