 |
 |  nasadude
join:2001-10-05 Rockville, MD | Re: Will ISPs cache illegal content will ISPs cache ANY content?
with bit torrent in bed with hollywood, not sure I would want to use that client anyway. | |
|
 |  |  lawrence171 Evilly Yours - Evilness
join:2001-12-24 Canada | Re: Will ISPs cache illegal content Legal liabilities, thus no.
Think RIAA and MPAA. | |
|
 |  |  |   ssj4android Redefining Reality
join:2002-04-14 Wyoming, MI | Re: Will ISPs cache illegal content The RIAA and MPAA haven't gone after USENET. Of course, it seems most providers are getting rid of USENET, at least most of the binaries groups. | |
|
 |  |  |  |   Michieru2 zzz zzz zzz Premium join:2005-01-28 Miami, FL | Re: Will ISPs cache illegal content The first rule of USENET is to not talk about USENET.  | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |   reub2000 Premium join:2001-12-28 Evanston, IL
| Re: Will ISPs cache illegal content said by Michieru2 :The first rule of USENET is to not talk about USENET. Nope. The first rule of USENET is there are no rules, post what you want including spam and troll bait. -- My pbase gallery | |
|
 |  |  |  |   Anonynon
@co.uk | The RIAA and MPAA HAVE AND ARE going after usenet.... Where have you been? | |
|
 |  |  |
 |  |  |   tsu9
join:2001-08-17 Wheeling, IL | Re: Will ISPs cache illegal content It will probably strictly be things they can secure lucrative deals to distribute content, if that. | |
|
 |  |  |   Anon21123
@co.uk
| What you have to then ask yourself is if they do cache illegal content will they then fall victim to the RIAA and MPAA for illegal distribution, probably so would you allow your business to cache data that could end you up in court.
I think not....... | |
|
 |  jarosoup
join:2003-01-14
·Qwest.net
| So where is the caching software?
I still don't see how this is going to help as there is so much content on BT. Is everyone going to be downloading the same thing? I think not. Is BT going to pay ISPs for the multi-Tb disk arrays required to cache all of this stuff? | |
|
 |  |   dvd536 as Mr. Pink as they come Premium join:2001-04-27 Phoenix, AZ
| Re: Will ISPs cache illegal content said by jarosoup :So where is the caching software? I still don't see how this is going to help as there is so much content on BT. Is everyone going to be downloading the same thing? I think not. Is BT going to pay ISPs for the multi-Tb disk arrays required to cache all of this stuff? Hell, ISPs cant even do USENET decent let alone anything like BT caching. Although it would be nice to download at my cap speed rather than 5kb/s. -- You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth | |
|
 |  |  Diddy1
join:2003-07-19 Sidney, NE
| said by jarosoup :I still don't see how this is going to help as there is so much content on BT. Is everyone going to be downloading the same thing? I think not. Is BT going to pay ISPs for the multi-Tb disk arrays required to cache all of this stuff? My thoughts exactly! djhurt1 | |
|
 |  Warez_Zealot Rural land of the rising sun
join:2006-04-19 japan
| said by LaZ3R :No. End of this article Well as far as I know, caching would alleviate the seeds on their network (paying clients) to upload less.
So if the content isn't available to the whole internet (just clients), I think they should do it...
Shaw, Cogeco, Rogers etc.. etc... are all little sniveling babies when it comes to bittorent. IMO they should jump on something like this so they can go back to sucking their thumbs and bottles..
The CRIA Gestapo is basically dead here, so there would be no real ramifications.. ATM anyhoo.. | |
|
 |  yabos
join:2003-02-16 Ingersoll, ON | With the amount of content that must flow, it'll be absolutely impossible for them to cache a significant amount of it to make any difference. They'd probably have to have a 20TB cache handled by hundreds of servers. | |
|
 grandpinaple
join:2006-01-03 New York, NY | Cool Nice to see Cohen is no longer a starving artist. | |
|
  twizlar I dont think so. Premium join:2003-12-24 Brantford, ON | Hmm ISP's already have these so called cache servers, its called usenet. | |
|
 voyager6868
join:2003-01-29 Lynnwood, WA
·Bell Sympatico
| What a waste What a waste of time.
1. Most ISPs don't even use a HTTP cache, so why would you expect them to use something like this?
2. How exactly would ISPs distinguish illegal from legal content? Are they going to hire thousands of monkeys to watch the list of cached file parts and make guesses as to what's legal or not?
3. I'm guessing 95%+ of BT traffic is illegal, so even if they could just cache legal content, it's not going to change anything.
Again.. what a waste of time. | |
|
 dadarkside Premium join:2006-05-20 The Moon | By Cacheing content, Do they mean for download, or for uploaded content? Or both?
