swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to nanoflower
Re: Good for commercial distribution, but can't replace BT
That would work, but it would expose the ISPs to liability for any copyright violations. Maybe a lot of torrent traffic on a given day is users getting a recent Hollywood movie - if the ISP served pieces of that torrent, the copyright holder would sue and win right away.
To avoid this and still save "outside" traffic, the ISP would have to inspect all the torrents and serve only those which are not infringing. But this would be a big person-hours burden, and would invite liability for torrents they were carrying but not seeding (because they would then know which are infringing and which are not). |
|
nanoflower
join:2002-07-14
30876
| reply to swhx7
It seems like this solution points to a better solution for the ISPs. That is if they want to support BT. They can look at their traffic and see which Torrent sites are creating the heaviest traffic and set up their own peers on their network to help serve that content. With a little bit of work they can prevent the ISP peer from feeding sites off of their network so it would provide fast updates for their customers.
Of course without a good deal of work on software to keep the site up to date, it's going to take a person to watch over the torrents and make sure the site has the latest torrents that are creating off-network traffic. However, for a company like Comcast it makes plenty of sense since they have a large number of customers and a great deal of off-network traffic. |
|
jgkolt
Premium
join:2004-02-21
Lakewood, OH
clubs:
| reply to swhx7
its not necessary a bandwidth problem but the multiple connections the p2p systems opens and closes so rapidly that taxes the systems.
--
Learning how to invest. Sign up to get 3 free trades for you and me each. Personal Message me. Thanks |
|
swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
·RoadRunner Cable
| The selling point for ISPs is that each peer serves only to peers on the same ISP, reducing expensive inter-ISP transfers. Of course this implies a star topology, where only the original source serves content to "foreign" ISPs. The latter ties in with the selling point for content distributors, namely that they retain control of who gets what content.
So it's good for commercial distributors and their customers, and for anyone willing to install Pando's closed-source, proprietary software to get or distribute content that Pando approves of. It's of no use for anyone who wants to distribute or retrieve any *other* content (not from the commercial services, or not Pando-approved). Nor is it any good for anyone who doesn't trust the Pando software.
Thus, the system can take some load off ISPs to the extent the ISP subscribers use Pando/P4p instead of bittorrent or other p2p. But there will still be users who prefer the selection on p2p, the freedom from DRM or fees, or prefer to distribute outside of Pando/p2p. And that remains a legitimate activity, despite some copyright violations. So this won't solve the whole p2p bandwidth issue. In fact, I expect it won't make much of a dent in it. |
|
