Slyck.com
 
Slyck Chatbox - And More

Largest Thai ISP Caches P2P Traffic

Discuss Slyck's latest news
Forum rules
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Slyck Forum Rules

Largest Thai ISP Caches P2P Traffic

Postby SlyckTom » Sat May 13, 2006 2:06 pm

There appears to be no end in the explosion of P2P and file-sharing traffic. Trading information over the Internet has become a mainstream affair which by some estimates account for over 60% of an ISP’s bandwidth. BitTorrent, eDonkey2000, Gnutella, and even FastTrack are used by tens of millions of people every day to trade music, and to a growing extent, movies.

Trading small 5 megabyte songs doesn’t considerably hamper a ISPs bandwidth, yet 4.5 gigabyte DVD rips shared among millions of people does. Internet Service Providers aren’t stupid, and realize the success of the broadband revolution is largely attributable to the activities transpiring on P2P and file-sharing networks.

To some extent ISPs have in effect become victims of their own success. With a majority of their traffic absorbed by file-sharing, ISPs are in a continuous state of upgrading and investing their networks – a very costly affair. To mitigate these costs, ISPs have two choices; block P2P traffic or cache P2P traffic.

Blocking P2P traffic has proven to be wildly unpopular among customers, leading to widespread defections and condemnation throughout various Internet communities. This is particularly so on BroadBandReports.com, a site that holds considerable weight in the ISP decision making process.

Rather then being scorned and lose customers, many ISPs are choosing to cache P2P traffic. Caching works by keeping P2P traffic off a ISPs network by retaining popular query results on a server farm. For example, let’s say the BitTorrent protocol is taking up 70% of Verizon’s network. It can implement a P2P cache server that will retain the most popular of search query results, thereby lessening the amount of traffic that must transpire on their network. Instead of downloading a popular song or movie from a customer on AT&T’s network, the information will download from Verizon’s cache server.

This concept appears to be picking up steam, as several large ISPs are experimenting with the idea. NTL, a British broadband firm, has partnered with CacheLogic and BitTorrent in a bid to alleviate their bandwidth consumption.

Thailand’s True Internet, the country’s largest ISP, is also claiming success with PeerApp. PeerApp provides a technology very similar in nature to CacheLogic, where P2P traffic is routed to server farms rather than throughout the network. This has been an apparent success, as PeerApp claims that 60% of the ISPs traffic has been reduced.

“In addition to controlling its bandwidth costs, True is now able to manage peak and seasonal P2P traffic, and prepare for future P2P traffic growth…Return on investment is realized within a matter of months”, says Robert Mayer, CEO of PeerApp.

Although the release is a “look at me” type publication, it demonstrates the growing emphasis ISPs are placing on caching rather than blocking. It’s a significant step forward for True Internet, which services a country of over 60 million people.
Follow us on Twitter @SlyckDotCom
Join our Facebook Fan page
SlyckTom
 
Posts: 5713
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 7:22 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Largest Thai ISP Caches P2P Traffic

Postby Kilroy » Sat May 13, 2006 3:02 pm

SlyckTom wrote:Trading small 5 megabyte movies doesn’t considerably hamper a ISPs bandwidth, yet 4.5 gigabyte DVD rips shared among millions of people does.


Do you mean 5 megabyte songs? There aren't that many movies that are that small.
Kilroy
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 5:24 pm

Postby TcE » Sat May 13, 2006 3:23 pm

yes probley

great article now if only more isp's will catch on to this and impliment it

azureus has a feature for it, JPC ya thats it
TcE
 
Posts: 443
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 7:45 pm

Postby ChasingRefuge » Sat May 13, 2006 3:27 pm

Instead of downloading a popular song or movie from a customer on AT&T’s network, the information will download from Verizon’s cache server.


And then the MPAA/RIAA sue the ISP for allowing warez on their servers.
ChasingRefuge
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 10:14 pm

Postby SlyckTom » Sat May 13, 2006 3:49 pm

ISPs generally have safe harbors from being sued. Usenetserver, meganews, Easynews...all these ISPs are generally safe from being sued even though unauthorized material is stored on their servers...
Follow us on Twitter @SlyckDotCom
Join our Facebook Fan page
SlyckTom
 
Posts: 5713
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 7:22 pm
Location: New York City

Postby king8654 » Sat May 13, 2006 5:10 pm

Was just going to ask the whole copyright ordeal that would come in regards to this..

Yah, safe harbor..kinda unfair.
:twisted:

But good idea
User avatar
king8654
 
Posts: 1087
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 10:56 am

Postby londonlamb » Sat May 13, 2006 6:17 pm

I thought that only text files were held on Usenet's servers.

i.e.one person uploads a binary file and their uploading software converts it to text before it arrives on the servers.

Then, when someone else downloads the file their downloading software converts the text back to a binary file.

I am sure I have read this somewhere but perhaps I ate a bowl of stupid for breakfast.
londonlamb
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2005 3:04 pm
Location: UK

Postby hellrabbit » Sat May 13, 2006 7:11 pm

londonlamb wrote:I thought that only text files were held on Usenet's servers.

i.e.one person uploads a binary file and their uploading software converts it to text before it arrives on the servers.

