Of course not, your attempt to analogise the situation with Adobe is ridiculous. A better analogy would be if Adobe had a file-size restricted version and charged $300 to "upgrade" to the unrestricted version - the upgrade of course would be a simple patch to remove the restriction, that anyone could run locally by downloading the patch. Instead however they'd insist it was a hardware change and send someone to futz around on your computer.

Now of course you can charge what you like and price differentiation doesn't have to relate to actual costs at all, but lying to deceive the customer that the charge is paying for some direct action of employees necessary to enact the alteration is simply fraud.

Now there are of course costs, upstream bandwidth, data handling at intermediate routers and such. That's why it's entirely reasonable for them to charge more for a faster/broader data plan - http://www.comcast.com/internet-service.html it's already charged at more than twice the rate of the 50 Mbps plan (whilst I imagine the real _additional_ cost is probably maybe a few dollars); but that's fine as they're not pretending it costs more because they have to pay for faster electricity or something daft.