I think instances where the end ISP is peered directly with Netflix and demands more money is not valid at all.  That should be normal cost of doing business to increase capacity as the consumer demand grows.
The topic of interest is instances where the ISP is not directly peered with Netflix and uses upstream providers and those providers are trying to make content providers absorb the cost of increasing peering capacity for services that traverse their infrastructure.
One could make the argument that Tier1's should never be the choke point as they should be keeping up with the times and be proactively increasing capacity.
One could also note that it's 2021 and Cogent and Hurricane Electric are still not peered.




On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 10:47 AM Blake Hudson <blake@ispn.net> wrote:


On 10/1/2021 11:23 AM, Sean Donelan wrote:
>
>
> In the old days, postal services used to charge the recipient of a
> letter to deliver the letter. Then stamps were invented, and postal
> services charged the sender of the letter, and the recipent got free
> delivery.
>
> Now there is free-shipping, and pre-paid return envelopes for DVDs.
>
> Of course, the shipping isn't really "Free."  Its built into the cost
> of goods sold.
>
> There is no universal, fixed, unchangable way of allocating business
> costs.
>

True. But when the sender has already paid the stamp to their courier to
deliver the bits on their leg of the journey, and the recipient has
already paid a stamp to deliver the bits on their leg of the journey,
what case does the recipient's courier have to demand additional payment
from the sender (lest the package get lost)? The stamp has already been
paid. TWICE! Withholding service until additional payments are made just
smells like extortion.