approval from:
fAcEtIOUs 
| Bittorrent is dying I feel for the 2% of you who use it legally, but there's no free lunch here. The developers of legal software are going to have to find other non-cost shifting methods to distribute their products. To hell with the other 98%. |
|
 gatorkramKaBOOM BabyPremium
join:2002-07-22
Winterville, NC
kudos:2
 ·Suddenlink
| said by JasonD :
I feel for the 2% of you who use it legally, but there's no free lunch here. The developers of legal software are going to have to find other non-cost shifting methods to distribute their products. To hell with the other 98%.
It isn't dieing, but some people are trying to kill it.
--
Give me bandwidth or give me death!
»/testhistory/661871/4f240 |
|
 telcolackey5The Truth? You can't handle the truth
join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA | reply to JasonD
Maybe they should pay an ISP or hoster to deliver their software, products, services vs. leaching off others to distribute it. |
|
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK | Yeah, who cares about the WOW users who just want to get their updates in a reasonable amount of time.
Sony could certainly use some BT love, too. Release day firmware downloads are sloooow. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | That was kind of lackey's point. Blizzard should have download servers for their patches, just as they do with Diablo, Starcraft, Warcraft, etc. games. Blizzard (and other similar companies) are increasing their bottom line by offloading their bandwidth requirements elsewhere. Ironic that capitalism is ok for them, but not for the telecom providers absorbing their hits. |
|
wierdo
join:2001-02-16
Tulsa, OK Reviews:
·Cox HSI
 ·T-Mobile US
| said by openbox9:That was kind of lackey's point. Blizzard should have download servers for their patches, just as they do with Diablo, Starcraft, Warcraft, etc. games. Blizzard (and other similar companies) are increasing their bottom line by offloading their bandwidth requirements elsewhere. Ironic that capitalism is ok for them, but not for the telecom providers absorbing their hits. They do have non-BT servers, they're just slow to the point of being practically useless (at least that's what I've been told by my WOW-playing friends)
There's no real way to create a distribution system that can keep up with today's broadband speeds without resorting to some sort of p2p distribution system. It's a rare site that can sustain 12Mbps in a single TCP stream, regardless of their upstream bandwidth. If the content is popular, you can forget about it.
Cox has published transfer limits. If they need to deal with abusers, they can easily do it through that mechanism. There's no need to make it impossible for their end users to use BT for distributing their own content. (especially the ones who pay for a business connection)
My point is that BT and other p2p apps do two important things: They make it feasible to distribute popular content at the speed which users demand, and they allow you and I to distribute large files economically, thus broadening the realm of free (video) speech to the little people.
Also, it allows me to download the latest Knoppix (or Backtrack, or any of the other several distros I keep up with) faster than "slower than molasses." I always go to the torrent first, because 99% of the time the torrent will be faster, over 75% of the time more than 4 times as fast.
I like to be part of the swarm that allows myself and others to distribute them that quickly. What infuriates me is that I can't do that anymore, even from my colo'd server, at least if I'm trying to distribute to a Cox user. My colo provider has an OC-12 to Cox. I used to think that was a good thing. Now I can't seed to Cox users from my server because the morons are pulling the same tricks on the CBS connections as they are the residential HFC-based accounts.
I'd be all for it if Cox were merely attempting to push clients towards preferring to download from other Cox users. I'd be just fine with them using QoS to reduce the priority of BT and other p2p traffic so that it would mainly take up "extra" room.
Hell, I'd even be fine with them doing exactly what they're doing to enforce their TOS regarding servers. I wouldn't like it, but I consider that to be well within their rights. Home users are contractually barred from running servers. In most markets $10-$20 a month can solve that problem for the end user.
The way they've implemented it, however, is literally blocking all of their customers (including business connections on fiber) from using BT as a distribution method for their own content. That's stupid, in that it means they'll just be paying for more outbound bits than they otherwise would, but it's also not supportable contractually.
