Re: ISPs would carry costs and won't be happy in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r20817142 en Tue, 01 Dec 2009 05:20:59 EDT Tue, 01 Dec 2009 05:20:59 EDT Re: ISPs would carry costs and won't be happy http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21190867 kamm :
said by TKJunkMail See Profile :

said by funchords See Profile :

said by TKJunkMail See Profile :

Do we have to go over this again and again. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah, blah blah!!

Blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah.

Blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah.

Blah blah blah blah BLAH, blah blah blah blah blah blah.

BLAH, blah blah blah blah blah.
Translation: Cable can't handle the bandwidth.
If you are going to include a quote by me in your post, please don't modify the quoted portion.
But he didn't modify. :D
--
[BQUOTE=[user=bicker]]Waaaa waaaa waaaa. You just want what you want and don't care to factor in what is right or true. Your perspectives are un-American, and deserve far more ridicule than I'm prepared to pile on them.
[/BQUOTE]]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21190867 Tue, 30 Sep 2008 07:49:45 EDT Re: ISPs would carry costs and won't be happy http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20825544 funchords : Fair enough. Original fixed.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20825544 Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:13:00 EDT Re: ISPs would carry costs and won't be happy http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20822671 DataRiker : removed]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20822671 Sun, 20 Jul 2008 22:32:37 EDT Re: ISPs would carry costs and won't be happy http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20822654 DataRiker : You have just liked to a site you "discredited" no less than a few days ago.

Your amazing.

TK = fail]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20822654 Sun, 20 Jul 2008 22:28:54 EDT Re: ISPs would carry costs and won't be happy http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20820951 TKJunkMail :
said by funchords See Profile :

said by TKJunkMail See Profile :

Do we have to go over this again and again. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah, blah blah!!

Blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah.

Blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah.

Blah blah blah blah BLAH, blah blah blah blah blah blah.

BLAH, blah blah blah blah blah.
Translation: Cable can't handle the bandwidth.
If you are going to include a quote by me in your post, please don't modify the quoted portion.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20820951 Sun, 20 Jul 2008 15:40:25 EDT Re: ISPs would carry costs and won't be happy http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20820906 funchords :
said by TKJunkMail See Profile* :

Do we have to go over this again and again. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah, blah blah!!

Blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah.

Blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah.

Blah blah blah blah BLAH, blah blah blah blah blah blah.

BLAH, blah blah blah blah blah.
Translation: Cable can't handle the bandwidth.

*For the humor impaired, my version of TK's quote above is a parody.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
Comcast: We never did anything wrong, and we'll never do it again...
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20820906 Sun, 20 Jul 2008 15:25:26 EDT Re: ISPs would carry costs and won't be happy http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20819968 jaa :
said by Kearnstd See Profile :

unless you can provide a solid seed though the torrent style media stream is set for epic fail when you have more watchers then senders, unless we have dirt cheap symetrical coming soon.
It is not possible to have more watchers than senders. Watchers and senders are the same thing.
--
NOTHING justifies terrorism. We don't negotiate with terrorists. Those that support terrorists are terrorists.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20819968 Sun, 20 Jul 2008 11:01:57 EDT Re: ISPs would carry costs and won't be happy http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20818969 jarthur31 : Nope. Torrent technology is unholy and extremely illegal! Where you living, under a rock??]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20818969 Sun, 20 Jul 2008 00:39:01 EDT Re: ISPs would carry costs and won't be happy http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20818010 dadkins :
said by TKJunkMail See Profile :

Do we have to go over this again and again. The ISPs oversubscribe number of customers. They CAN'T provide max bandwidth to all their customers 24x7, especially on uploads.

You didn't buy 24x7 access to max bandwidth no matter what you claim. That is NOT in the TOS.

If the content providers win the LEGAL right to force ISPs to provide max bandwidth 24x7, then the PRICE will skyrocket. And that is a FACT.

So you can make all the claims you want and throw copies of checks to the ISP up here in the thread. But it won't change reality. If the P2P model prevails, prices will rise and will rise drastically.

SO if you get what you claim is your due, then get out the checkbook and start writing bigger and bigger checks.
Nowhere did I ever claim to have the right to full-on speed 24/7.
Whereas you seem to think that is what is needed for BT to work. Wrong!
At NO TIME have I ever maxed out my upload when using BT.
There is no need to - that's how the swarm works!

I supply x amount, as does many others - nets the downloader serious speed on the download.

