[ILUG] Free software for .pando files?

[Michael Watterson]

paul at clubi.ie wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2007, Thomas Bridge wrote:
>
>> The entire thrust of my comments have been aimed at the position that 
>> as a cost of managing and routing P2P traffic, transit is not 
>> particularly high on the list.  I've never suggested there were 
>> problems with using transit (by which I include peering with other 
>> ISPs).
>
> Ok.
>
> So there are no problems - at least, nothing mentioned by me or the 
> other two posters so far is a problem.
>
> How about going into detail as to what (if any) problems P2P is 
> causing ISPs, with respect to load particularly. That'd be far more 
> productive application of your operational experience than this 
> naysaying..
Basically there are 3 areas where assumptions are made about traffic, 
similar to capacity planning for voice. No phone exchange in ISDN era 
could handle more than a fraction of users simultaneously. Sometimes an 
"engaged" tone means the C.O. or Mobile network is at capacity.

Mobile internet used as fixed Internet is going to seriously wreck O2, 3 
and vodaphone.

The three areas are:
1) "last Mile":  The up to 8km of ADSL from DSLAM, the contended 
bandwidth of Cable or Wireless sectors. Typically 10:1 to 48:1 contention
2) "backhaul" from the exchange or mast
3) connectivity between all your masts, exchanges and everyone else.

Backhaul
Even so called "no contention " packages are contended as it is assumed 
that if you aggregtate 1000 users (say) a maximum amount of traffice is 
much less than sum num Users * package per user. Infact people on 48:1 
Wireless / Cable rarely see  1/48th of their speed, maybe contention 
takes them down to 1/2 or 2/3rd.  I'd assume very little aggregated 
Backhaul is less than 10:1

P2P routing at exchange level would oly save maybe less than 1% of 
backhaul. If P2P, esp TV services that use it and people don't realise 
it is P2P,  replaced Broadcast TV, then 10x as much backhaul is needed.  
This is a very expensive thing. ISPs that have not built their own 
backhaul networks will go to the wall.

Cable & Wireless will need smaller segments and cells, 10 times the capex.

So basically if IPTV replaced Broadcast TV we are looking at a basic 
Broadband costing 200 Euro a month for it to work.

Of course there would be a big drive to do fibre to curb (not likely in 
Rural) so in 10 year period you would eventually have 25 Euro Fibre with 
20Mbps nearly uncontended (maybe 3:1) with working IPTV for Urban 
Dwellers but very exepensive Rural Wireless (10Mbps @ 60 Euro 10:1 
contention at best, typically 3Mbps 20:1 @ 20 euro.

Don't beleive WiMax or 4G hype. It can be fast or far but not both. To 
get 20Mbps 3:1 contention wireless you need over 1/2 the UHF TV band, 
about 300MHz or more. Obviously actually BROADCAST for TV is more 
efficient than per person IPTV  over Wireless.

So I'm for a campaign of free sat dishes. free DTT decoders and ban P2P 
for TV.