I mean if Netflix is paying Comcast $2k/month to fix the issue that's stupid but not very bad. If it's $2m/month that's a huge problem.
Net Neutrality would be a good step. Common carrier status would be better.
The "flood" is actually your paying customers who thought that you were telling the truth when you promised them X/Y internet service. They are trying to utilize the service they have paid for and you are preventing them from doing so.
To not provide them with the service that was promised could be construed as fraud informally if not legally. I'm sure there is plenty of language in an ISPs retail contract that says that customers can fuck right off for any and all reasons and no matter what the ISP is not at fault. But while it might be legal it's definitely dishonest.
I don't want to spite Netflix at all, I just don't want my network flooded.
(I probably also shouldn't have promised folks I could deliver all of these packets, either, but that's another issue)
You have different incentives than people trying to protect their transactional VOD content businesses.
The issue is that the last-mile ISPs have hardware that gets overloaded by the responses to the requests their clients are making, e.g. Bob sends out 10 packets to Cogent, and Cogent sends 10 million packets in response.
The last-mile ISP isn't prepared to deal with those 10 million packets all at once.
http://www.comcast.com/internet-service.html
If they advertise they can provide the service then they should be held accountable.
If they say they can't provide the service, then they should not be allowed to advertise that they can.
This is quite literally a "have a cake and eat it too" type of situation.
How is NetFlix any different? They make the choice to lower the cost to deliver their service by choosing a CDN with inadequate existing peering relationships with ISPs. They also severely limit client side functionality because it makes their service cheaper/easier to support on a wide range of devices. NetFlix collects this data about ISP performance so why don't they say 'oh hey sorry ISP X user. We can't let you sign up because you'll have poor performance!' -- instead they happily take the money.
Netflix has Internet Connection Speed Recommendations (https://help.netflix.com/en/node/306). ISPs offer service plans that cost more for higher maximum speeds. Is it Netflix's responsibility to ensure particular subscribers receive particular qualities of content, without regard for the contents' source qualities, the subscriber's bandwidth, the policies of their ISP, or any other range of factors in the last mile? Netflix is offering content, not quality. It doesn't sell differently priced subscriptions based on "maximum video quality", it offers a range of bitrates at a flat rate and sends the one that allows the best experience for your bandwidth.
Although, that's sort of the issue, isn't it? It's not "your" bandwidth that determines that now. It's not the plan you're paying your ISP for that's the limiting factor, it's the ISPs particular traffic shaping policies. Netflix isn't slowing its traffic down or decreasing video quality prejudicially based on your ISP or internet plan. It's the opposite, but they're being asked to pay, rightfully or not, so that some of their subscribers won't have their bandwidth throttled by their own ISPs.
I think ISP should sell "25 Mbps" connection and "Up to 25 Mbps" connection, priced differently. Then customers will (I predict) choose "Up to 25 Mbps" connection.
Because the interconnection between your transit provider and Comcast is frequently saturated and Comcast is not going to fix it since they would prefer to be paid.