Topic 'Re: passing the buck' in forum '' - dslreports.com http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-passing-the-buck-21886948 en Fri, 10 Feb 2012 18:05:24 EDT Fri, 10 Feb 2012 18:05:24 EDT Re: passing the buck http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-passing-the-buck-21889684 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-passing-the-buck-21889684 Mon, 09 Feb 2009 17:33:14 EDT Re: passing the buck http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-passing-the-buck-21889513 said by RARPSL:

With IPv4, BTW, each MC session stream between the server and the user is separate so there is no bandwidth savings.Somehow I don't belive that. Thats the definition of uenicast.

said by »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_Multicast :

* Multicast: A multicast address is associated with a group of interested receivers. According to RFC 3171, addresses 224.0.0.0 to 239.255.255.255 are designated as multicast addresses. This range was formerly called "Class D." The sender sends a single datagram (from the sender's unicast address) to the multicast address, and the intermediary routers take care of making copies and sending them to all receivers that have registered their interest in data from that sender.
With IPv6, there is ONE stream between the server and ALL the users on that node (the modem is set to listen not only to its own private unicast address [as it currently does with IPv4] but also to the IPN address allocated to that MC stream).
I know current multicast systems do not store the "destination" IPs in the header. But there is a concept RFC for doing that »tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5058 . This technology is a no brainer, push-to-talk, group webcaming, p2p, remove having to use p2p-like technologies to push TBs of content b/c your too cheap to pay Akamai (Steam).]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-passing-the-buck-21889513 Mon, 09 Feb 2009 17:02:52 EDT Re: passing the buck http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-passing-the-buck-21888737 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-passing-the-buck-21888737 Mon, 09 Feb 2009 14:52:34 EDT Re: passing the buck http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-passing-the-buck-21888005 said by insomniac84:

...The telcos and cable companies are already stealing your upload to sell for other things(all bandwdith comes symmetric, getting less means they are using the difference between the download and the upload for other things to make money).
All bandwidth is not symmetrical. It depends on the technique. Let's take the cable company. The downstream carriers, in most cases, are utlizing 256QAM as their modulation. 256QAM gives you ~42 Megs of throughput. The upstream carriers, with the exception of areas implementing docsis 2.0, are using 16QAM as the modulation. That's about 10 Megs on the throughput.

So even though you COULD get symmetrical speeds, you are not getting them right now because the of the difference in up and downstream throughput to the modem. In time, after they ramp up the upstream modulation and carrier widths, you will get symmetrical offerings.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-passing-the-buck-21888005 Mon, 09 Feb 2009 12:45:00 EDT Re: passing the buck http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-passing-the-buck-21887973 said by patcat88:

Cheap ass mofos.

Passing on their upstream bandwidth bill to consumers. I hope this is ad free if you pay for it with your upstream. All of this would be fixed if there wasn't a conspiracy among ISPs to not allow multicast across their backbones, since then you wouldn't need to pay for such large links. All "upstream" problems would be solved if ISPs supported explicit multicast (list all the IPs to forward the packet to in the IP header, no IGMP needed). P2P's bandwidth toll would also exponentially go down (and duplication speed will skyrocket).
Are you talking about IPv4 or IPv6 Multicast? Neither version list the addresses in the TCP/IP headers. With IPv4, BTW, each MC session stream between the server and the user is separate so there is no bandwidth savings. With IPv6, there is ONE stream between the server and ALL the users on that node (the modem is set to listen not only to its own private unicast address [as it currently does with IPv4] but also to the IPN address allocated to that MC stream). With IPv4 MC, you have the equivalent of watching a TV Show via VOD while with IPv6 MC it is the equivalent of watching the show via tuning to the channel that is broadcasting it.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-passing-the-buck-21887973 Mon, 09 Feb 2009 12:39:42 EDT Re: passing the buck http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-passing-the-buck-21887519 said by Angrychair:

So upstream transfers don't count in all of the caps that have been popping up recently? Good to know.
They sure do count.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-passing-the-buck-21887519 Mon, 09 Feb 2009 11:16:32 EDT Re: passing the buck http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-passing-the-buck-21887506 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-passing-the-buck-21887506 Mon, 09 Feb 2009 11:13:58 EDT Re: passing the buck http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-passing-the-buck-21887493 said by Transmaster:

Oh I see now the Communist News Network is doing what amounts to mooching bandwidth. Sorry not from me.
Yea, I would expect this from Faux News.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-passing-the-buck-21887493 Mon, 09 Feb 2009 11:12:00 EDT Re: passing the buck http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-passing-the-buck-21887428 said by cornelius785:

what is so wrong with P2P for mass video distribution?