Cause it aint the downloading by their clients that ISP's are struggling with. It's the uploading.
The article did not clarify the full role of the Cacheing server. | |
|
 |  rantou
join:2002-06-04 Richardson, TX
| Re: By Cacheing content, said by dadarkside :Cause it aint the downloading by their clients that ISP's are struggling with. It's the uploading. I beg to differ. As an ISP admin, I know that ISPs are paying for symmetrical links. The upload isn't the problem at all. The original upload limitation, if you may remember from the cable modem days, was that people finally started using almost all of the uncapped upload speed for Shoutcast and streaming media, then came all the P2P traffic after they had already limited upload speeds at 128k. They have TONS of upstream bandwidth left available, but they're just not using it. We do the same thing, though. We give our users 128k-384k of upstream bandwidth and use the rest for our server farm and colo customers, however, such a large company has much more downstream bandwidth in use than upstream bandwidth -- we run still about 50% less bandwidth being sent out than traffic coming in. | |
|
 |  |  dadarkside Premium join:2006-05-20 The Moon
| Re: By Cacheing content, I beg to disagree. It has NEVER EVER been about bandwidth. it is network CPU and memory resources.
A 6509 with 256MB of ram, serving some 3500 customers, of which 50% is P2P will generate 10's of thousands of incoming download requests from off-net via UDP. Each netflow to the approximately 10% of the file sharers (350 say), consumes precious memory and CPU resources on that 6509. there is a finite limit to that Memory and CPU.
I have seen that functional limit reached many times.
it gets even worse if the local router is a 3500 or 2900.
And the cable companies CMTS upstream bandwidth distribution, even in Docsis 2.0 is STILL asymmetrical. It too, has functional Memory and CPU limitations to process thousands of simultaneous incoming requests to a handful of individuals.
The answer has been, and still is, for the P2P file sharers to exercise a little self discipline, and to refrain from sharing full throttle 24x7x365. In other words, set your BT client to limit the maximum number of incoming connections.
(Senior NOC person here, on a network that services about 2.5 million people.) | |
|
 ElvinPena
join:2004-04-21 New York, NY | Useless, really... I'm guessing scripts can/will be developed to "fish out" illegal content. Eventually, though, people would find away around such things. Aside from reducing traffic in-between networks, I fail to see how this would help one single iota. | |
|
 |   cdru Go Colts Premium,MVM join:2003-05-14 Fort Wayne, IN
| Re: Useless, really... said by ElvinPena :I fail to see how this would help one single iota. Imagine you and I are on the same ISP. I request some torrent and start downloading it. You come along and also request the same torrent. Two things can happen.
1. Everything happens just the same way as now. You would connect to the tracker, find a couple of seeders or peers that have available upload slots, and start downloading. You might connect to me and I can supply some parts, but a decent majority of the traffic will come from outside the ISP's network. So worst case the ISP has to pay for the same data twice.
2. If the ISP cached it, the machine acting as the proxy/caching server would remember the traffic that I downloaded. Instead of you having to connect to many people outside of the ISP's network, you could connect the caching server. Your happy because you can get everything quicker because the cache already has a copy of some if not all of the data. The ISP is happier because they didn't have to pay bandwidth charges to download it twice. -- Quis custodiet custodes ipsos? | |
|
 patcat88
join:2002-04-05 Jamaica, NY
| telelcom protection rules Don't ISPs and telcom providers have rules that protect them from prosecution if they transmit illegal stuff over their networks as long as the transfers were automated and no humans involved (except the end user)? Therefore wouldn't caching be legal? For example, does Netzero accelerator proxy filter their cache for copyrighted stuff and kiddierapandsnuff.com? | |
|
 |   reub2000 Premium join:2001-12-28 Evanston, IL
| Re: telelcom protection rules DMCA safe harbor provisions allows ISPs and hosting providers off the hook if they follow strict rules. Like they have to immediately remove content when they receive a take down notice. -- My pbase gallery | |
|
 happyland Premium join:2003-09-16 clubs:  | not a good idea... Caching data on our ISP's servers? Sounds like another great way for AT&T to see what users are doing on their networks. Unless it's encrypted, of course. | |
|
  lt_wentoncha Red6
join:2002-05-12 000000
| cache
I'm still new to networking, but what will caching do alleviate the network traffic BT creates? It just seems caching will aggregate BT users to a few servers, but would otherwise reduce the amount of BT traffic.
