DNS (Re: Distrowatch.org is down ???

[Eric Dunbar]

> > i was thinking it is political, to limit file sharing.
> > does someone here know how much uploading costs providers ?
> 
> I don't think it should cost anything. I mean, maybe I am bit naive or
> ignorant,  but when we use BT, all we do is redistribute the existing
> bandwidth accross all the users (hence ISPs) over the world. We are not
> using any extra BW.  If we download something from BT, hence all over
> the world, then as a consequence, ISP all over the world won't have to
> supply any downstream BW.  So we are just "re-arranging" the traffic
> over the entire internet network, but overall, the quantity of data in
> transit, is exactly the same. If we upload to someone directly though
> BT, then someone somwhere won't be downloading from his ISP's server,
> henc eless cost for the ISP. So I think BT makes no difference
> whatsoever, and that everything is smoothed out accross the entire
> internet. In short, BT rocks, and ISP should give us as much upstream BW
> as downstream, at no additional cost. Period. :o)

AFAIK BT does in fact drain resources quite rapidly. In one recent
op-ed (opinion-editorial) piece I saw a technology pundit pull the
number 1% of users using 90% of bandwidth out of his hat when he
talked about BT.

Of course, I don't know how reliable that statement is but file
sharing does seem like it would chew up a *lot* of bandwidth. Most
consumer ISPs shouldn't experience a whole lot of out-bound traffic
from the *vast* majority of their users.

What do *most* people do legally? Browse the web with http, check
mail, listen to audio streams (radio), do internet chat (AOheLl/iChat,
MSN Messenger, gaim, etc.), occasionally download a file or app and,
if they're "really" tech savvy they might use a voice chat protocol.
Overall, these activites requires VERY little out-going bandwidth
(even voice chat will be no more than 2-5 K/sec outbound... video will
be higher).

Add "file sharing" to the mix, *especially* illegal or
not-so-very-ethical (depending on your jurisdiction; e.g. in Canada
music file sharing of music is still 100% legal... though, they're
trying to make it a crime) music/video sharing and the outbound and
inbound bandwidth demands go through the roof.

I hate to say it, but even (perhaps especially) *legal* BT downloads
and uploads use *a lot* of bandwidth. I say especially because most
legal BT downloads are for *huge* files (ISOs). I once d/l the ISOs
for YellowDogLinux this way and left the BT client running so that it
would share up the files. In a day or so the BT client claimed it had
served up well over 2 GB worth of file to the web. That's a solid,
sustained 20+ KB/s or more. That's a *lot* of outgoing bandwidth that
I chewed up there FOR THAT ENTIRE DAY. From 01:00-08:00 local time
it's not an issue since few people are on at those hours (culture
dependent) but any other time of day it becomes a problem.

That's why ISPs don't like it. I don't think they care about moral
arguments about stealing or denying people royalties or anything like
that but they do have problems when one (or a few) person(s) is/are
using up a significant portion of the bandwidth *all* the time (most
other web-related activites use only little bits of u/l activity every
now and then). And, the most important thing for normal users is that
requests get OUT fast. If these requests are delayed because 20 users
are BTing and sucking up at least 400 K of d/l traffic when normally
200 users suck up that might traffic, the ISP will hear a lot more
complaints from the 200 that are experiencing slow response times than
from the 20 users "contributing" to the wider community.

Don't get me wrong. I love the idea of giving back to the wider
community through BT (for legal stuff) and taking a load off the
servers that "seed" the ISOs, but, I do understand why ISPs have
problems with BT.

Especially since the BULK of BT and other types of file sharing are of
illegal/unethically traded files. Since Linux use hovers around the
1-2% mark world-wide on the desktop and only a tiny fraction of that
group will be d/ling with BT (higher % of BT users than "normal"
population probably b/c of tech savvy) 100% legal d/l will be a rare
thing. Most bandwidth consumption will be by audio-video stuff which
is arguably not-so-very ethical (and, only a tiny % of that will be of
stuff for which the author gave permission). D/ling or distributing
the latest block-buster movie is not exactly a defensible activity --
if you can't afford or don't like the movie co's business practices or
theatre's pricing structure you have a very simple solution -- wait
until it comes to a rental store or *don't* watch the movie.

Anyway, that's an entirely different discussion. If anyone's come
across a good article on the effects of BT (whether legal or illegal),
*not* written by the RIAA or an "information was made to be free type"
then please point me in that direction.

Eric.