BitTorrent Trend Suggests ISPs Need to Improve NetworksThe ultimate alternative to BitTorrent throttling ( old news - 03:11PM Saturday Feb 02 2008) tags: Fileswapping · business · alternativesAn article over at TorrentFreak this week took a look at the alternatives that ISPs can consider to deal with their “BitTorrent problem”. The article cites a number of different suggestions that would be more customer-friendly than the currently popular ISP practice of throttling. However, the ultimate suggestion is that ISPs need to get used to the idea that BitTorrents are the future and must upgrade their networks accordingly. “The Internet is only a few years old, if the plan is to keep using it in the future, ISPs need to upgrade their networks. So, invest in more Internet gateway capacity, 10Gbps interconnect ports, and peering agreements. BitTorrent users are not the problem, they only signal that the ISPs need to upgrade their capacity, because customers will only get more demanding in the future. The Internet is not only about sending email, and browsing on text based websites anymore.” There are pros and cons to all of the alternatives to BitTorrent throttling. However, even the negative ones seem to be more acceptable to most BitTorrent users than the current practices that are in place.
Related:- 40% Paid For Radiohead Album
- Rapper 50 Cent Announces Support of File-Sharing
- Downloaders Will Donate Generously For Content
- America vs. Sweden in the File-Sharing Debate
- BitTorrent Developers Working on Ways to Get Around Sandvine
- Myka: BitTorrent Set Top Box
- Rhever Offers Legal (But Questionable) Alternative to BitTorrent
- Rhapsody Ditches the DRM
|
 Markus
join:2005-05-27
Middlesboro, KY
| The Way the Internet Should Be Ideally, the internet and how we access it should work much like television does now. You hop on your PC—or whatever internet-enabled device you happen to be using—and you use it however you see fit, as much as you want, without having to worry about things like getting throttled.
That's ideally, however. I suspect it will be quite a long time before all the relevant technologies advance to the point where the internet truly becomes just another appliance that's no more hassle and requires no more thought to use than your microwave. | |
|  | | | | 
JamesPC
join:2005-10-12
Orange, CA
| Re: The Way the Internet Should Be said by supergirl  :They do need to upgrade their networks. Video is demanding it. Blocking traffic might block legitimate traffic then someone could sue. I see that coming. Charging websites is ridiculous since bandwidth is already paid. Google doesn't use much bandwidth anyway. YouTube does but not Google search--cleanest search on the Net compared to Yahoo's bloated website. Hope Microsoft makes Yahoo peeps richer--other than an OS for desktops, what do I need M$ for? And, Vista can be shoved right up Ballmer's a@@. I'd rather have Windows 95 that Vista. Only ME was worse. Linux servers are the best anyway. If VZ can spend billions on FIOS, everyone else can upgrade their networks. Wonder when AT&T's UVerse is called a failure what their shareholders will say? Fire the management. Cox has caps but I violate them every month by double and never hear a word. Why? They built a big network here. However, they can cut you off for Kazaa and Bittorent illegal downloads and uploads however (called "misusing the network"). Your comments always get a laugh out of me. LOL, esp. the part about someone suing for throttled internet. And if Verizon wants to spend billions in the RED they can, but why should other companies go bankrupt. I think u have some good points but i dout u actally run a Linux server for a living. I run both MS and Linux servers (12 all together). They both work great for there respected duties. So, to just say Linux is better, makes you seem ignorant. Yes Linux servers are better at certain things but not all.
P.S. The ISP's upgrade networks on the majority need. Although i think Verizon is doing a good thing for the consumer. The company will be in the RED for a long time. | |
| | | | | 
gatorkram
Spelling and Grammer impared
Premium
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC
clubs:
 ·Suddenlink
 ·Cirtex Hosting
edit:
February 2nd, @05:07PM
| Re: The Way the Internet Should Be I think you took the TV comment way out of context.
I think the point was, when you turn on your TV, and you watch it all day, non-stop, you never get the idea in your head, that you are somehow abusing the TV system.
Something I think the internet as a whole needs, is more friendly relationships between providers, and many more peering points, and relationships. It's pretty crazy, when I have two ISPs in my house, and when I wish to send data across one gateway to the other, that it has to travel so far and back again, to get to the other. It seems odd to me, we don't have a lot more peering points, that would enable a much more local exchange, such as in my example.
edit: typo
--
Give me bandwidth or give me death!
