I didn't consider these 'asynchronous' services (although I've heard of them) as they don't exist here yet. Still, just because you can d/l at those speeds, does that mean you shouldn't share at all just to compensate for your limited upstream? And I understand your point about ppl using p2p at work, but again, should they even be doing this (queuing via AG for home pc
might be an exception)? And if ppl are behind firewalls & can't get around it, isn't there a reason for this & should they just leech as a result? To me, these just sound like excuses/situations which are exploited by leechers! I wish I had some of these
problems?! Surely there's only so much you can d/l, and from what I understand many broadband services allow you to be online perpetually? Also, I don't believe that the bandwidth controls in current p2p apps are necessarily good. This is another tool exploited by leechers. Right now they are the best solution but, as I stated above, it should be determined transparently by the program. How to do this is beyond me! Although I have no experience in broadband, it seems to me that ISP's don't regulate traffic, even if there are 'caps' or limits in effect. As far as they're concerned : excesses mean bigger bills for their customers/more revenue, so why regulate? The only workaround I can see is that somehow the OS keeps track of a connection, its limitations & its optimal config. If ISP's have anything to say in the matter, it probably won't happen. The problem & advantage with p2p is its anonymity, freedom & cross-platform nature. As soon as big business gets involved (however indirectly) there are obstacles.
Please correct me if I'm mistaken in any of these views (remember I have no practical experience with broadband.)
