On Wednesday 22 March 2006 03:59, Mike McCarty wrote:
>Florin Andrei wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> 2. Some ISPs, especially in the US, _do_ restrict BitTorrent
>> In some cases, it's a layer 3 limiter which can be evaded by
>> shifting ports. In other cases it's a layer 4 limiter which usually
>> cannot be evaded by shifting ports, and may or may not be evaded by
>> encrypted clients.
>> If that's the case, take your business elsewhere and make sure to
>> let the former ISP know why you're leaving them.
>
>If I were your ISP, I'd be glad to see your backside.
>
>This attitude is part of why I said I'm philosophicaly opposed to
>BitTorrent.
>
Why? Properly done, it doesn't make their data traffic any worse, in
fact less "peaky". I'm seeding both the cd's and the dvd of FC5 right
now, with my upload rate set to around 60% of my up pipes width, and
all other services are functioning normally. Because torrent gets its
data from closer peers rather than farther if it can determine that
correctly, the worldwide amount of traffic should actually go down. By
quite measurable amounts. This is offset to a large degree by the fact
that more folks will make use of it when it works, as opposed to going
after a 700 meg download from halfway around the planet because thats
the only server for that file.
>Mike
>--
>p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
>This message made from 100% recycled bits.
>You have found the bank of Larn.
>I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
>I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
--
Cheers, Gene
People having trouble with vz bouncing email to me should add the word
'online' between the 'verizon', and the dot which bypasses vz's
stupid bounce rules. I do use spamassassin too. :-)
Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above
message by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2006 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.