»/testhistory/661871/4f240 | |
| | | | TheMG
join:2007-09-04
Edmonton, AB
 ·TekSavvy Solutions..
·800Hosting.com
·Dreamhost
·TELUS
·Shaw
| Re: The Way the Internet Should Be said by gatorkram :I think they point was, when you turn on your TV, and you watch it all day, non-stop, you never get the idea in your head, that you are somehow abusing the TV system. But the TV and the internet are very different in that regard too. With TV, you can have as many people watching simultaneously as you can connect to the network.
In the cable TV example, you can simply connect more people by the use of signal repeaters and splitters. The load on equipment is the same regardless of how many people are watching, every single TV set in a city can be turned on and tuned in without any effect on the load and the quality of service.
With the internet it's totally different. The more people you have using it the more the load increases on every piece of equipment upstream from the users. If everyone started using their full 5-10mbps 24/7, all hell would break loose. | |
| | | | |
gatorkram
Spelling and Grammer impared
Premium
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC
clubs:
·Suddenlink
·Cirtex Hosting
| Re: The Way the Internet Should Be You are missing the point... You read the words, but you decide what meaning come out of them.
My point would be, using your TV, or the internet, shouldn't lead one to feel as though they are somehow abusing the system, because they enjoy it one way or another.
Just because the systems don't work the same, to the end user, they are no different, and frankly, no one should have to worry about how much, or how little they use them.
After all, both systems are more or less sold in the same manner, TV could just as easily have small text some place, telling you not to watch more than X hours a week, just like some internet service providers hide usage limits in small text.
Sooner or later, the average users will catch up with the heavy users, in what they expect for their dollars.
--
Give me bandwidth or give me death!
»/testhistory/661871/4f240 | |
| | | | | | 
DownTheShore
Doing A Happy Dance
Premium
join:2003-12-02
Edison, NJ
clubs:
| Re: The Way the Internet Should Be I got your point, gatorkram. We should view them both as an appliance, to be turned on and used at will. They are just "there" to be used - not to worry about how much we are using them, or what we are using them for. The only concern should be ease of use and ready access - not content monitoring, throttling, or whatever.
Expand the networks to meet the need, instead of trying regulate usage to save capital expenditure. Those companies who can't or won't should be subsumed by those who have the foresight to see what future needs will be. Computer usage should be ubiquitous, not worrisome.
--
Life is simply one damned thing after another. | |
| | | | | karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
Nashua, NH
·Fairpoint Communic..
| Yes, the internet IS different. Didn't you read the article about the increased SPEEDS they keep offering. The solution, however, is VERY SIMPLE. Don't SELL what you can't provide. If they are only CAPABLE of serving 1Mb/sec, then SELL 1mb/sec. If 100% of their users are using 1Mb/sec, and they have the ability to PROVIDE 1Mb/sec, then there is no problem. However, if they SELL 10mb/sec, and they can only PROVIDE 1mb/sec, then, of course, EVERYONE is unhappy.
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity! | |
| | | | | 
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| said by TheMG :With the internet it's totally different. The more people you have using it the more the load increases on every piece of equipment upstream from the users. If everyone started using their full 5-10mbps 24/7, all hell would break loose. That depends on what they are doing. Multi-Cast streaming (at least IPv6 Multi-Cast) does not put the load that other uses do since it is more of a Broadcast process with only one stream flowing over the subnetwork no matter how many people are receiving it (IPv4 DOES have separate streams per user so it acts more like normal usage). | |
| | | | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| Re: The Way the Internet Should Be Multicast would solve all ALOT of P2P traffic. Problem is, the IANA has turned Multicast into a impossibly expensive to reach system, and its unscalable, since it has a concept of "groups" which have to be registered on all the routers on the internet, and then torn down, eating router performance like crazy. Also you need a special IP to "send" your packets to, that special IP represents all the IPs that want to receive your packet. Next almost all domestic ISP's routers can not see multicast and don't forward them.
