What Comcast is being chastised for, the thing that forced Netflix to transit with them directly, is being paid by its customers to connect to the internet, then refusing to use that money to buy a pipe large enough to deliver that. It wasn't Netflix that wasn't buying a large enough pipe to send its own bits. If Comcast had resolved its disputes with Cogent and widened the pipe to meet the customer demand it's being paid by those customers to meet, I'm sure Netflix would've been happy to stick with its ISP.
It's just like the telephone network of yore, no single trunk was ever capacitied to mothers day call traffic - there were reroutes, and more than one path to any large point, so you'd get a lower quality of service, but the traffic would still get thru.
I am fine with getting less than my maximum speed; I understand that the connection is shared and that my neighbors' service can interfere with mine. TCP can deal with congestion. What grinds my gears is that ISPs are not content to sell me a maximum speed; they want to oversubscribe, then claim that they are selling burst service, then call it "unlimited super-awesome Internet!! 15Mbps!!" then penalize customers who fail to limit their use of the supposedly unlimited service.
google has similar issues with some EU providers in particular in france, for youtube.
traditionally the ISP pays to upgrade the pipes for the content that is provided by a third party (ie ISP pays for youtube, netflix traffic). ie the one whos downloading pays for upgrading pipes.
thats where some ISPs (comcast too then i guess?) generally cringe: this way of dividing costs was ok 10 years ago, but not anymore: streaming is 90% of their traffic and its not sustainable.
So it's more like saying "downloading is 90% of their traffic and its not sustainable."
If you're trying to optimize for efficient use of limited bandwidth, unicast transferring of identical content to many many people is pretty wasteful. I think Netflix would argue that network links should be getting bigger and fatter to render the point moot, but given the streams are also getting bigger (we didn't always stream 720p everywhere, did we?) that would certainly take a lot more investment than what's happening now.
The problem is, what happens when you connect a new customer. Well, simple :
1) the income of the ISP increases by some fixed amount
2) the cost of providing this connection increases by n+1 (the number of existing customers)
So here's the catch
np needs to pay for n(n-1)c pipes
Where n is the number of customers on the internet. P is the average income per customer and c is the cost of a pipe that will sustain one customer.
Needless to say, this won't work.
No retail ISP on this planet offers 1:1 ratio like that to its general subscribers.
You can certainly buy uncontended service, but it will start at several hundred dollars per month for about 2 Mbps.
If your hosting company has paid Comcast for 100Mbps transit, then Comcast should honor that agreement with your hosting company. Your uplink to your hosting provider is completely irrelevant as far as Comcast is concerned.
If you're using a different transit provider (e.g., Cogent), then Cogent and Comcast will have a mutual peering agreement that accounts for imbalances in transfer. These details are very complicated, proprietary, and you should never need to care about them. That's the whole point of the internet; you connect to "the internet" and can treat it as a homogeneous network, whereas in reality it is actually a bunch of mutually-peered subnetworks.
Yeah that's what all these disputes are coming down to. I can brand myself an ISP and sell someone a 10G uplink. That doesn't magically make anyone have to peer with me. Yes it's complicated and yes it comes down to who can throw weight around.
If the ISP is Comcast, then when you pay for that 1Gbps uplink, you are paying Comcast and you have a right to expect that your packets will be delivered at that rate.
If the ISP is a peer of Comcast, then it seems like when you pay that ISP, you ought to know the exact details of the agreements and bandwidth arrangements between the ISP and Comcast, and both parties ought to abide by that contract. I don't know enough details in this case to know whether that's what happened.