Also, the legal liabilities of this smack of old napster. -- Arrogant People Suck. AMWFBI's Most Wanted Interpol's MW | |
|
 |   twizlar I dont think so. Premium join:2003-12-24 Brantford, ON | Re: cache ISP's don't pay for bandwidth within their own network, so less traffic out to the internet = less money spent. -- AMD Athlon64 4000+ @ 2723mhz - mountaincable.net wireless Intarweb |Ipods SUCK | |
|
 |  |  dadarkside Premium join:2006-05-20 The Moon
| Re: cache said by twizlar :ISP's don't pay for bandwidth within their own network, so less traffic out to the internet = less money spent. Wow, that couldn't be more wrong.
A large ISP has a larg NOC(s). A Large Network Engineering staff, a large Field Engineering staff, a Large SPLICING team in each market, A Field tecnician staff in each market, a large inventory of spare parts, a fleet of service vehicles in each market, Each and every Pole that fiber hangs on, the ISP pays rent for, Right of Way fees paid to each city that fiber travels through...
I'm sure there are other costs I'm missing too...
It's not a hang it and forget it proposition with network fiber. It can be pretty darned expensive to maintain. | |
|
 |  |  |   twizlar I dont think so. Premium join:2003-12-24 Brantford, ON
·Mountain Cable
| Re: cache said by dadarkside :said by twizlar :ISP's don't pay for bandwidth within their own network, so less traffic out to the internet = less money spent. Wow, that couldn't be more wrong. A large ISP has a larg NOC(s). A Large Network Engineering staff, a large Field Engineering staff, a Large SPLICING team in each market, A Field tecnician staff in each market, a large inventory of spare parts, a fleet of service vehicles in each market, Each and every Pole that fiber hangs on, the ISP pays rent for, Right of Way fees paid to each city that fiber travels through... I'm sure there are other costs I'm missing too... It's not a hang it and forget it proposition with network fiber. It can be pretty darned expensive to maintain. No actually it is correct, ISP's do NOT pay transit costs IE a per MBPS cost to have traffic moved within their network. Hardware and such are completely different matters. -- AMD Athlon64 4000+ @ 2723mhz - mountaincable.net wireless Intarweb |Ipods SUCK | |
|
 |  |  |  |  dadarkside Premium join:2006-05-20 The Moon
1 edit | Re: cache Transit cost? That is not what was stated by the post I was responding to. But transit cost? Aside from the electricity needed to turn electrons into photons, and then back to electrons, no.
But core network bandwidth really does have costs involved. The very costs I pointed out in my post.
I stand by my comments completely.
Any other assumption would imply that local bandwidth actually does grow on trees. I assure you....it does not. | |
|
 |  |  |  |  |  See 7 replies to this post |
|
  pleekmo Triptoe Through The Tulips Premium join:2001-09-14 Manchester, CT clubs: | RE: Will ISPs Cache BitTorrent? No.
Count the beans, stupid!
It costs less to throttle and block BitTorrent than to support it.
Yay for the beans! | |
|
  battleop
join:2005-09-28 00000
| Blindly Cache content? Uh No! I work for an ISP and there is no way that we would blindly cache Bittorent Traffic. Allowing it to traverse our network is one thing, but actually storing it on our server... That's not gonna happen. I would and do host some content like TWiT because we know the MPAA/RIAA isn't going to deep pocket us to death.
Most ISP's are dropping NNTP because it's just not cost effective. I was recently asked to figure out what we pay on a per user basis for our NNTP. It's looking like around $50/user. Heck it would be cheaper to just buy thoes few users Unlimited Giganews accounts.
Ask the average user what Newsgroups are and they will think it has something to do with CNN.com or FoxNews.com. Ask them about Napster, Limewire, BitTorrent and they know exactly what it is. | |
|
 vincentfox
join:2003-03-18 Davis, CA | YES! I run a Squid cache on my router now.
All HTTP clients are transparently redirected to it, saving about 30% of web traffic.
Yes if there were a compilable BT proxy, and an easy way to redirect clients to it I'd add that immediately. | |
|
 |  godprince
join:2002-01-03 Vallejo, CA | Re: YES! the Azureus bittorrent client has had an ISP cache implement for quite a while now. i dont know if its the same as this new item from cohen or not but i would suspect it is, Azureus leads development, it seems. | |
|
  AnonProxy Proxy of Anon Premium join:2001-05-12 ß | dummies in tech clothing Cache illegal content you become a provider....are these guys really this stupid? | |
|
  CableConvert Premium join:2003-12-05 Atlanta, GA | Bottom Line If its cheaper to do it (all legal and physical needs taken into consideration), they will...if not, they wont. Its about the bottom line, not the customer "experience" | |
|
  FiL Premium join:2005-08-16 Silver Spring, MD | prolly noob ?, but who cares... how exactly is the new BT 4.20 Release affecting me an other clients? For instance, I got BitComet. Is the 4.20 update only available with the newest "update" for, say, Bit Comet or Azureus?...kinda confused. Holla! | |
|
 |
|
 |