Honest question here... Ok, I no expert on all the specifics in play here, but I do have an honest question.
My understanding, based in part on what I found a few years ago while looking at some interconnection costs and policies (and therefore may be a bit dated)..... Aren't paid peering relationship costs usually based to some degree on the amount of traffic and/or bandwidth?
So could Comcast's desire to not upgrade their Paid Transit TATA links be based more on the desire to control their costs rather than to try and "force settlement free peering" from other providers?
I mean, sure, a tightened bottleneck may result in people coming to the table to talk about a direct interconnection of some sort (either paid to/from or settlement free), but from a cost control standpoint I could see if you are paying a 3rd party to deliver traffic to/from different networks, you would be paying more than if you were paying the actual network directly.
Without knowing all the details of the agreements and interconnections in place, i'm just wondering if this could be the case. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
(Trying to figure out if there is actual shadiness at play, or if things are just sounding shady because of the strong anti-Comcast/Time Warner/Verizon/AT&T/QWEST feelings many people have here.)