On 11/04/2008, David Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 16:13 +0100, Peter Bowyer wrote: > > On 09/04/2008, David McBride <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Dave Crossland wrote: > > > > > > > The BBC-vs-ISP bandwidth issue could be resolved by the BBC dropping > > > > DRM so that the ISPs can cache the data. > > > > > > The ISPs who are anticipating financial hardship are more concerned with > the > > > cost of bandwidth between their network and home ADSL users, and _not_ > between > > > their network and the outside world. > > > > > > This is because they are charged a metered rate by BT for all the > traffic they > > > relay over BT's ADSL network. > > > > > > Thus adding data caches to their network wouldn't solve their immediate > problem. > > > > Indeed. But BTW could do it for the benefit of all of its resellers. > > > It doesn't work like that. You have a pipe which runs all the way > through BT's network to your ISP. Even if the content in question were > somehow cached on a machine in your local exchange, that doesn't really > help because it doesn't see your IP traffic at all. Traffic from that > cache to you would go all the way out to your ISP and then back down > your pipe.
Yeah, I know how it works - 5 years in broadband OSS/BSS..... I agree that the current L2TP architecture wouldn't support it, but there's nothing stopping BTW making it so if there was a business case for it. In fact, since IPStream is a regulated product, the industry could put forward a statement of requirements and have them consider it. That would scale way better than each iddly-piddly IPStream reseller doing the caching themselves. Peter -- Peter Bowyer Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Follow me on Twitter: twitter.com/peeebeee - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
