Comcast competes in part of the same geographies as FIOS, so not only are they $100 more, but the cap would've made it even more of a non-starter.. or at least put the icing on the cake of a racketeering / price collusion case against Comcast and Verizon.
There is no legal requirement to compete aggressively across-the-board. It is perfectly legal to decline to compete.
It is not price collusion to sell products at a higher price than your competitor. It is also not price collusion if your competitor raise prices and then you match those higher prices -- so long as this was done independently, on the basis of public information or competitive intelligence.
Collusion requires some sort of agreement. For example, you are not allowed to get together and agree to set prices in a certain way. You're also not allowed to tell your competitor of price increases through a non-public channel, because this implies that you're expecting them to do something about it.
