$ContentProvider pays for transit sufficient to handle the traffic that their customers request. $EyeballNetwork's customers pay it for internet access, i.e. to deliver the content that they request, e.g. from $ContentProvider. That covers both directions here

But isn't the whole picture, there are other factors such as $ContentProvider has to cover the cost of content, selling it vs their competitors (as unlike $EyeballNetwork the $Customer has a choice of who to use, and as everything on the net is free they may have a hard time living off their paywall) Even if a CDN cost $ContentProvider the exact same as $EyeballNetwork thinks it should cost to deliver, $EyeballNetwork would still want to be the one paid instead. Who decides if $EyeballNetwork price is reasonable? There is no incentive for them to be efficient, there is no competition - this is partly why provider CDNs have failed, once you put your 50% of internet traffic on their CDN they will not maintain their links to other CDNs at similar capacity so you can never go back, prices will stay high The point of having disruptive technolgy and business models is that they will disrupt and take us to a new, hopefully better, place. No opt out if you happen to be the disruptee. $EyeballNetwork should take care, if $ContentProvider is 50% of their traffic and are being charged lots then $ContentProvider may decide they can do the job better themselves and take over as $EyeballNetwork (such as google fibre). Monopolies who want to remain one should not incentivise new competitors. While this is all open to be gamed disputes over perceived inequality result leaving a mess so I can see why the FCC may decide there is no solution other than let the market decide. brandon