uhh, what? I have no idea, really. shouldn't comcast be able to use their equipment in anyway they like? if the consumer doesn't like it aren't there other choices?
Man, I am so far behind in this stuff and I once used to install modems for a cable company
Yes and no. If Comcast does not wish to be a common carrier, they should be allowed to not be a common carrier. This would mean that they could indeed use their equipment in anyway they wish. Theoretically including wiretap, if the user consents. The flip side of this is that they would be responsible for the content crossing their wire. They would be liable for the child porn, stolen software, pirated music, etc.
If Comcast does wish the legal protection of being a common carrier, they should allow the rules on being a common carrier.
Comcast wants both worlds. Legal immunity AND the ability to not be a common carrier.
If you wanted a non-IT example. Shipping Company International does not open your packages without reason.
Suppose for a moment, they did want to do so. Suppose they wanted to charge you $30 for mailing a toy from Toy Company A or $1 from Toy Company B. (Because Toy Company B is paying Shipping Company a lot of money to do so.) To enforce this, they'd open every single package, check the product, and bill you accordingly. Fine, if they want to do that, that is their right. But if they start transporting illegal goods (illegal porn, pirated goods, etc), they'd be now liable because they're bloody aware of what they're transporting.
Under the current system, the product inside the box is unknown to them unless you declare the contents. Because they don't know what is in the box, they cannot be held liable for the contents. Even if it's a kilo of cocaine. (Yes, this is oversimplification.)
In this case, Comcast and other companies want to open your box, check the contents, bill you according to the contents, and still be immune for transporting illegal goods.