"John" <nospam49765447@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:66agg4F2h89o8U1@mid.individual.net...
Why have you got a video recorder?
They have only been around for 3 decades and you must be able to manage
without one.
What did you do before video recorders?

That's part of enjoying the internet, an operating system that gets
increasingly disfunctional with every patch.
How else are they going to be able to pitch the same crap
to persuade us that the next OS will be better than the
previous one?
Do I hear "It can't be any worse"?

"Cork Soaker" <ISawYourMotherLast@Night.invalid> wrote in message
news:ftqn99$dse$1@registered.motzarella.org...
complications.

the s/w might be free - but the dominant cost for evan an existing server is
running / maintaining / power & other services and eventually replacing it
when it dies or you cannot get spares anymore.

useful addresses.

although it is limited, there is still fair bit around - and most ISPs will
have spare space in their blocks.

After all - 5000 cache servers isnt much compared to the monthly growth of a
broadband ISP and they find at least 1 address per consumer for that....
old rule of thumb was whatever price you get the hardware for, maint came in
at around 10% / year.

then uplift the hardware to allow for install. Then pay for the Netlocate @
BT exchanges to put them in (or if it is BT, justify not being able to sell
that space to someone).

Regards

stephen_hope@xyzworld.com - replace xyz with ntl

I find it interesting to see so many people suggesting a caching approach
to the p2p costs problem. It would be nice except that it's just not
possible. The traffic is not visible at the exchange. The only way it
could become so would be to take all of the ISPs out of the equation and
to have BT be the only ISP allowed to use the existing BT owned last mile
copper and exchanges. Do you really want that?

On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 17:17:41 +0100, Cork Soaker wrote:

I've never seen anything to back up such a claim. No ISP "asked for a
license" to run under those terms - I certainly didn't (not that there is
such a thing as a license to run an ISP)

"Jason Clifford" <jason@ukfsn.org> wrote in message
news:ftrdjp$1uf$2@localhost.localdomain...
: On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 17:17:41 +0100, Cork Soaker wrote:
:
: > : Why should they be free to do all that without paying the costs of
: > doing : so and why should the ISPs or anyone else be required to pay for
: > their : doing so?
: >
: > Because that's what they signed up for when asking for the license to do
: > so.
:
: I've never seen anything to back up such a claim. No ISP "asked for a
: license" to run under those terms - I certainly didn't (not that there is
: such a thing as a license to run an ISP)

So you just startup and don't need OFCOM approval?

"Jason Clifford" <jason@ukfsn.org> wrote in message
news:ftrdh7$1uf$1@localhost.localdomain...
:I find it interesting to see so many people suggesting a caching approach
: to the p2p costs problem. It would be nice except that it's just not
: possible. The traffic is not visible at the exchange. The only way it
: could become so would be to take all of the ISPs out of the equation and
: to have BT be the only ISP allowed to use the existing BT owned last mile
: copper and exchanges. Do you really want that?

You missed the point about adding routing equipment at the exchange didn't
you?

Cork Soaker wrote:
Backhaul does cost money I even gave you an approximate figure.

I also do not understand how your caching would work.

"Nick" <Nick.Spam@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:66cuj0F2js1ekU1@mid.individual.net...
: Cork Soaker wrote:
: > "The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
: > news:1207990942.3086.3@proxy01.news.clara.net...
: > : Cork Soaker wrote:
: > :
: > : > The data travelling back down to the ISP backbone doesn't cost them
a
: > penny
: > : > though - they don't have to pay for their own traffic!
: > :
: > : Oh? so tye routers and teh fibres and teh staff to look after them
come
: > : free?
: > :
: > : Novel concept.
: >
: > Irrelevant, and missed the point by a mile.
: >
: >
: Well I have certainly missed the point of almost everything you said.
: Backhaul does cost money I even gave you an approximate figure.

Yes it is irrelevant, we are talking about bandwidth, not bloody equipment!
Jesus!

:
: I also do not understand how your caching would work.

It's not even about caching, that a word that creeped in. Torrents don't
"cache" anything, it's multiple copies of the same files.
I'm not going over it again.

Cork Soaker wrote:
Yes bandwidth cost money. At the moment BT charges approx £100 per month
for 1Mb/s.

In article news:<ftqqc1$uav$1@news.datemas.de>, Dennis@home wrote:
<off-topic type="anecdote>
While clearing our late mother's house, my sister and I discovered a
book that had been written by our great grandfather in his last years
(early 1920s) -- it's a history of part of the North of Scotland, told
with reference to the Norse sagas, which seems to have been something
of a pet interest of his. My sister flicked through the book for a
minute or two and said in terms of admonition "You see! This is the
sort of thing that happens when people don't have television."
</off-topic>

Cheers,
Daniel.

Jason Clifford wrote:
BT could adjust the model being used for delivering ADSL in this
country. Changing from "each ADSL line is a virtual connection all the
way from end-user to BT central" to "it's a virtual connection except
for the BBC".

Is that likely? I think not. For a start it wouldn't be in BT's best
interests - they would be lowering the bandwidth over their network
which they currently charge for (an ISP could have more users per
central before having to buy another one).

Secondly not all ADSL connections are connected to the IPv4 Internet,
and even those which are may not be unrestricted. Many companies use
ADSL connections into their own (or managed by an ISP) internal network
to replace leased lines/frame relay type connections. Some ISPs may
filter the connection to the Internet too (eg. block adult sites for
home users or entertainment sites for business users).

Thirdly, even if BT did do this, what would they "cache". A traditional
proxy server wouldn't help with the BBC situation as the video is
streamed (RTMP instead of HTTP). Using an Akamai box might work,
assuming the BBC used that CDN for streaming, but the BBC is only one of
many streaming video services.

