The article does a decent job of introducing the concepts of peering and transit. However, it's pretty long winded and goes through a number of tortured justifications. Here's a much simpler explanation:
Sure, but what I am trying to figure out, as a relative layperson on this topic, is this: Is either party making some outrageous and unprecedented demand that will bring about the end of the internet as we know it? Or is this just business as usual?
It's not business as usual, which is why it's a big deal. Comcast is trying to do something new. They used to get a cut of revenue from Netflix traffic because it was on Akamai, who pay to sit in Comcast's datacenters. Now that traffic is going to come from a peer. It's the same traffic, but Comcast isn't getting the revenue, and they're pissed.
That may be the case, but if the peer made a contractual agreement that limited the peering to symmetrical traffic, then Comcast should be free to renegotiate or straight up sever the peering under the terms of any contractual agreements....if this is what is allowed by what's on the contract. While people can hem and haw about the moral and ethical implications, it seems like this is something that is likely spelled out on paper somewhere. It seems like one or both organizations is fanning the flames in the media to rile up end users.
There's no technical evidence (you can check, quite easily, who's peering with who and if there's a cost associated) that L3 and Comcast are using a purely-symmetric SFP agreement. It's quite likely they aren't (consumer ISPs would never upload enough to large providers to get a symmetric agreement worth their while.)
Comcast is charging Level 3 because they can.