If we can set aside the "Comcast is inherently evil" mindset for a moment, this to me reads simply that Comcast notified Level 3 that they were terminating a pr

If we can set aside the "Comcast is inherently evil" mindset for a moment, this to me reads simply that Comcast notified Level 3 that they were terminating a previously agreed upon settlement-free peering [1] agreement where Comcast and L3 find exchanging traffic without charging each other mutually beneficial. This kind of thing is not an unusual event in the history of the Internet and can happen for any number of reasons -- including arguably justified criteria such as unbalanced traffic ratios, as well as business strategy (or greed, depending on which side you are on). Level 3 has elected to frame this as a net neutrality issue and take the dispute to the press and the court of public opinion, but it's probably about a different question: who will pay, and how much will each party pay, for the infrastructure required to deliver content from L3's customers to Comcast's customers? If viewed in this light, this peering agreement renegotiation is Comcast pushing back some of the costs on L3 and/or it's customers (i.e. streaming video providers). The other alternative would be to raise it's own customer rates. It's possible that Comcast is being greedy and leveraging their position to rent-seek, but it's also possible that the traffic mix that resulted in the previous peering agreement is now significantly out of whack, justifying this renegotiation. It's definitely not black and white, and this is only one side of the story. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peering http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peering