Solution, although its not pretty, is »tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5058 Explicit Multicast, where the destination of the packet are in the packet. Zero state information needed by routers, they just send the packet out on 2/3/4/etc different ports when they see it. Then there is the 1500 byte packet limit. If the routers don't strip "unneeded" IPs from the packet, the last mile will be less efficient (the packet you get contains many other IPs), but through the internet core it would be much more efficient, since the data only travels only once through any router anywhere. There is a point where a group makes sense because of the insane overhead if you stuff a packet entirly with destination IPs and and only a couple bytes of data. For example, I cooked up this formula that says how many MB someone will have to download
((([file size]/(1500-16-(4*[IPs that receive this packet])))-([file size]/(1500-20)))*1500)/(1024*1024)
A UDP+IP4 header is 20bytes (includes 1 destination IP), for Explicit Multicast, I assume each additional IP eats up 4 bytes of 1500 of each packet (the world runs off ethernet doesn't it?), im ignoring any bytes/bits for number # of IPs included in the header, but 2 bytes is all you need to give you an unrealistic 65000 IPs in the header.
Also I'm ignoring any header gains through IP header compression, but I don't feel like reading how that works, and thats best case scenario.
But with our formula, with a 700MB CD, and 10 users, each user will get a low 16 MB of overhead. (blame google calc for spaces)
(((700 000 000 / (1 500 - 16 - (4 * 10))) - (700 000 000 / (1 500 - 20))) * 1 500) / (1 024 * 1 024) = 16.8679761
but with 190 users we will double our overhead (706MB overhead), actually, have more overhead than file.
(((700 000 000 / (1 500 - 16 - (4 * 190))) - (700 000 000 / (1 500 - 20))) * 1 500) / (1 024 * 1 024) = 706.49794
and at the extreme maximum of 371 destination IPs, we have a jaw dropping 249 GB of overhead
(((700 000 000 / (1 500 - 16 - (4 * 370))) - (700 000 000 / (1 500 - 20))) * 1 500) / (1 024 * 1 024) = 249 662.915
Remember, for a uploader, this will take a month/months to upload this even though in theory you are saving SOME bandwidth.
700 * 371 = 259,700MB conventional way
700 MB to 371 users through Explicit Multicast= 250,239MB
((700 000 000 / (1 500 - 16 - (4 * 370))) * 1 500) / (1 024 * 1 024) = 250 339.508
Im not particularly a math wizz, plus I don't have my wonderful TI-89 on me right now. Now at such a high (370) destination IPs, it becomes nearly useless to do explicit multicasting, with traditional group multicasting we wouldn't have any of these problems, since you only need to send to "1" IP, and the internet will magically route it to everyone "behind" that 1 IP. But the current internet's multicasting is broke and unusable by masses. The insane overhead might be more practical with smaller groups, since there will have to be somewhere a cutoff between putting destination IPs in the headers and doing group multicasting. 190 destination IPS doesn't look bad.
((700 000 000 / (1 500 - 16 - (4 * 190))) * 1 500) / (1 024 * 1 024) = 1 383.0912 MB
1400MB to send 700MB to 190 people. Not bad at all when unicasting it would be 133000MB (190*700).
Also there would have to still be a TCP channel/traditional p2p to clean up/patch up after all the lost packets, so this would just make bittorrent extremely fast, since a 1 uploader can feed 200 users from only 2x more upload. Another problem would be, if the uploader is uploading faster than the peers can download the multicast stream, meaning alot of packets would be missing, to whatever % your download is slower than the uploader's upload speed. But then again, most broadband connections are asymmetrical, so there wouldn't be a problem usually. Even then, other peers can look at their view of the swarm, and the rarest pieces can be multicasted up, and then the peers play patching duty (TCP unicast chunk transfers).
Also jumbo ethernet frames might help since we wont be limited to 1500 byte packets. But, as I type this I realise, any network core changes, such as group multicast, and explicit multicast, and Jumbo Frames, chance of those ever being repaired, ZERO. You can hope for something better in IP6, since that will be a generational upgrade, but think of all the routers and IP equipment there already, upgrading will be impossible, period.
