Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDon
And legitimate download sites such as itunes are far far cheaper to provide bandwidth for than p2p.
The issue isn't with the volumes of traffic with p2p, it's the TYPE of traffic
|
Then wouldn't something like P4P be a good option? Both save cash and increase customer satisfaction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proacti...pation_for_P2P
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...downloads.html
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...peer-tech.html
Maybe products from
Cachelogic?
ISPs have options to think outside the box, away from the corporate network model of throttling / blocking anything you don't like. Distributed network caching, utilising anycasting, CDNs, these guys have multiple datacentres, extensive control over their networks and their connectivity to the outside world.
I'm also not sure why you keep mentioning transit as a major cost driver - it isn't. The major cost driver is and always will be the last mile bandwidth on an ISP network. Less than a tenner per Mbit/s/month on transit pales somewhat compared to the cost of an optical resegmentation, pulling KM of fibre, installing lasers, civils of building a new node, a few grand on a CMTS card to supply another 38Mbit/s to 400 customers.
Joe Average's 10GB/month costs VM at most £1.25 assuming 128kbps peak usage and being 100% transit traffic. This is why STM is there, to lower the spike at peak times from heavy users. Transit charges are at 95th percentile so it's purely based on peak usage, which STM reduces.
BT throttling on cable is nothing at all to do with transit bandwidth, no cable ISP throttles torrents to reduce their transit bill, they throttle them to reduce their upstream loading - this is why cable ISPs in Canada and the US only throttle uploading, and why Comcast's equipment exclusively targetted upstream. In the case of DSL ISPs they throttle to reduce interconnect bills with incumbents or load on ILEC rented CO/exchange links.