Because it's inefficient. Rather then a single streamed/downloaded file per user, instead you download it and then up load it to one or more others.
sure it takes the load off CNN (who would hopefully own/ lease high efficientcy servers, optimized for video connectted directly to major backbones) instead putting the burden on generally less efficient individual PC's at the end of the last mile.
In this case because they didn't clearly disclose (bold print on the pop up.) what they were installing, and that it isn't actually nessesary, I think CNN owes an apology to all users, those who downloaded AND those indirectly effected.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-passing-the-buck-21887428 Mon, 09 Feb 2009 10:58:57 EDT Re: passing the buck http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-passing-the-buck-21887390 said by patcat88:

Cheap ass mofos.

Passing on their upstream bandwidth bill to consumers. I hope this is ad free if you pay for it with your upstream.
This is just another instance of a content provider trying to shift their costs from themselves to the ISP. The fact that CNN felt compelled to hide the fact that they were doing this makes it even more obvious.

If you don't want Octoshape P2P software on your computer and you already let it on by mistake, do the following:
Fortunately, the Octoshape program isn't hard to find or remove:

* Step 1. To find out whether the Octoshape app is running, you can use Windows' built-in Task Manager. (Right-click a blank space on the Task Bar, and then click Task Manager.)

As Susan Bradley shows in a blog post, when you're viewing a live stream from CNN.com, you'll see in Task Manager a service called octoshape.exe. (In the illustration on her blog, instances of the service are shown to be consuming 63MB of RAM, but a lot of this memory may be taken up by the Flash Player itself.)

* Step 2. To remove Octoshape's app, you can use the Control Panel in either Windows XP or Vista. In XP, the applet is called Add or Remove Programs. In Vista, it's Programs and Features. The "Octoshape add-in for Adobe Flash Player" is the name of the program to uninstall.

Strangely, there isn't an uninstaller for the Mac version of the app. You have to manually delete the Octoshape folder.

--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-passing-the-buck-21887390 Mon, 09 Feb 2009 10:50:38 EDT Re: passing the buck http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-passing-the-buck-21887234 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-passing-the-buck-21887234 Mon, 09 Feb 2009 10:20:48 EDT Re: passing the buck http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-passing-the-buck-21887073 said by cornelius785:

uh, as far as i know, nearly all residential internet connections do NOT pay for upstream bandwidth use.
With my ISP, upstream bandwidth usage counts against the 100GB cap.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-passing-the-buck-21887073 Mon, 09 Feb 2009 09:37:49 EDT Re: passing the buck http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-passing-the-buck-21887071 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-passing-the-buck-21887071 Mon, 09 Feb 2009 09:36:53 EDT Re: passing the buck http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-passing-the-buck-21887033
what is so wrong with P2P for mass video distribution? is it really any different from p2p distribution of other files? who gives a shit if the cnn's upstream bandwidth usage decreases as long as i get to see the content i want to see and it isn't utilizing 100% of my upstream capacity?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-passing-the-buck-21887033 Mon, 09 Feb 2009 09:29:03 EDT Re: passing the buck http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-passing-the-buck-21887006 ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/Re-passing-the-buck-21887006 Mon, 09 Feb 2009 09:20:23 EDT passing the buck http://www.dslreports.com/forum/passing-the-buck-21886948
Passing on their upstream bandwidth bill to consumers. I hope this is ad free if you pay for it with your upstream. All of this would be fixed if there wasn't a conspiracy among ISPs to not allow multicast across their backbones, since then you wouldn't need to pay for such large links. All "upstream" problems would be solved if ISPs supported explicit multicast (list all the IPs to forward the packet to in the IP header, no IGMP needed). P2P's bandwidth toll would also exponentially go down (and duplication speed will skyrocket).]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/passing-the-buck-21886948 Mon, 09 Feb 2009 09:05:53 EDT