It's pretty easy to change internet providers when you suddenly lose netflix. They should have called Comcast's bluff.
The Comcast alternatives in Seattle are Qwest's elderly DSL, and Clearwire Wimax which can struggle to get over 1mbps. Compared to a lot of US cities, even those options look good. High-speed internet service in the US does not resemble a functioning market.
Swapping's not easy. I do work and research online - dialup isn't an option. I'm a student - pricier cell-based solutions aren't an option. I do a bit of gaming - ping time matters.
The fact that Comcast may be the best option and the market state aren't the points I'm arguing.
Would you stay Comcast if it meant losing Netflix? I bet many times the answer is no.
I'm not arguing that it's a wonderful thing to you, I'm arguing that by pissing you off, you'll be much more likely to act.
Anyone in my area code switching to Qwest for Netflix will be disappointed. Friends a few blocks away with DSL can't finish a streamed program without dropouts and rebuffering. AT&T delivers better service to my phone. The "pretty easy" option you alluded to entails moving out of the city to one of the suburbs with FiOS.
Level3 should have attempted to sign Netflix up for this fight and point the issue squarely at the consumer.. A big "You can't get Netflix because you are on Comcast" or "It now costs you $20 a movie because you are on Comcast" frames the battle back into Level3's favor.
All they did by backing down was show Comcast that they will back down when challenged again. You beat a bully by fighting him.
Free peering only works, and is only reasonably fair as long as traffis is, on average, about equal. If one network is really genreating 5x the traffic of another, why would the smaller one take the hit fo free?