K PattersonPremium,MVM
join:2006-03-12
Columbus, OH
kudos:1 | 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. |
|
Reviews:
 ·Insight Communic..
| What about the legit torrents that bittorent has, where u pay a few bucks for the file? Thats were blocking anything p2p messes up.I've paid for the connection, i've paid for the content im downloading (and in a legal way), yet you dump me into the same catagory as kazza (which sucks) and outher illegal p2p users, and at the same time try kicking me offline for a good hour at 5-10 minute interverals in an attempt to frustrate me and give up. Someone needs to sue them to wake up and upgrade their network, and BTW this was on an AT&T DSL connection. |
|
| 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. |
|
| Granted, but the studios are now allowing their content to go out in a legal manner via BitTorent. So now ISP need to upgrade or face being sue for net nutruality issues. |
|
| I don't see how the ISP's need to upgrade specifically to enable Bit Torrent's business model. It seems it would be more practical to enforce their AUP's, most of which don't allow home servers.
On what basis would they be sued for network neutrality issues? There is no law that requires network neutrality. |
|
| I wasent saying to support Bittorent,In fact i wont let it use me/my connecton as a source, and as far as i understood it when ur paying for the item, its comming from that studios servers |
|
| reply to IPingUPing
said by IPingUPing: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. Lets see, paying millions for bandwidth on your own servers that need to be maintained. Or have a distribution network which people that want to watch your content will be using there bandwidth services. Its a win win. The fact is that this type of distribution will be the future, its all a matter of software getting better to keep the content in the right hands. I think one of the large media companies should deal or buy a bit torrent so they can be on the same team. This might make the torrent companies more willing to become piracy police (or maybe create the software). That last part is a guess. |
|
| reply to IPingUPing
It isn't the ISPs fault and to be honest ISPs should not expand because of one specific aspect of the network. It would be foolhardy for them to do so. ISPs should expand and maintain their networks for the bigger picture and I believe for the most part they are trying to do so as reasonably as they can. If that means they have to manage their own networks then so be it.
--
True Happiness Must Come From Within |
|
| But, the BIGGER picture IS Bittorrent and other P2P apps. That is what the internet is turning into. Thus, they should upgrade to support what the people WANT, NOT what THEY think the people want.
It's like Ford selling the Exploder and the Taurus. Everyone seems to want the Exploder, but ford is saying you have to buy a Taurus. That means ford will go out of business.
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity! |
|
|
|
| Well a majority of users don't use bitTorrent or any other P2P application/client. But you are right in that they should upgrade to support what people want. I think that will definitely happen because there is a big push for video on demand and other things, such as video conferencing, that require high bandwidth. Games too, are getting more complicated and can require a demand for not only bandwidth, but latency improvements as well.
So look for ISPs improving their networks, but not because of P2P. If anything P2P will be a secondary benefit to ISPs improving their networks.
--
True Happiness Must Come From Within |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | reply to K Patterson
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. |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | reply to IPingUPing
With what price? $15K a month for a cage? $1000+line charge for 1U? $10K for a T3 of bandwidth when its under $100 for Verizon. Corporate users they rape for everything they have since they know they can rape them, no consumer would pay a T1 price for DSL, even though they are the exact same technology (DSL). |
|
| I'm not going to defend pricing, but you get what you pay for when it comes to SLA's. I'm concerned that someone like Valve or Joost is building their business on what they can take from others connections. Buying bandwidth is the cost if doing business for an Internet company. |
|
K PattersonPremium,MVM
join:2006-03-12
Columbus, OH
kudos:1 | reply to patcat88
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
kudos:1 | 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. |
|
| reply to K Patterson
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. |
|
