page 2 is interesting to scan.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/19/iplayer_content_delivery_networks/
Interesting link, thanks. I think the BBC has to go down this route, it does pay for its transmitters for example. The interesting thing is, perhaps, the implications for other broadcasters, even net radio.
your right there, can't say i'm a fan of Network neutrality tbh though.
I'm totally neutral, unless I have an opinion, of course. :) Why are you against it?
Network neutrality in my opinion, may as well be called the restricted internet. To much power is given to isp's to throttle and control services. One of the main reasons I use idnet is due to none of the above. Network neutrality basically gives isp's the power to save money on their network bandwidth while giving them the ability to, for example corrupt your voip traffic and then try and charge you money. Instead of this saving money approach, money should be invested by the government to give us a better infrastructure instead of killing the (free) world of the internet. Would I be surpised if BT where pro Network neutrality, no I wouldn't for the simple fact that they don't want to spend cash.....
I see your point. The two-tier net is going to hit Tiscali etc users badly though. Come to think of it, it already does. ;)
Quote from: somanyholes on Mar 19, 2008, 12:37:30
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/19/iplayer_content_delivery_networks/
The problem for BT wholesale ipstream based ISPs is that local caching doesn't help them much. I remember recently seeing a blog post from someone at plusnet explaining roughly what the costs were. The bottom line is that most of thier costs are for the BT centrals not for the ongoing connections to the rest of the internet.
And with BBC content the saving will be even lower as most ISPs peer with the BBC.