Charging for a service according to its value rather than the cost of providing it is called functional pricing. In this case the cost of delivery is zero so we have functional pricing. Functional pricing can only be maintained when competition is restricted. It is a clear sign that a monopoly or duopoly is in operation.
Is the answer net neutrality? I don't think so. Attempting to draw up regulations to tell Comcast what to do is not going to work. The regulations are going to become obsolete very quickly and they are going to be very difficult to police. And even if one administration is willing to enforce the regulations, a successor may be more interested in serving the interests of the cable providers than the people. The answer here is competition in Internet service delivery, which not coincidentally appears to be the direction some of the Obama transition team seem to be thinking.
Net Neutrality describes a desired outcome, it is not a policy in itself. How should the US govt enable citizens to gain the same access to cheap, high speed broadband that Europeans have enjoyed for years?