And finally, all this would only help those ISPs using IPStream. LLU
operators, which are now quite popular (Sky, Tiscali, Be, etc),
completely bypass everything BT does in its network. So what do you do
with regards to them?

All in all I can't really see BT doing much, and even if they did I
can't see ISP's bills going down much if any as a result. The
fundamental problem is that people are using more bandwidth than the
cost of their ADSL connection budgets for, so you either have to reduce
their usage (eg. blocking, throttling, capping) or raise their prices.

Cork Soaker wrote:
And how do you get bandwidth without equipment?

Cork Soaker wrote:

Cork Soaker wrote:
There did used to be such a license, but most ISPs qualified for the
"class license" which didn't require a fee or any paperwork. Since 2003
this has been replaced with "The General Authorisation Regime". See
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/telecoms/ioi/g_a_regime/

But in general you've never had to get approval to become an ISP.

Cork Soaker wrote:
Why would BT want to do that though?

And if they did, how would LLU fit in, and wouldn't the ISPs then just
be complaining of new costs for such a service?

Stuart Clark wrote:
I don't understand that: BT route backhaul over their frame relay cloud
to the ISPS. Ithas more than one 'central'. in that virtual cloud.


Indeed.

Indeed.

No they do not.

Unless they have alternative fobre into te exchanges, they have to use
BT backhaul.

Thats their problem.

Yep. There might be ways to improve efficiency by re-nationalising BT,
but then you get the inefficiency of a zero competition monopoly.

It will ultimately all work itself out. BT will have to upgrade its
transit circuits, but once it starts making obscene profits out of it,
it will have to reduce its prices.

To lay a fibre costs as much whether its doing 64Kbps or 16Gb/s.

The termination equipment does not scale in price with bandwidth either,
in a linear fashion. Yes, a 16Gbps optical router is expensive, but not
a thosand times more than a 16Mbps one!

Stuart Clark wrote:
Routing equipment has to have somewhere to route to.

In the case of an exchange, at best it could simply short P2P circuit
traffic between two people on the same exchange.

All other traffic has to go up the line to somewhere else.

Its a bit like the railways. You have to go to London, and then get from
one mainline station to the next to get anywhere. There aren't that many
cross country routes ;-)



The optimal traffic solution would be to have a single national carrier,
which routed between exchanges directly using the nearest central. If
P2P was what the internet actually DID.

but in reality it's cheaper and easier to put all the big servers in one
or 5 buildings, linked by very fast and cheap circuits. Then distribute
out to the consumers.

BT may or may not do what it has to to reduce its internal traffic, or
it may simply charge more.

Without any true pan national competition, there isn't much we can do
about it.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Indeed, but for a particular ADSL end-user you can imagine the
connection as a very long cable all the way from their house to the
ISP's BT central - there currently isn't a way to route traffic before
you get to the ISP. This is what would have to change for such a cache
to be possible. And that can get very complex very quickly - ISP A
doesn't want to allow traffic X, so BT has to add firewall rules within
its network and build the ability for ISP A to change them at will.
Scale that to a few thousand ISPs and you have quite a challenge.

OK. I should have said "everything BT does in its ADSL network."

As you said some LLU operators do completely bypass BT (just using the
wire from the end user to their rack in the exchange) with their own
fibre backhaul. But even those who do hire that fibre off BT it isn't
anything to do with the ADSL traffic. Hiring a dark fibre or 10Mbps
connection is exactly that - BT may own the physical cable, but it isn't
any difference than if is where a Sky owned one.

So why make it BTs problem in the first place? Is it just because they
are "big" or that lots of ISPs use their wholesale offerings? Some of
the LLU operators also offer a wholesale product to other ISPs.

Why isn't it just being left as the ISPs problem completely, ignoring BT
wholesale/Openreach?

I'll leave that as an academic possibility, as I don't think it could
happen politically.

I don't think the main problem is BT. Yes the cost of bandwidth over
their network is high (more than the transit costs of moving the traffic
over the wider Internet), but end user networks are always more costly
than core networks (connections to a million people is going to cost
more than connections to a hundred datacentres).

I'm sure BT or other LLU operators will lower the cost to the ISP over time.

The biggest immediate problem is that the statistical model used to
determine prices by the major ISPs is no longer valid. Once upon a time
people did leave their connections mainly idle and only did the
occasional email or webbrowse, but P2P and video/audio streaming have
completely altered that. The statistical model needs to be updated. In
the short term this may mean higher prices for the consumer.

No, but even if it where only twice as expensive, having to install
thousands of them is still a huge expense. BT (or any business) will
only do that if they are sure it will lead to a good return on investment.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
That would help for P2P, but nothing else, and even that would probably
be quite marginal. How many people are likely to be downloading the same
torrent (or whatever other P2P system equivalent) at the same exchange,
and is the P2P software going to choose a nearby user anyway (how does
it know it is nearby for starters).

So just allowing same exchange short-circuiting is probably more costly
than the benefit.

Any other short-circuiting is going to require some travelling over the
BT backhaul network, and hence is going to have a per Mbps cost. And
that cost could end up being as much as the current back to the ISP cost
anyway.

The main advantage of that though is the system is much simpler and
cheaper. Imaging having hundreds of cross country routes, meaning miles
and miles more track. How much extra is all that going to cost to
maintain, and how much more complex is planning a route between two
locations. The wider Internet is already seeing some pain at the growth
of the routing table, with many routers now being unable to cope, and
this is with just 250k routes - how's BT's system going to work with
millions of routes (one per ADSL user).