They broke my network by doing this. I'm back to distributing updates slowly to half my network hardware (the half on Cox), thanks to them. If they hadn't messed with CBS customers, they at least wouldn't have made more work for me. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | said by wierdo:There's no real way to create a distribution system that can keep up with today's broadband speeds without resorting to some sort of p2p distribution system. Providers such as Akamai seem to be able to.said by wierdo:I always go to the torrent first, because 99% of the time the torrent will be faster, over 75% of the time more than 4 times as fast. And that's the crux of the argument. Providers/Distributors are disseminating their products by transferring the cost to another entity. I believe we will continue to see crackdowns on distribution mechanisms like this. ISPs have no desire to continue eating the costs to save other business models money. Yes, I realize that statement will bring out the "but I already pay for my 15/2 connection and I should be able to exploit it to its fullest 100% of the time" crowd, but there is no way that a shared environment such as an ISP's network will be able to support the exponential growth of the P2P world...at least at the costs that consumers are paying today.said by wierdo:Now I can't seed to Cox users from my server because the morons are pulling the same tricks on the CBS connections as they are the residential HFC-based accounts. Are you saying that your colo box is in a Cox datacenter? Why aren't you able to seed from your colo box?said by wierdo:I'd be just fine with them using QoS to reduce the priority of BT and other p2p traffic so that it would mainly take up "extra" room. This is the correct and fair approach IMO. ISPs should relegate the priority of P2P applications/protocols to that of ICMP, or lower. It saves the ISPs' networks and still allows for the P2P users to be able to fully use their applications within the constraints of the network by allowing for enjoyment and usability for all customers. |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | said by openbox9:said by wierdo:There's no real way to create a distribution system that can keep up with today's broadband speeds without resorting to some sort of p2p distribution system. Providers such as Akamai seem to be able to. Exactly, pay up for a Content Distribution Network (CDN). It has distributed peers in datacenters all over the real world and internet backbone world. There is no legitimate reason for any for-profit company to distribute ANYTHING through BT. Corporations are simply saving on their bottom line by using BT and making users pay for their downloads in exchange for "upload money". |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | reply to wierdo
"There's no real way to create a distribution system that can keep up with today's broadband speeds without resorting to some sort of p2p distribution system. It's a rare site that can sustain 12Mbps in a single TCP stream, regardless of their upstream bandwidth. If the content is popular, you can forget about it."
It's statements like this that show you have a lack of knowledge in how to properly set up a distro system.
Please tell me.. Microsoft, of all people, has a HUGE pull on their updates.. and exactly how do they keep up with it?
There are many ways.. load balancing,.. mirroring,.. just to name a couple. Like it was said earlier - and I've said the same thing, this is one business offing their burden on to another. This is offloading the file delivery from the internet to the last mile providers.
This isn't P2P usage when a "business" offs it's distro on to end users to do their dirty work, which by the way, they are collecting money from you all.
If anything, if I still played WOW, which I don't, I'd be VERY upset ... I'm paying Blizzard to deliver me the goods, and instead, I'm being made to get it from somewhere else.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." |
|
|
|
Reviews:
·Comcast
| Ms uses akimai (spelling ?).
They own more data centers all over the world then any one. Their clustering is second to none and they serve up more bandwidth then any other company can provide. And you pay drastically to use it.
Again this comes to something that is never answered. If I pay for a cable connection why can't i use it for what i want ? This is a major reason why I am trying to get away from Comcast. I am very sick of using work arounds to be able to seed out my code changes for all of 12 hours a week.
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" |
|
fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | said by BosstonesOwn:Again this comes to something that is never answered. If I pay for a cable connection why can't i use it for what i want ? What a lot of people don't understand is that this is nothing new. There has been network restrictions or acceptable use going all the way back to dial up and even Prodigy.
If the network service you are buying a connection from doesn't want the kind of applications running on it then that's their right to set the limitations. Your entire remedy is to not do business with them.
Dial up had a few strict limitations as well.
1) No two people can connect to the network at one time. (ie: one dial up connection at a time)
2) You could not use programs to keep the connection alive. It would kick you off if you were connected with too long of an activity. This one is of particular interest because if I paid for a connection to the internet, why couldn't I leave it on all the time? After all, I paid for an unlimited use service, right?
3) Some services would FORCE you to log off after a certain period of time such as 4 or 6 hours in the day.
Terms and AUPs have been around for years. The same thing could be said about your question... If I pay for a car, why can't I drive it as fast as I want? If I pay for a seat on an airplane in coach, why shouldn't I be able to get on the plane when First class does? After all, I purchased a seat like everyone else. (My remedy - I only fly first now) The can set the rules and you either live by them, or go to the competition and give them your money.
To be honest - that's why..
Would it be nice to be able to use the connection full balls to the wall? Sure.. but the fact is, the internet isn't ready to have everything and the kitchen sink thrown to it. So, until it's time and they are ready, they will continue to manage the network to give everyone the best possible experience.
--
"Complaining is the least path of resistance for the self-serving, the lazy, and I’m told it’s a woman’s prerogative..." |
|
