In summary, there is nothing wrong with settlements to help off-set unequal network costs. It is a perfectly valid business practice. Nor, IMHO, does it make one network a "customer" of the other. The two networks are just trying to share everything equally, including network costs.
It depends on how you look at it. If the peer was a large colo house in one city with no national/international network, then I can see this. but..... if the company has sites around the world, willing to work with the other provider on many issues and has a large network, why should they have to pay to peer? it is just that a provider wants to make money on both ends. Lets just see what the future holds... I personally think the DOJ will walk in and clear up this peering mess once and for all. And why is this? Because the large providers keep changing the rules.... and adjust them based on who they want free peering with and who they want to pay. Christian