how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
518 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
pb2k
join:2005-05-30
Calgary, AB
kudos:1 | bit torrent is flawed Bit torrent is an application that simply does not work well with today's internet infrastructure. The internet, is still ultimately a client-server environment, and the cost of trying to properly decentralize it would be huge.
I personally really like Comcast's burst speed idea, it provides quick bursts of upstream data when you need it, and keeps bit-torrent from destroying the network. Personally, I wouldn't mind if my ISP (Shaw cable) gave me 2mbit burst upload speed (up to 45 seconds), and reduced my sustained upload to 128k (down from 1mbit).
Remember, bit torrent is still largely pirated material, so pointing out the legitimate uses for the program is a moot point. | | |
|
 Sir
@mindspring.com | Legitimate uses for Bit Torrent is NOT a moot point. Your contention would mean that every time a new use for bandwidth is invented there would be a corresponding increase in price. Instead, imagine this crazy scenerio: Data is data. Period. If I want to waste my bandwidth pinging 1 million different hosts at the same time, who cares. I paid for a 'pipe' to send data. I am going to send data. If the ISPs can't make money.... Hmmmm? Maybe charge more? | |
| reply to pb2k
said by pb2k:Bit torrent is an application that simply does not work well with today's internet infrastructure. How so? If it didn't work, we wouldn't be talking about it.
It works great in this environment IMO. It may not work if internet pricing changes. "Distributed" distribution works much better than single server distribution from a cost perspective. Same manner as distributing CPU cycles on cheap machines to solve a problem may be cheaper than buying a monster server (SETI as an example). If the cost is deemed inexpensive enough to people, they will donate CPU cycles, or in the case of BT, unused bandwidth. As power costs increase and people turn off their PCs more, donating CPU cycles are directly affected by a cost. Once financial signals are sent for bandwidth utilization, I suspect BT will become less viable, as it currently exists.
said by pb2k:The internet, is still ultimately a client-server environment, and the cost of trying to properly decentralize it would be huge. Not sure I understand this. The cost of doing anything isn't huge, it is as distributed as the internet. No 1 company bears the costs, although we seem to be heading towards a smaller number of companies through their own choice.
When was the internet centralized? Would you elaborate?
said by pb2k:I personally really like Comcast's burst speed idea, it provides quick bursts of upstream data when you need it, and keeps bit-torrent from destroying the network. Personally, I wouldn't mind if my ISP (Shaw cable) gave me 2mbit burst upload speed (up to 45 seconds), and reduced my sustained upload to 128k (down from 1mbit). Send the idea to sales and marketing. I am certain they like that type of direct information from customers (cheaper than conducting user surveys)
said by pb2k:Remember, bit torrent is still largely pirated material, so pointing out the legitimate uses for the program is a moot point. Perhaps, but I disagree. I don't see the reason for eliminating BT or *any* hosted content is relevant to discussion. The internet provides the mechanism for PEOPLE to be producers of content, whether local to their family and friends or the general public. Of course control of that content becomes an issue for mass media companies, cable companies, telephone companies, governments, etc...a whole nother discussion really.
If the model is "client-server", the internet is truly destined to be little more than a new television distribution model with more fine-tuned advertising and interactivity and more content. That's a shame. In many ways, this web-based crap is certainly prettier, but certainly less valuable in terms of people actually talking to each other and sharing ideas.
The telcos and cable companies have certainly gambled on the "internet distribution" method based on the asymmetrical models they have deployed. As more independent ISPs are absorbed, it become a self-perpetuating myth. They are both sorta "investing in the future" with going along with the flat price model at the moment. It mirrors fuel in a manner. Everyone bellyaches, but most customers will continue driving even when given a choice. The LD companies figured out the business model of "customer apathy" back in the 90s as well. Sadly, we really don't generally vote with our dollars (or local currency) until there is a real competitive environment. | |
pb2k
join:2005-05-30
Calgary, AB
kudos:1
3 edits | reply to Sir
said by Sir :
Legitimate uses for Bit Torrent is NOT a moot point. Your contention would mean that every time a new use for bandwidth is invented there would be a corresponding increase in price. You make it sound like a new instant messaging system  . We are talking tens of thousands of terabytes every day running across the internet in one of the most inefficient manners possible.
said by Sir :
Instead, imagine this crazy scenario: Data is data. Period. If I want to waste my bandwidth pinging 1 million different hosts at the same time, who cares.
