If it violates their contract, doesn't a soft fail violate it also? Or will violate, whenever the rate of dropped packets goes above a given threshold. I view the hard fail as just speeding up the interconnect failure, with the positive effect of prompting action from the last mile ISP.
Whenever their performance drops towards part of the internet, their value proposition gets lower. You can view the value chain as
Both Comcast and Level 3 have customers, in opposite ends of the currently centralized internet. The status quo is that each provider charges to the customers on their end. Comcast (and each of the other non-net-neutral ISPs) are eyeing the revenue stream on the other end of the pipeline. This revenue stream has historically not been owned by the last-mile ISP.
Level 3 and equivalents, by cutting off non-performant interconnects will hurt their own customers, of course. However, they are just speeding up the same effect being applied softly over time, by Comcast and equivalents. A softly failing interconnect moves revenue over to last mile ISPs, thus permanently lowering Level 3's value proposition. By failing the interconnect sharply, instead of softly, they actually improve the steady state of the system, in general (good side effect), and in particular (the real objective).
I don't understand what's so hard about "You can roll with us as long as you treat our rented infrastructure with respect." That sort of agreement exists in many industries. I get kicked out of my apartment if I trash it, even though I paid for it. I don't ask my landlord to split the costs of an upgrade to hardwood floors because I fucked up the linoleum (because "I ended up with more pets than I expected" or something), much less pay for it himself. I pay for it or I'm booted. If he did anything else, such as let destructive renters stay on his property or paid for their damage they were responsible for, what would be the point of renting the property? That's a terrible business model. Same thing here... Comcast is damaging Level3's customer relationships on purpose and refusing to pay reasonable level-of-service costs to rectify the problem and should be thrown off the network.
Whenever their performance drops towards part of the internet, their value proposition gets lower. You can view the value chain as
Both Comcast and Level 3 have customers, in opposite ends of the currently centralized internet. The status quo is that each provider charges to the customers on their end. Comcast (and each of the other non-net-neutral ISPs) are eyeing the revenue stream on the other end of the pipeline. This revenue stream has historically not been owned by the last-mile ISP.Level 3 and equivalents, by cutting off non-performant interconnects will hurt their own customers, of course. However, they are just speeding up the same effect being applied softly over time, by Comcast and equivalents. A softly failing interconnect moves revenue over to last mile ISPs, thus permanently lowering Level 3's value proposition. By failing the interconnect sharply, instead of softly, they actually improve the steady state of the system, in general (good side effect), and in particular (the real objective).