In the end, for bittorent, multicasting would decrease traffic, but it can't fix all the problems, ISP caching would be much easier to implement, or just have mega ISP servers act as peers, and firehouse each torrent with uploading, so no peer ever needs to upload again, but then again, what about the downloading strain?
So yeah, the only solution is, upgrade or die. And die is what American ISPs decided (except for Verizon). Throttle, cap, terminate, never upgrade. | |
| | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY | You are abusing TV the more you watch it. The more TV you watch, the less each ad impression is valued. We need to goto congress and demand laws to stop the ransacking and piracy of the value of ad impressions. | |
| | ftth_freak
join:2005-06-17
Ballwin, MO
| Well just how uch would you be willing to pay for unlimited bandwidth usage?
I own a small cable system and prvide cable modem service to about 1000 homes. When I see any of my customers allowing their comp to be an uplaod server I just shut thier modem OFF. When they call in I tell them if they continue to do they can go somewhere else for hi-speed service.
Like the big boys, It's my network, I pay for the bandwidth, I am responsible to make sure everyone gets the service they subscribe to, not just a few folks who like to steal music and video. Ultimatley, BIT TORRENT and other p2p services should pay me to allow thier my customers to turn their computers into a server. I'll have more to say later. | |
| | | 
Boogeyman
Drive it like you stole it
Premium
join:2002-12-17
Huntsville, AL
·Comcast
edit:
February 2nd, @10:46PM
| Re: The Way the Internet Should Be I hope you have that stated in your TOS, otherwise any user you disconnected could sue you.
EDIT- Also, bittorrent is a PROTOCOL, do you think whoever invented TCP/IP should pay you because of all of the massive amounts of TCP traffic over your network? | |
| | | | 
Cthen
join:2004-08-01
Ypsilanti, MI
·Comcast
| Re: The Way the Internet Should Be Well have to remember here that this is BBR. That poster is only claiming they own a cable network. Which I find a really odd thing to claim with a user name that starts with FTTH lol.
But hey, I guess coming here with no credentials I can say that I own Comcast and Verizon. I just put em against each other just to see what fun turns up.  | |
| | | | | ftth_freak
join:2005-06-17
Ballwin, MO | Re: The Way the Internet Should Be I am going to build out the rest of my cable plant with FTTH, because it's clearly the best solution for bandwidth delivery to the home. I will still own the netowrk and manage it the way I see fit. | |
| | | | ftth_freak
join:2005-06-17
Ballwin, MO | Thats a typical liberal reply..."I'll sue you" | |
| | | | | 
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: The Way the Internet Should Be said by ftth_freak :Thats a typical liberal reply..."I'll sue you" Typical right-wing response...
Like I said, just do your customers a favor, loosen up or go out of business. | |
| | |
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| You should get out of the business. Customers should be allowed to run servers, it is what empowers the internet. It may be your network, and you may be paying for bandwidth, but customers are paying you for service, which you seem to want to not have to provide.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
| | 
shudder
@uiuc.edu
| I really hope you realize that the Internet should never be anything like television. Television is a passive one way communication device. It funnels crap down to the end users, with very little interaction. Part of the reason the Internet is popular is that is is a TWO WAY communication channel. You can put whatever you want online, relatively easily. The power of the Internet is on the edges, on our PC's. Not being streamed down from one central control station.
I pray the Internet NEVER turns into television. | |
| 
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
·Comcast
| The Internet is only a few years old ?? Want to know what the problem is with some of these comments over at TorrentFreak?
The ones making them must be about 15 yrs old.
This statement shows how little they really understand the internet:
The Internet is only a few years old
And how little they understand its origins; its development; and why it is the way it is now. And why the BitTorrent protocol with its ridiculous number of connections causes a problem.
P.S.> the internet has been widely available to academics since about 1974 and to the general public since 1984. The conversion to a widely available web browser based internet approx 1993.
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of···Internet
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page | |
| | | | | 
rcdailey
Dragoonfly
Premium
join:2005-03-29
Rialto, CA | Re: The Internet is only a few years old ?? CompuServe and GEnie were around before AOL. Before those, there were academic networks that were supported by federal funds (via the DoD). | |
| | 
Nightshade
sic semper tyrannis
Premium
join:2002-05-26
Salem, OR
edit:
February 2nd, @06:47PM
| And yet you ignore the rest of the article to attack them because they said ONE thing that wasn't true. The article even made suggestions (#6) that you like and the rest of them, well expect for the first one, are feasible and could both benefit the Torrent community and the ISPs.
