NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: True Cost of using BitTorrent for Distribution
That BitTorrent shifts costs away from the publisher is well understood, its why both Valve (with Steam) and Blizzard (massive WoW updates) use this style to transfer data. Although this case, by being a very popular file, is better at cost shifting than a less popular file. But why ISPs hate it is that although it reduces the cost to the publisher, it increases the TOTAL cost of distributing a file, and that cost is born by the receiving ISPs. Look at it this way: BitTorrent is very poor when it comes to being topologically aware, and even if it was, it is rare that 2+ or 3+ people are on the same local loop. So what happens is that in order to distribute the file, instead of using the content provider's bandwidth ($.18-$.10/GB through Amazon S3/EC2, or less if you are Apple or Youtube), it goes onto the ISP's aggregate upstream bandwidth bills. And the AGGREGATE cost goes up (probably by a factor of 4, as a rough guess), because the cost for an Amazon to provide bandwidth is much less than an ISP, because of the infrastructure costs and location (its easy to get a gigabit pipe to a colo facility in Silly Valley, its expensive to get a Gb pipe out to Laramie, Wyoming). So although in this example, it saved the PUBLISHER 95% of his share of the distribution cost, it more than doubled every ISPs distribution cost. And this is why BitTorrent, even when used for legal content, will be fought tooth and nail by ISPs unless and until there is regulatino which prevents this. BitTorrent is efficient for the publisher, but inefficient for the ISPs, as each bit is transfered at least twice.