Then, when someone else downloads the file their downloading software converts the text back to a binary file.


Essentially, yes.

londonlamb wrote:I am sure I have read this somewhere but perhaps I ate a bowl of stupid for breakfast.


Well, it didn't work so you'd better have another. :wink:
I only bite if you ask me to.
hellrabbit
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2005 2:02 pm
Location: Faydwer

Postby tm, » Sat May 13, 2006 7:19 pm

SlyckTom wrote:ISPs generally have safe harbors from being sued.

But under DMCA they are responsible for removing or disabling any and all infringing content reported to them - and this includes C&D notices spammed by automated bots crawling the P2P networks, that often turn in reams of bogus infringement claims.
tm,
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:23 am

Postby IceCube » Sat May 13, 2006 7:39 pm

Last I checked, the DMCA is in the US jurasdiction.
User avatar
IceCube
 
Posts: 17079
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 5:31 pm
Location: Igloo Country?

Postby ShawnSpree » Sat May 13, 2006 7:39 pm

They need to do something, my download speed just doubled to 6mg down. There gonna get used.
ShawnSpree
 
Posts: 1293
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 8:20 pm

Postby IceCube » Sat May 13, 2006 7:41 pm

That's actually a good point. If ISP's are not liking how much bandwidth is being consumed, why are they upgrading users to services they cannot provide?
User avatar
IceCube
 
Posts: 17079
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 5:31 pm
Location: Igloo Country?

Postby Asuran » Sat May 13, 2006 9:15 pm

That's actually interesting since after the content is cached downloaders will no longer connect to the original sharer. In other words, RIAA/MPAA can't see who shared it if they can only fetch it from the ISP cache. Furthermore this would mean that sharing via slow proxy-networks would become feasible, because the material would only need to be uploaded once into the cache after which everyone could dl it at full line speed (at that ISP).
Asuran
 
Posts: 1121
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 6:40 am
Location: Finland

Postby Thor » Sat May 13, 2006 10:27 pm

Currently ISPs cache most HTML pages, without verifying if text and images are copyrighted or not.

The same line of thought will be applied to P2P caching and any other type of file caching.

When you consider the fact that currently P2P networks are in operation, from the macro point of view, caching will change nothing. So the morality of telling ISPs they cant cache P2P because its mostly illegal becomes hypocrisy.

We have to also remember that not 100% of P2P is considered illegal by authorities, the people who are sharing legaly can not be penalized by the rest.

Since "Law can only be applied inside its own jurisdiction". Only developed countries ISPs will have a moral and legal debate of whether or not to implement P2P caching. Everywhere else in the world its going to be simple economics, "caching P2P == lower costs". Try telling a Chinese ISP that they can not cache P2P...

Although not every file on P2P has 5 mb, a lot of P2P networks divide large files in small pieces to spread more efficiently, the smaller pieces could be cached by ISPs. There is already a Emule project related to ISP caching.
Thor
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 11:57 pm

Postby REALITY » Sun May 14, 2006 1:49 am

Dont see this as much of a debate as sharing is going to occur in any event. Stepping away from caching isnt going to prevent anything from being shared. Fact seems not caching may put a company behind those that will making them less competetive due to costs of dealing with bandwidth. This may seem a heavy sting to the industry but see little for them to do. Seems futile for them to go against an also large industry which at this point may have no choice if to compete...
REALITY
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 3:08 am

Re: Largest Thai ISP Caches P2P Traffic

Postby nigel123 » Sun May 14, 2006 2:56 am

Kilroy wrote:
SlyckTom wrote:Trading small 5 megabyte movies doesn’t considerably hamper a ISPs bandwidth, yet 4.5 gigabyte DVD rips shared among millions of people does.


Do you mean 5 megabyte songs? There aren't that many movies that are that small.


plenty of porn clips that size...
nigel123
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2003 11:06 am
Location: Relatively close to Amsterdam,

Postby byteme » Sun May 14, 2006 8:00 am

SlyckTom wrote:ISPs generally have safe harbors from being sued. Usenetserver, meganews, Easynews...all these ISPs are generally safe from being sued even though unauthorized material is stored on their servers...



So what keeps them safe? You would think the industry would rather sue them because they would stand to get alot more money from them as opposed to sueing individual folks.
byteme
 
Posts: 18
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 12:30 pm

Postby archy » Sun May 14, 2006 8:10 am

byteme wrote:So what keeps them safe? You would think the industry would rather sue them because they would stand to get alot more money from them as opposed to sueing individual folks.


probably because a isp has the money to put up a legal defence. Unlike users who would prefer to settle instead of risking a costly court case.
archy
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:00 pm

Postby no_dammagE » Wed May 17, 2006 9:26 am

and the other thing is that they have the role of a middle-man
Windows? Blah. Linux? Blah. BSD? Blah.
Just make sure you have a computer licence and I can open your fsckin files.
Vorbis | Theora | LaTeX | OpenDocument
User avatar
no_dammagE
 
Posts: 652
Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2003 9:37 am


Return to Slyck News

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

© 2001-2008 Slyck.com