said by cornelius785 :

uh, as far as i know, nearly all residential internet connections do NOT pay for upstream bandwidth use.

said by patcat88 :

Cheap ass mofos.

Passing on their upstream bandwidth bill to consumers. I hope this is ad free if you pay for it with your upstream.

Fortunately, the Octoshape program isn't hard to find or remove:

* Step 1. To find out whether the Octoshape app is running, you can use Windows' built-in Task Manager. (Right-click a blank space on the Task Bar, and then click Task Manager.)

As Susan Bradley shows in a blog post, when you're viewing a live stream from CNN.com, you'll see in Task Manager a service called octoshape.exe. (In the illustration on her blog, instances of the service are shown to be consuming 63MB of RAM, but a lot of this memory may be taken up by the Flash Player itself.)

* Step 2. To remove Octoshape's app, you can use the Control Panel in either Windows XP or Vista. In XP, the applet is called Add or Remove Programs. In Vista, it's Programs and Features. The "Octoshape add-in for Adobe Flash Player" is the name of the program to uninstall.

Strangely, there isn't an uninstaller for the Mac version of the app. You have to manually delete the Octoshape folder.

said by cornelius785 :

what is so wrong with P2P for mass video distribution?

said by Transmaster :

Oh I see now the Communist News Network is doing what amounts to mooching bandwidth. Sorry not from me.

said by Angrychair :

So upstream transfers don't count in all of the caps that have been popping up recently? Good to know.

said by patcat88 :

Cheap ass mofos.

Passing on their upstream bandwidth bill to consumers. I hope this is ad free if you pay for it with your upstream. All of this would be fixed if there wasn't a conspiracy among ISPs to not allow multicast across their backbones, since then you wouldn't need to pay for such large links. All "upstream" problems would be solved if ISPs supported explicit multicast (list all the IPs to forward the packet to in the IP header, no IGMP needed). P2P's bandwidth toll would also exponentially go down (and duplication speed will skyrocket).

said by insomniac84 :

...The telcos and cable companies are already stealing your upload to sell for other things(all bandwdith comes symmetric, getting less means they are using the difference between the download and the upload for other things to make money).

said by RARPSL :

With IPv4, BTW, each MC session stream between the server and the user is separate so there is no bandwidth savings.

said by »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_Multicast :

* Multicast: A multicast address is associated with a group of interested receivers. According to RFC 3171, addresses 224.0.0.0 to 239.255.255.255 are designated as multicast addresses. This range was formerly called "Class D." The sender sends a single datagram (from the sender's unicast address) to the multicast address, and the intermediary routers take care of making copies and sending them to all receivers that have registered their interest in data from that sender.

With IPv6, there is ONE stream between the server and ALL the users on that node (the modem is set to listen not only to its own private unicast address [as it currently does with IPv4] but also to the IPN address allocated to that MC stream).