en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·DSL EXTREME
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to swhx7
Re: Legal P2P will be fostered; illegal P2P will be punished
Nobody invests in capacity, unless they can make a profit on that investment.
Its more likely that you'll find the investment to be in managing the efficiency of the existing capacity.
This would almost go back to the days of having ISP run cached proxy servers.
I almost wonder if this p4p is an attempt at creating ISP based seed proxy servers for customers. It would cut down on bandwidth consumption, and sold p2p issues.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by en102  :Nobody invests in capacity, unless they can make a profit on that investment. Its more likely that you'll find the investment to be in managing the efficiency of the existing capacity.
That's just putting a nicer spin on "it will be more profitable for the ISP to charge more and more, make more restrictive policies, and never improve anything for the customers".
said by en102 :I almost wonder if this p4p is an attempt at creating ISP based seed proxy servers for customers. It would cut down on bandwidth consumption, and sold p2p issues.
They can't seed or cache anything from p2p without getting in legal trouble, because a lot of what's out there (and a lot of what's popular and would benefit from caching) is copyright-infringing. Even indiscriminate caching would get them sued, and if they did it selectively it wouldn't help much with the traffic problem.
Besides, it would amount to the same thing as collaborating with Pando/p4p companies. But that doesn't reduce their peering costs unless they discourage p2p (see my "it's a scam" post). |
|
funchords
Robb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Hillsboro, OR
·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Skype
·Comcast
| reply to en102
said by en102 :I almost wonder if this p4p is an attempt at creating ISP based seed proxy servers for customers. It would cut down on bandwidth consumption, and sold p2p issues. They could do that right now.
Every ISP could just put out a machine named tracker that falls in their DNS resolve space -- for example:
tracker on comcast would be tracker.comcast.net
tracker on verizon would be tracker.verizon.net
tracker on rr would be tracker.rr.com
...and etc...
It could even be regionalized if the RDNS is set up that way
tracker for my IP would be tracker.or.comcast.net
And BitTorrent downloaders simply need to add the one word "tracker" to the list of trackers on any torrent, private or public. The only IPs on that tracker would be from that same ISP (because "tracker" wouldn't resolve elsewhere). It wouldn't violate copyright since trackers only carry a hash (no file or archive names) and IP addresses.
WALLAH! Done. No need for P4P. No closed-source apps required. No strange algorithms or AS lookups. No gatekeepers. Just one machine and one DNS entry can bias BitTorrent to keep a lot of its activity on-net.
Very simple. Try it -- you'll see that I'm right about that.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...
|
|
funchords
Robb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Hillsboro, OR
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
·Comcast
| reply to swhx7
said by swhx7 :They can't seed or cache anything from p2p without getting in legal trouble, because a lot of what's out there (and a lot of what's popular and would benefit from caching) is copyright-infringing. Sure they can ... Via DMCA notices ... just like YouTube.
Comcast already handles DMCA notices, so allowing a PeerCache and applying notice handling to that would be no big whoop (hell, it might end up saving time!).
Now DMCA is broken itself, but that's a different story.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...
|
|
swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to funchords
Trackers only connect the peers with one another. This could help to keep connections within the ISP's network if (a) there were seeders within the ISP's network (b) the ISP kept enough torrent files on the tracker to answer a lot of the demand (c) subscribers were willing to use the ISP's tracker instead of a remote one.
But the gain would be only small, For more reduction of peering costs, the ISP would have to cache content, or in Bittorrent terms, provide seeds. This would make ISPs the infringers, not merely conduits, in the case of infringing files. It would still leave customers going off the network whenever they want something that's not on the ISP's tracker, or when they don't trust the ISP. |
|
funchords
Robb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Hillsboro, OR
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
·Comcast
edit:
May 22nd, @07:39PM
| I think you misunderstand what a tracker is. A tracker isn't a website that hosts .torrent files or that has information about the contents a download.
A tracker is simply an HTTP machine that accepts queries containing an infohash and outputs IP addresses and port numbers related to it.
When your client contacts a tracker, that tracker doesn't know whether you're downloading a song or a picture, an album or a movie.
Many trackers are attached to web sites, those web sites do contain .torrent files and information about the download -- and they even exchange data with the tracker function.
So when I was talking about a tracker, I'm simply talking about the machine that identifies who is in the swarm.
said by swhx7 :Trackers only connect the peers with one another. This could help to keep connections within the ISP's network if (a) there were seeders within the ISP's network Everyone who is downloading has data available to upload. There doesn't have to be a single on-net seeder in order to relieve stress at the network boundaries.
Note, the proposal is to add "tracker" to the list of trackers, not replacing the existing trackers on the list.
(b) the ISP kept enough torrent files on the tracker to answer a lot of the demand (See above -- trackers don't store .torrent files, they only accept the infohash calculated from the contents of a .torrent file.)
(c) subscribers were willing to use the ISP's tracker instead of a remote one. (see above -- we're talking about adding to the list of trackers, not replacing it.)
I completely agree that the subscriber should have the free choice of using such a tracker. If a greater proportion of more local peers generally improves download speed -- which it should -- then I suspect downloaders will choose to do so unless ISPs also start to mess with the privacy of their users.
But the gain would be only small, This is essentially what Pando is doing to get 250% to 800% improvement. This is also what the Azureus plugin Ono strives to do and they claim huge speed improvements, too.
But you've already misunderstood the proposal, and your theory was based on that misunderstanding. Perhaps you'll see more clearly now.
For more reduction of peering costs, the ISP would have to cache content, or in Bittorrent terms, provide seeds. How much reduction is needed before it is enough? Answer: we don't know. The ISPs are all complaining that P2P makers must reduce the impact but they've never said by how much, or when, or even where in the network (the last mile, the boundary gateway, upload, download). They've given absolutely no data. Oh, but they do call us Bandwidth Hogs -- so do they want to make piglets or do they really want to make bacon?
Yeah and no. Once a file is unpopular, the once-in-a-while normal download of that file isn't all that impactful. But when something is newly released, and several hundreds of ACTIVE connections are crossing the network boundary to get it, then having a cached copy and internal peers as data sources really can cut the demand on the boundary gateways.
Caching may be of concern to those who are using private systems, because caching would reduce the demand for their upload bytes and their ratio will suffer. That said, if this model becomes widespread, then administrators should reset their expectations about ratios anyway.
This would make ISPs the infringers, not merely conduits, in the case of infringing files. No more than YouTube is an infringer. DMCA take-down notice. Done, it's off the local cache. If my downloading of the content is within my rights, I can contest the DMCA notice (probably a waste of time because most uses are not fair use) or get the file without the benefit of the cache.
This does not add to or take away from a downloader's rights or a copyrightholder's rights in any way, nor does it help nor hinder a copyrightholder in protecting his rights.
It would still leave customers going off the network whenever they want something that's not on the ISP's tracker, or when they don't trust the ISP.
You're right! You can't make P2P a zero-impact technology, but that isn't the goal. The goal is to reduce its impact in a meaningful way -- and my proposal would do that.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...
|
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| reply to funchords
Yep. American laws gives protection to automated non-human intervention systems. Aslong as the humans responsible for the automated non-human system responds to DCMA takedowns/supeonas/orders, everything is perfectly legal. Otherwise your ISP would be held as liable as you for any p2p you do, and the Tier 1 too, and the leasers of the fiber optic lines, and the city too (for aiding copyright infrindgment). |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY | reply to funchords
Exactly. Trackers eat up less bandwidth than a teenager's IM conversation. 10 KB every 20 minutes. Its would be retarded for an ISP to run their own tracker. |
|
