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.