Right now, if I were to go for... whatever, I would get small parts, and sometimes SLOW speed for those parts for the file I have requested.
But, since I am getting MANY parts from MANY people, the download happens rather fast.
This is how it works.
One doesn't have to max out ones connection 24/7 to help out, not to mention, there is the whole throttling ability in most BT clients(but it's never needed or used here).

Hope this clears up some of the confusion for you! :)
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20818010 Sat, 19 Jul 2008 20:05:37 EDT Re: ISPs would carry costs and won't be happy http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20817547 NetAdmin : Which is why providers need to start changing their business models to deal with the future. The over subscription model of yesteryear is starting to become outdated, as are a whole bunch of assumptions that went into that model. Usage patterns are changing and will continue to change, and the way providers deal with subscribers and their usage need to keep up.
--
---
Over ten plus years of carrying The Clue Bat...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20817547 Sat, 19 Jul 2008 17:55:33 EDT Re: ISPs would carry costs and won't be happy http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20817449 insomniac84 : They already offered unlimited, no way they can migrate back to caps. We the people can legislate it away. It's not like an ISP is going to go under, it just means they can't gouge the cost of bandwidth and to say the ISP only sends one copy out is 100% wrong. They will send out multiple copies to the first wave of people to jump on and the second and third waves of people can download from the first wave and second waves of and the source. It will save the content provider bandwidth in the long run, but initially they still have to get the data out to first wave of people and to supplement the download speeds for the next couple of waves to keep their speeds fast. It would take 10 people uploading to match the download speed of the next person because download speeds are usually 10 times faster(or more) than upload speeds. And if the stream is short by the time you get enough people with all the data built up, they may be disconnecting. Which moves you closer to having to send a copy of the file to everyone.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20817449 Sat, 19 Jul 2008 17:34:14 EDT Re: ISPs would carry costs and won't be happy http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20817340 clickie : For the first time, I'm finding myself agreeing with your post. However, you're not considering one important fact about this plan and that is that I don't think they are attempting to make this a linear transmission method. Or put another way, it isn't real time.

If that's the case, then do not underestimate the amount of programming that can be pushed while people are sleeping or at work. In that sense, the efficiency of the system is quite high because it'll do a lot more work when network utilization is lowest. Furthermore, this is the ideal ala-carte TV transmission system.

Certainly, you are correct in that it pushes the transmission costs directly upon the viewer. But those who are interested in receiving their programming in this fashion are already prepared to pay the costs. Those who are not will still rely upon OTA.

As far as oversubscribing, it's time for consumers and broadband ISPs to get with reality. Nothing on this planet is unlimited and there is no reason to think broadband internet access is somehow exempt from that. If you want a fat pipe to grab your entertainment, then you should be prepared to pay for it. However, broadband ISPs should also realize that they can't use this as an excuse to prop-up older business models that might see a decline in revenues from competing transmission systems. It's not unlimited, but it's also moving toward becoming a commodity. There is no reason to cap someone at 250 gigabytes of transfer per month for $80 and then start billing $2 for each additional gigabyte.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20817340 Sat, 19 Jul 2008 17:02:21 EDT Re: ISPs would carry costs and won't be happy http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20817238 iansltx : Okay, let's see here...

If the software does things right then you can select a share ratio, where above a certain pint your connection cuts off. Most BitTorrent clients will only "seed" (upload only) until the person downloading the torrent has "paid for" the data they've used, plus 50 to 100%.

Now take into account that the software culd be set up (hint: live streaming) so that only people who are actually watching stuff will download it (no content hording) your download count is equal to your viewer count and thus, unless there are a lot of people just shutting off their connections or having them shut off, you'll end up with a share ratio of around 100%.

This means that if a person downloads an hour of HD content (which can be hit into 700 MB if we're just talking high quality, but throw-away, media) they'll "cost" the ISP only 1.4 GB of data, 700 down, 700 up. 1.5 if you have hashfails or suchlike.

So if the P2P stuff is governed by software that is intelligent about bandwidth and such, the internet won't break (you scurvy pay-by-byte scoundrals out there pushin' yer agendas), it'll just become less centralized, more resilient and, with such stuff as the P4P initiative, better able to take advantage of ultra-high-speed connections like FiOS offers. This in turn provides customers a reason to upgrade to higher data tiers (fast downloads of multimedia or such) and the ISP gets more money. How can that be bad?

Also, what's this BS about uplink capacity being more congested than downlink? Granted, it's on a small scale, but if you look at some of these small ISPs that publish traffic reports they tend to have a more constant flow of upload data, yes, but it's generally 30-50% of the download amounts. This is with the ISP website hosted on the ISP's own infrastructure.

