Netflix Partner Level 3 Says Comcast Fees “Threatens the Open Internet”

Comcast is claiming that because Level 3 is sending so much traffic their way thanks to Netflix, they should have to pay more for their traffic. Simple peering disagreement or is it an attempt to drive up the costs of a service competing with Comcast "Video on Demand"?

Those who developed the Internet for the everyday person made one key mistake regarding corporations: They trusted them. 
Once you let for-profit interests into your medium, those who have the most money will grant themselves preferential treatment.  That's the way it works in the rest of the media.  So Internet providers handed control of the Internet to for-profit corporations and now for-profit corporations -- who also control the legislative process -- are going to kill net neutrality. 

Either way, millions of people downloading millions of two-hour movies for $8 a month is not going to be sustainable.  It was fun while it lasted.

I think that as long as KongKast establishes a "high bandwidth fee" for ANY super-high-bandwidth hog, I'm fine with it.  That way there is no discrimination against competing services.

Now that said, in any service area in which two or more high-bandwidth providers exist (say KongKast and Tivo), net neutrality should be thrown out the door.  Net neutrality only makes sense to me where a provider is a regulated monopoly, in which case the monopoly status is something granted by the government and which, in return, regulation such as net neutrality can be reasonably expected.

Without net neutrality, I guarantee the FOX News site will load in 0.1 seconds while Democracy Now! will load in 60 seconds, if it doesn't time out altogether

In the absence of net neutrality, you'll be enticed to view what the powers that be want you to view because everything else will be too damn slow!
::)