3 ms·
I agree that today's current "power" users use way more bandwidth with their P2P traffic, as compared to people just viewing streaming videos. However, P2P is o
by witten 18y ago
I agree that today's current "power" users use way more bandwidth with their P2P traffic, as compared to people just viewing streaming videos. However, P2P is only becoming more and more mainstream. (One could argue that it already is mainstream when it comes to MP3 audio.) And with dedicated media devices becoming more prevalent, downloading video around-the-clock isn't going to be so rare.
So my point still stands that users are only becoming greater consumers of bandwidth over time, and it's simply not sufficient for the major internet providers to pretend that all anyone will ever want to do with their net connections is check email.
- gunderson 18y agoYou seem to be assuming that p2p is the most efficient way to distribute content. It is not. Using a residential cable modem for pushing upstream content is not using it the way it was designed to be used. There is also a tremendous amount of peer traffic overhead that doesn't contribute to the download itself. P2P technology is great, but I think it's totally reasonable for ISPs to charge extra to those who wish to use it. After all, with P2P the ISP pays for all that extra bandwidth instead of the initial content distributor.
- witten 18y agoI'm not arguing anything about P2P efficiency. Whether or not it's comparatively efficient, counter to a particular network design, or even "fair" to the ISP, it is the case that its use is growing. In a competitive market, those ISPs who update their networks to accommodate the growing appetites of their users (just as is happening in every other industrialized country) stand to gain a competitive advantage.
- gunderson 18y agoI totally agree with that.