Besides, the highly asymmetric nature of consumer broadband makes sure, to an extent, that uploads won't overwhelm the network, or so it seems. Remember, once you get beyond the CMTS or the DSLAM, ISP backbone connections are almost always symmetric, so unless they're hosting crap with that extra b\w it's available to consumers, especially if they're doing legal stuff.

Heck, Revision3 uses BitTorrent as an alternate distribution method for their media. If the content is really good and such, only as many people will download it as will watch it at some point. Those same people add a little bit to the "swarm" speed for download to other users. The central server chips in now and then to ensure an optimal download experience.

Ya see, BitTorrent was created as a content distribution network replacement, but not as a replacement for a system that has one centralized server where content is always available. It would alleviate the massive burden of centralized serving of video events that would otherwise only be viewable in broadcast form, by equally stressing more of the "tubes". This would allow, say, ten thousand people to simulteneously watch a one-megabit stream that ten thousand other people ha started watching, or had downloaded, earlier. The same action would require a large fram of centralized servers and a port to the internet larger than some providers' national backbones.

That's the beauty of distributed computing and distributed content delivery via BitTorrent. That's what the tech was made for, and if there's a problem with that then ISPs need to upgrade their networks to cope. Maybe give the $40k 10GE people (Cogent) some new customers in the process, but any way you look at it improve the internet's capacity and accentuating the traits that have made the internet the unstoppable force that it is today.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20817238 Sat, 19 Jul 2008 16:28:59 EDT Re: ISPs would carry costs and won't be happy http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20817221 Kearnstd : unless you can provide a solid seed though the torrent style media stream is set for epic fail when you have more watchers then senders, unless we have dirt cheap symetrical coming soon.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20817221 Sat, 19 Jul 2008 16:26:59 EDT Re: ISPs would carry costs and won't be happy http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20817142 TKJunkMail : Do we have to go over this again and again. The ISPs oversubscribe number of customers. They CAN'T provide max bandwidth to all their customers 24x7, especially on uploads.

You didn't buy 24x7 access to max bandwidth no matter what you claim. That is NOT in the TOS.

If the content providers win the LEGAL right to force ISPs to provide max bandwidth 24x7, then the PRICE will skyrocket. And that is a FACT.

So you can make all the claims you want and throw copies of checks to the ISP up here in the thread. But it won't change reality. If the P2P model prevails, prices will rise and will rise drastically.

SO if you get what you claim is your due, then get out the checkbook and start writing bigger and bigger checks.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20817142 Sat, 19 Jul 2008 16:05:18 EDT Re: ISPs would carry costs and won't be happy http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20817068 dadkins : Last time I checked, I pay my bills.
I am paying for downstream and upstream.
This form of delivery is paid for by me and whomever is uploading/downloading to/from me.

The reasoning that some try and state that the ISP has to pay for it, baffles me. :hmm:

What exactly does the check you send your ISP pay for?
Mine pays for me to connect and use up/down bandwidth, right?

So, if I decide to upload *PART* of a show to you on my *PAID FOR* connection, how is this costing the ISP? :huh:
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20817068 Sat, 19 Jul 2008 15:49:54 EDT Re: ISPs would carry costs and won't be happy http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20817010 EPS : Of course, if ISPs have to provide the bandwidth the customers have "paid for" 24/7, then they'll have to provide less bandwidth (substantially less), or bill by the byte.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20817010 Sat, 19 Jul 2008 15:35:58 EDT Re: ISPs would carry costs and won't be happy http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20817004 basquiat : Dear science, this will not only show P2P and torrent technologies to be efficient and legal means of transferring data but it might also require ISP's to provide the bandwidth that their customers have paid for, the horror, the horror.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20817004 Sat, 19 Jul 2008 15:34:20 EDT ISPs would carry costs and won't be happy http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20816937 TKJunkMail : »torrentfreak.com/p2p-next-introd···-080718/
If the technology turns out to be a success, broadcasters can save millions of dollars each year on video streaming projects. ISPs on the other hand will be less excited, because they now pay for this bandwidth.
Just another project pushed by content providers trying to shift costs to the ISPs. It makes the content providers look good and they don't care how it makes the ISPs look.

But from a customer viewpoint, all this will do is raise costs and prices for the ISPs. End result: more ISPs signing on wholeheartedly to the tiered pay by byte business model. Bring on the caps!!!
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20816937 Sat, 19 Jul 2008 15:16:06 EDT