That's a great link, though a little confusing to me. Here's what I understand, with fake dollar amounts:
CDN services need to be priced at $2.
Netflix used to use Akamai; Netflix paid Akamai $3, Akamai paid Comcast $1, and everyone was happy.
Netflix now moved to Level 3, who they pay $1, and Level 3 demand $1 from Comcast (because L3 makes a loss if they don't charge $2). Netflix saved $2, so is happy. Comcast is unhappy, because they're out that same $2.
So now Comcast is crying foul and looking at ways to recoup that $2. Netflix is engaging in a PR battle, but really caused all this by switching from Akamai to Level 3.
The voxel article says it, but the GigaOM article it links to spells it out: "Akamai and Limelight pay Comcast to deliver their traffic to their end users. Level 3, on the other hand, is paid by Comcast, ostensibly for transit, but now, seemingly, to deliver traffic that Level 3 has already been paid for — by Netflix."
I feel that Netflix is trying to rally the net-neutrality army to come to its aid, but may not be an entirely neutral player here.
CDN services need to be priced at $2.
Netflix used to use Akamai; Netflix paid Akamai $3, Akamai paid Comcast $1, and everyone was happy.
Netflix now moved to Level 3, who they pay $1, and Level 3 demand $1 from Comcast (because L3 makes a loss if they don't charge $2). Netflix saved $2, so is happy. Comcast is unhappy, because they're out that same $2.
So now Comcast is crying foul and looking at ways to recoup that $2. Netflix is engaging in a PR battle, but really caused all this by switching from Akamai to Level 3.
Is that accurate?