But with people like you who have no shame and tunnel vision about how the torrent network is nothing more than people sharing bootleg files and breaking copyright law, again another lie that you seem to cling to, makes you just as immoral as the thieves who break copyright law.
I will be honest TCH, there are some things that you and I will not agree with but I always respected your posts as very intelligent, through, and thoughtful. But what you did there really was disappointing. | |
| | 
John Galt
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Oceanside, OR
| said by TK Junk Mail :And why the BitTorrent protocol with its ridiculous number of connections causes a problem. There you have it...
--
A is A | |
| | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY | Re: The Internet is only a few years old ?? Thats client design, a BT client could upload to 2-3 peers very quickly, when the block is done, disconnect, and connect to the next peer on its list from the tracker. | |
| | bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Covington, LA | I haven't read the article yet, would it be fair to say that it boils down to them saying that access providers need to spend more cash without passing the costs along to them? | |
| | |
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: The Internet is only a few years old ?? said by bogey780 :I haven't read the article yet, would it be fair to say that it boils down to them saying that access providers need to spend more cash without passing the costs along to them? No they aren't saying that. Here is what they say:
ISPs need to upgrade their networks. So, invest in more Internet gateway capacity, 10Gbps interconnect ports, and peering agreements. BitTorrent users are not the problem, they only signal that the ISPs need to upgrade their capacity, because customers will only get more demanding in the future.
5.) Build out networks to handle the increased load and pass the cost onto the consumer.
The upside: It works.
The downside: It’s most likely not economically sustainable. Without some other form of mitigation, the public’s appetite for content appears insatiable. Basically they want the ISPs to build out the system to meet their heavy demands. They say the ISP can pass on the costs, but they also say that isn't feasible.
So they admit their suggested idea just won't work.
So, they want what they want, and they don't care if their idea is feasible or not.
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page | |
| K Patterson
Premium,MVM
join:2006-03-12
Columbus, OH
·RoadRunner Cable
| Do we need torrent bandwidth?? Support BitTorrents?
Yes, the RIAA is an unethical bunch of jerks.
Yes, the record labels have not figured out how to market their wares in today's market and don't really seem to be trying to improve their marketplace.
Be that as it may, the vast majority of torrent traffic is downloads of copyrighted material. It is only a matter of time until the laws and enforcement techniques get worked out and that traffic goes away, because it is illegal regardless of any attempts to make it socially acceptable by condemning the record companies and RIAA. | |
| | | | | 
IPingUPing
N4BFR
Premium
join:2002-08-30
Smyrna, GA
clubs:
| Re: Do we need torrent bandwidth?? Is it the ISP's fault that Bit Torrent (or some of the game sites) built their business models on other people's bandwidth? Buy a pipe, build a data center or go to someone like Akamai. Client / Server is a much more efficient distribution method than P2P. | |
| | | |
See 9 replies to this post | |
| patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| said by K Patterson :Be that as it may, the vast majority of torrent traffic is downloads of copyrighted material. It is only a matter of time until the laws and enforcement techniques get worked out and that traffic goes away, because it is illegal regardless of any attempts to make it socially acceptable by condemning the record companies and RIAA. So when all illegal traffic will go away? What will people do? Buy legal traffic? If they do, won't your networks be filled again downloading? Or you plan to ask the legal sellers to price things so high as to throttle purcheasing? Someone want the $30 CD with 2 good tracks and 10 fillers back? AllOfMP3 and Itunes has shown people buy more when its cheaper. Solution is to inflate prices to decrease network load. Supply and demand. You want that future?
ISPs are heading down the road of pay per byte or GB caps, every month terminate the top 1% of users until you have nothing but senior citizens on the internet. | |
| | | K Patterson
Premium,MVM
join:2006-03-12
Columbus, OH
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Do we need torrent bandwidth?? said by patcat88 :So when all illegal traffic will go away? What will people do? Buy legal traffic? If they do, won't your networks be filled again downloading? Or you plan to ask the legal sellers to price things so high as to throttle purcheasing? Someone want the $30 CD with 2 good tracks and 10 fillers back? AllOfMP3 and Itunes has shown people buy more when its cheaper. Solution is to inflate prices to decrease network load. Supply and demand. You want that future? ISPs are heading down the road of pay per byte or GB caps, every month terminate the top 1% of users until you have nothing but senior citizens on the internet. No, I sure don't.
