They are huge companies so they can probably also provide transit service but that's not the case in this dispute. Netflix is willing to deliver the content anywhere Verizon/Comcast/etc require it either directly or by hiring a transit provider. So Netflix doesn't want transit service from these ISPs, it's already paying or building that by itself. The user is also already paying for the ISP network to work, so all segments of the network are already properly paid for once, no need to pay again.
Should anyone be able to connect to an ISP for free? Why can't I host my website for free, just paying an upfront cost for a server, and get it hosted in an ISP's facility?
Is there a relevant difference between that and what Netflix wanted?
> Should anyone be able to connect to an ISP for free?
Yes if they are willing to interconnect with that ISP at every exchange point. In practice that's expensive and what transit providers are for. Here's my proposal for a simple set of rules that would solve all these disputes:
This doesn't allow you to host your website for free because it only adds connectivity to the users of that specific ISP, not the whole internet. For that you have to buy transit.
> How many times would they need to interconnect with a particular ISP? Once?
It's right there in the link. You'd have to interconnect with Verizon/Comcast at every one of their regional interchange points. It would become very expensive very fast for a single small website, but it would be reasonable for a transit provider or a very large content provider that already has servers everywhere (like Google). There would be no free riding, everyone would need to pay for their own way, either by directly physically connecting to the interchange points or by paying a transit provider that already does.