gheskett at wdtv.com
Fri Aug 19 04:35:30 CEST 2011
On Thursday, August 18, 2011 10:23:49 PM Steven D'Aprano did opine:
> gene heskett wrote:
> >> But I'd like to return the question. What's wrong with nntp?
> > The sheer volume of traffic eats 99% of an ISP's bandwidth.
> I doubt that very much, particularly if the ISP drops the binary
> It's not like you have to install a second Interweb tube just for
> bittorrent, or that bittorrent packets cost more than HTTP packets. Fer
> fecks sake, the ISP doesn't even have to run a bittorrent server! It's
> practically free money to the ISP, packets go in, packets go out, they
> don't have to do a bloody thing with them.
Except pay for the bandwidth to get the bytes into their system.
> Now, an ISP might not have the bandwidth to supply all the needs of
> their customers, that's a separate issue.
Yes it is, which is why Hughs has a bandwidth limit cap they lift in the
middle of the night when overall traffic is zilch. The bird(s) only have
so much bandwidth and it costs tens of millions to 'lay another fiber' when
its 22,300 miles up.
OTOH, they have to pay for that bandwidth 24/7, so if they can move the
relatively few high traffic folks usage to 3-5 AM, they can service more
people watching old black and white John Holmes clips at 9-11pm. ;-)
> But complaining that the
> problem is specifically because they use bittorrent, as if it would
> disappear if they changed to HTTP, is bogus.
Agreed, that's 100% a red herring.
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Q: How many mathematicians does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: One. He gives it to six Californians, thereby reducing the problem
to the earlier joke.
More information about the Python-list