My thinking is that much of the demand comes from the price - free. If folks had to pay for the music, or pay for the bandwidth used (not a cap, but a per GB charge) then the demand would be reduced. If the pricing for bandwidth is correct, that is, market driven, then it will become the classic supply and demand issue.
What if we were to treat Internet bandwidth like electricity or gas? The ISP provides the pipe to the peering points, the Tier 1's compete for the inter-ISP traffic. | |
| | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| Re: Do we need torrent bandwidth?? said by K Patterson :What if we were to treat Internet bandwidth like electricity or gas? The ISP provides the pipe to the peering points, the Tier 1's compete for the inter-ISP traffic. Gas and electricity, bad. 1 monopoly pipe, but a fake Beancounter/Enron "economy". Nothing like paying 18 cents a kwh for delivery and 4 cents for the electricty, and all the electricity provider's rates are +/-1.5 cents. There is no competition, all your money still goes to the monopoly for the pipe, what you send through it is nothing compared to the cost of the pipe. Gas im sure is the same.
You need the pipes to compete, and the backbones compete. Rules should force backbones to offer the same rates regardless of pipe, and all backbones must be available on all pipes to prevent exclusivity agreements between backbones and pipes. On "shared" last mile pipes, the pipe operators will have to be transparent to the backbones and/or customers about shared pipe saturation/oversubscribtion, with transparent probably meaning bandwidth graphs of some sort, or "yes/no" question answers, otherwise it will be impossible to blame a pipe or backbone for a problem. IPs will belong to backbones. And all pipes will be routed (most likly over ATM) to a backbone POP/datacenter, or backbones collocate in cable headends/Central offices/cell NOCs or towers. This is a revolutionary way of regulating broadband BTW. | |
| | | | nanoflower
join:2002-07-14
30876
| Except that from all that I've read bandwidth has become much cheaper on the long distance hauls. So the problem doesn't see m to be as bad as the cable companies are painting. Plus they always have the option of throttling users that are abusing their bandwidth. That's a solution that lets people use any P2P client or other app they want without having to worry about if it will work or not, or how much it will cost them. If they above the usage they are allowed per month then they get throttled back to something much less, perhaps on the order 768/128Kb. That's a value that's low enough it shouldn't hurt other users on a node even if everyone on the node is active at one time. | |
| 
XBL2009
------
join:2001-01-03
Chicago, IL | Broadband is only a few years old Maybe that's what they meant and some people still can't get it. I think the real internet won't start until we all can get 100mbps which the ISP's are doing their best to drag their feet on. | |
| | neofast
join:2004-09-13
Weston, OR
| Re: Broadband is only a few years old said by XBL2009 :Maybe that's what they meant and some people still can't get it. I think the real internet won't start until we all can get 100mbps which the ISP's are doing their best to drag their feet on. Who would be so stupid as to invest $1000-4000 per customer to support unlimited bandwidth, and then try to pay for it at $35/customer?
You? | |
| | |
XBL2009
------
join:2001-01-03
Chicago, IL
·AT&T Midwest
edit:
February 3rd, @10:29PM
| Re: Broadband is only a few years old said by neofast :said by XBL2009 :Maybe that's what they meant and some people still can't get it. I think the real internet won't start until we all can get 100mbps which the ISP's are doing their best to drag their feet on. Who would be so stupid as to invest $1000-4000 per customer to support unlimited bandwidth, and then try to pay for it at $35/customer? You? The Last mile would cost about $100 billion to build but would likely last for decades. Copper has been used for 100 years. It would cost about $100 billion to do and would be paid for by the Federal Government and the 50 states.
Going by your numbers of $35 x 12 x 30 = $12,600 - $4000 = $8600.
