As for the alternative for Comcast, if they’re that worried about straining their network then, like I said, there is more aggressive pursuit of network abuse on their part (they already do this to an extent for very extreme cases) and/or a more strict bandwidth cap (I’m not even sure there is a formal one)

Other than subsidizing the building of a bigger and faster network for them (not happening), I’m not sure what else the alternative is. It’s they’re network, they can restrict usage of it however they want, just as long as they’re not picking and choosing between content.

Just how can FCC fairly investigate and prosecute Comcast (and possible other offenders–Comcast is NOT the only ISP doing this)? What are some legal alternatives for Comcast to do QoS?

It’s the FCC’s job to regulate this kind of commerce but the internet would be a worse place if we have to rely on them to keep the peace. It’s much better to find an amicable alternative for Comcast.

The FCC himself noted that this action was taken by Comcast “regardless of the level of traffic.”

If you need to cap bandwidth at 5GB per day or something to keep the network fast, then do it - but do it all around. Don’t pick and choose what you are and aren’t going to restrict. That’s the whole point behind net neutrality. If it gets to a point where customers feel that whatever cap exists is too restrictive, then hopefully that’s where competition takes over.

If there are particular users who are abusing your network, then go after those users. Don’t punish everyone who just so happen to be using the same service or protocol the abuser is.

Once you start picking and choosing things that you’re going to restrict or block, you start down a long and very dark road.

In general increasing the cost of doing business means that cost is passed to the buyer. Expect more expensive internet access for the same level of service you experience today.