> it's about as close as it gets to literally free bandwidth in our line of work. Listen, I'm all about inventive ways to lighten the yoke of static media on t

> it's about as close as it gets to literally free bandwidth in our line of work. Listen, I'm all about inventive ways to lighten the yoke of static media on the web today. But, in two important ways, this is not "literally free bandwidth": 1) The weaker: Despite the tone of obviousness in this article, it acknowledges that the choice of which technology to use is not made for you: there are edge cases where other methodologies are indeed superior. So, far from being free, these sorts of solution do have a time cost. 2) The stronger: We live in a world where, on a great day, the user's realized downstream bandwidth is 20% their LAN connection; their upstream 5% or less. Connecting to a next-door neighbor via a conventional web application served through a typical corporate ISP probably means pushing packets a thousand miles or more, only for them to come back into our community. Complicating this issue: our name service and certificate distribution are implemented in a way that is reasonably called "incorrect." Our ISPs have a "speak when spoken to mentality" about connectivity, and competition is rare. A solution bragging "literally free bandwidth" needs to service this concern - let me transfer a piece of media to a next door neighbor utilizing the other 95% of my network interface upstream capacity. That I'll call free bandwidth.