I paid for a 'pipe' to send data. Your argument leaves out the fact that (continuing your example) those million hosts wouldn't be obligated to ping you back every time you pinged them.
said by Sir :
I am going to send data. If the ISPs can't make money.... Hmmmm? Maybe charge more?
You would shit a brick if your ISP sent you a bill for $500.
I won't claim that I don't use a lot of bandwidth, nor that all my activities involve legit activities, however, I understand the infrastructure available to me and download accordingly.
usenet and private FTPs FTW. | |
pb2k
join:2005-05-30
Calgary, AB
kudos:1 | reply to xsiddalx
I just picked off the major points to discuss:
said by xsiddalx:"Distributed" distribution works much better than single server distribution from a cost perspective. From your perspective, or the perspective of your ISP and every single carrier between you and the person your exchanging data with?
said by xsiddalx:Same manner as distributing CPU cycles on cheap machines to solve a problem may be cheaper than buying a monster server (SETI as an example). If the cost is deemed inexpensive enough to people, they will donate CPU cycles That has no relevance
said by xsiddalx: or in the case of BT, unused bandwidth. unused? Isn't this about ISPs refusing to upgrade their networks in order to create more bandwidth that would just be sucked up by bt instantly anyways? Initially the bandwidth was un used, but with the average joe running bt nowadays, there is a shortage in systems designed for more download than upload.
said by xsiddalx:Not sure I understand this. The cost of doing anything isn't huge, it is as distributed as the internet. No 1 company bears the costs, although we seem to be heading towards a smaller number of companies through their own choice. When was the internet centralized? Would you elaborate? They are called peering points. Take away any of the critical peering points such as New york, Chicago, Amsterdam, LA/San Francisco and London (among others) and the entire internet would slow to a crawl. Additionally, at such peering points, colocation centers and such also exist. Furthermore, you commonly hear about how a single fibre cut can take an entire region offline, due to the centralized nature of the internet and the costs associated with redundant links anywhere near the 'last mile'
said by xsiddalx:Send the idea to sales and marketing. I am certain they like that type of direct information from customers (cheaper than conducting user surveys) At the moment, traffic shaping is solving the problem, but it may come down to that in the future.said by xsiddalx:If the model is "client-server", the internet is truly destined to be little more than a new television distribution model with more fine-tuned advertising and interactivity and more content. As technology progresses, the bandwidth may provide more decentralized for things such as personal websites and FTP servers, however, major centralized locations will always exist. Everything humans seem to do, have centralized aspects to them and there is no escaping it.
said by xsiddalx:The telcos and cable companies have certainly gambled on the "internet distribution" method based on the asymmetrical models they have deployed. As more independent ISPs are absorbed, it become a self-perpetuating myth. They are both sorta "investing in the future" with going along with the flat price model at the moment. It mirrors fuel in a manner. Everyone bellyaches, but most customers will continue driving even when given a choice. The LD companies figured out the business model of "customer apathy" back in the 90s as well. Sadly, we really don't generally vote with our dollars (or local currency) until there is a real competitive environment. Nice to see we agree on a few points. | |
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | reply to pb2k
said by pb2k:said by Sir :
Legitimate uses for Bit Torrent is NOT a moot point. Your contention would mean that every time a new use for bandwidth is invented there would be a corresponding increase in price. You make it sound like a new instant messaging system . We are talking tens of thousands of terabytes every day running across the internet in one of the most inefficient manners possible. In one of the most cheapest, and least profitable to the internet giants. Who will pay $400 for a 200 gig traffic a month dedicated server? | |
|
