Hurray PTCL!!

Nor The ISPs Will Be The Virus…But Ourselves Who Don’t Want To Share.

Greed Is Part Of Our Human Nature…We Have To Act Against It.

Much Respect To The Dev Team.
I Take My Hat Off.

I strongly dislike the point of view many ISPs around the world have assumed. Too often they pretend to know better than us about our actual needs. Too willingly they give in to illegal requests of the IFPI and block sites for no reason.

Perhaps it’s time for natural selection to take its toll.

[quote]“BitTorrent users are not the problem, they only signal that the ISPs need to upgrade their capacity, because customers will only get more demanding in the future.”[/quote]

Or rather, bitTorrent (level bandwidth usage) is not the problem, it is the future; and any service providers who dispute this are dinosaurs, likely to be toppled by their far-more evolved successors in the near future.

what will the developers do now?, stand by and wait, or place an all Peer Obfuscation in place ASAP, even to other connected peers to hide the users IP etc?.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/22/burnham_dcms_filesharing/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/22/burnham_dcms_filesharing/comments/

a fully Encypted Muticasting tunnel is looking like a very good thing to many (UK)P2p users right now, will you step up and make it hapen?.[/quote]
[quote comment="295621"]@kami

you say to stop using comcast… sadly, the world is not always that simple. in some areas in the united states, comcast is a monopoly and if you want internet, you get it through comcast. or, you can get dial-up. but i and many other people would rather be beaten senseless (repeatedly) than go back to dial-up. besides, have you ever tried downloading a movie on dial-up? i have, and the beatings get my vote again.[/quote]

what will the developers do now?, stand by and wait, or place an all Peer Obfuscation in place ASAP, even to other connected peers to hide the users IP etc?.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/22/burnham_dcms_filesharing/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/22/burnham_dcms_filesharing/comments/

a fully Encypted Muticasting tunnel is looking like a very good thing to many (UK)P2p users right now, will you step up and make it hapen?.

you say to stop using comcast… sadly, the world is not always that simple. in some areas in the united states, comcast is a monopoly and if you want internet, you get it through comcast. or, you can get dial-up. but i and many other people would rather be beaten senseless (repeatedly) than go back to dial-up. besides, have you ever tried downloading a movie on dial-up? i have, and the beatings get my vote again.

Of course there is usually at least 4:1 ratio of upstream ports to down ports, but it doesn’t take too many P2P clients uploading content to fill it up.”

I agree, and my main point ,rather than the ease with which you might Encrypt the Tunnel, is its got to be FAR more economical to sent a single torrent/data packet _once_ to say 4 of your peers at a time with Multicasting, than send the same packet 4 seperate times to each unicast peer as now.

a very large saving in MC upload packets with even this basic 4/1 ratio compared to now with unicast.

sure it will take some thought regarding the re-transmission IF a seed didnt get that packet intact,but not that much work.

and every single packet saved is one less to send to the next Multicast peer.

its clear that even a very basic torrent Multicast peering is far better at using the very limited upstream capacity than any unicast peer if you have more than one person in a swarm.

id hope by now that multicasting has a clear advantage over uncast and we should at least consider moving to it.

at the very least, make a basic MC plug-in for AZ and try the Multicasting idea out.

bamboo DHT java code would seem to be a good starting point for any experimental Multicasting plug-in, also the java Mtunnel might get some torrent coders interest for inclusion.

Google: utorrent mpaa

it seems a simple thing to add a finer grained swarm localisation that trys to keep as much torrent traffic inside the local LAN,then WAN,then ISP, then country, and so on, so keeping the ISPs happy and the users happy too as it should improve throughput.

if you then want to wrap all this inside a tunnel to clean it all up for encryption end to end you must also consider adding the Multicasting DHT extension to once again free up masses of bandwidth.

its not about fighting the ISPs, its more a case of getting more for less and a Multicasting torrent extension will benefit everyone, along side encrypted end to end tunnels.

id rather the able bodyed coder would spend time adding and extending the existing JAVA multicasting DHT abd tunnel code to make far better use of my limited upload pipe for the betterment of all torrent users ,than fight the ISP and l loose out anyway, while the payed binary usenet gets bigger and yet forgotten.

will someone please make a client add-in for AZ to use an _encrypted_ _multicast_ _tunnel_ to other clients etc and we can all be happy in a very short time.[/quote]

It’s more than just transport between ISPs, it’s also about using up the limited upstream capacity of DOCSIS. 16-QAM is just 10 Mbps, while downstream at 256 QAM is ~38 Mbps. Of course there is usually at least 4:1 ratio of upstream ports to down ports, but it doesn’t take too many P2P clients uploading content to fill it up.

Exactly: instead of finding workarounds, why not vote with your pocket book? That’s likely to be more effective than identifying work arounds or contacting your legislator.