$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
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.