So the Fed could even see a profit. | |
| 
MikeG
Premium
join:2004-10-02
Hamilton, ON
·Mountain Cable
·Bell Sympatico
edit:
February 2nd, @04:19PM
| Bit Torrent BT is the modern way of taping a song on the radio, or setting your VCR to record your favourite TV show or movie. The only difference is that one person has the ability to do it, and share it with everyone(those in the scene), instead of everyone buying a blank tape and recording it themselves.
There will always be bootlegging, its just a matter of when and how. If they kill BT, another way will be developed, not to mention there are already alternatives to BT.
ISPs were just caught off guard when BT happened, but now its just an excuse to hold off on upgrading capacity, and saving money, at least for the larger providers.
Another reason i think some ISPs have throttled BT is b/c they know that most of the BT usage is illegal, and believe that the copyright organizations will stop it.
But then there is the other side, legal uses for bit torrent. There are many possible ways to distribute movies, music, and TV shows legally by using Bit Torrent. There was even that indy music group that released demos of their songs on BT, and another band that gave users the option of downloading their album for free, or paying whatever they wanted for it. Sooner or later i think they will embrace it.
--
Success is measured by effort.
Discover Hamilton | |
| | 
Snakeoil
Prehende uxorem meam, sis
Premium
join:2000-08-05
Mentor, OH
| Re: Bit Torrent The one thing always springs to mind when I see a thread about the BT and its legal issues.
Is that before the internet became what it is, and BT was around, we used to have sneaker net. Make a copy, and hand it out to peeps.
Sure it was slower then the 'net, but it was harder to track as well.
So they make BT go away, that will only hurt the small fry that can't afford bandwidth to distribute his product.
--
Say no to the IRS.. Yes to the Fair Tax! This beer is for: 464th bat. 98th div. Combat engineers. Hillside Ave schenectady NY. | |
| garmst
join:2000-09-17
New York, NY
| Bittorent is unqurenchable It sounds nice to say that the ISP should expand their networks, of course it is easy to spend someone else's money.
The problem is that Bittorent will take advantage of all available bandwidth. It collectively will grab as many peers as it can and transfer data as fast as it can.
Essentially no one can economically have any amount of bandwidth to quench BT's thirst.
Now, if you can convince the transit and peering providers, the local loop providers and the facilities providers to do it for nothing then you have a business model! | |
| | bogey780
join:2004-03-19
Covington, LA | Re: Bittorent is unqurenchable That's pretty much it. | |
| 
ftthz
If love can kill hate can also save
join:2005-10-17 | BitTorrent The move you give it the more it will take. | |
| | | | | Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | Re: BitTorrent I think there must be some truth in that second comment. A lot of isps are getting rid of their slower speeds. Charter's slowest speed (in most markets) is 5meg and just a couple of years ago they still had 1.5 in many markets. | |
|
ISP_Owner
@jillyred.net
 from:
TK Junk Mail
| 10GE NOT ENOUGH “So, invest in more Internet gateway capacity, 10Gbps interconnect ports, and peering agreements."
First off .. 10GE is not nearly enough. It just goes to show how litte these "Torrent Freaks" understand large scale networking. And calling them interconnect ports is hilarious and just shows the lack of technical understanding. Second, have they seen what it cost per MB to fire up OC-48 and 10GE connections to "Internet gateways"? Who's going to eat that cost? I'll tell you ..the customer. Why should ISPs have to raise rates and invest hundreds of millions (yes, hundreds of millions) when simply throttling the traffic, especially during peak times, is a quick easy fix? Then they can build out their networks at a more steady pace. I wish all these BT freaks could really see what % of the Internet's traffic is BT. It would blow thier mind. | |
| |
See 7 replies to this post | |
ztmike
Premium
join:2001-08-02
·Comcast
·AT&T Midwest
| Raking in the green. And yet Comcast is raking in the money making headlines on DSLR about it, so where is all that money going? The higher ups, is where its going..and straight into their pockets..anyone remember the article here that stated how much these fuckers got in their checks for the year?..yea..
--
"I am the worst president in U.S history, I'm either stupid or dumb most of the time, but people still believe me." George W. Bush | |
| ftth_freak
join:2005-06-17
Ballwin, MO
| P2P's Should Pay Me |
|
|
|
·
·