[ale] comcast & bittorrent

[ozone at webgroup.org (David Tomaschik)]

Because, IMO, I'm paying for a certain amount of bandwidth each way and
should be able to use it any way I want... BitTorrent seeding, etc.  I'm
completely opposed to ISPs that tell you that you cannot run a server on
your cable connection or that block port 25.  (I'm still stuck using
them, of course).  Caching is such a 1990s technology and is
significantly less useful these days with the amount of dynamic content
on the internet.

David


Jim Popovitch wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-08-18 at 10:59 -0400, Paul Cartwright wrote:
>   
>> FsG writes "Over the past few weeks, more and more Comcast users have reported 
>> that their BitTorrent traffic is severely throttled and they are totally 
>> unable to seed. Comcast doesn't seem to discriminate between legitimate and 
>> infringing torrent traffic, and most of the BitTorrent encryption techniques 
>> in use today aren't helping. If more ISPs adopt their strategy, could this 
>> mean the end of BitTorrent?"
>>     
>
> Yes.  Sorta.  It takes X amount of resources to transfer Y file.  If the
> provider of Y is not spending X, then someone else is somewhere.
>
> Cable providers added caching proxies years ago to handle large and
> repeated downloads by their users... with BT the reverse situation
> occurs, that is lots of cable customers are providing the same (or
> pieces of the same) content on the upstream channel benefiting non-Cable
> customers.... and there is no way to reverse-cache this.  Why should
> Cable companies allow/support that?
>
> -Jim P.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>