Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Users need to get directly involved in protecting the content they desire. In the long run we need a cross between TOR and bittorrent to create a distributed cache to avoid throttling. Local "metropolitan" bandwidth is very fast, hard drives have expanded 10x in 10 years. An alternative is to use WiFi mesh networks.



"a cross between TOR and bittorrent to create a distributed cache to avoid throttling"

That arguably describes Freenet, which I think actually predates both Tor and BitTorrent. It's languished in semi-obscurity for a variety of reasons: performance issues, a dearth of popular content, the possibility that your node caches illegal/unsavory data (this is implied by its approach to resisting censorship, which has been harshly criticized but which has no established alternative besides abandoning censorship-resistance as a goal)...


What makes you think this peer-to-peer network wouldn't be throttled?


It has many peers. Even if it's throttled on each one, they could distribute the load.


How much of that load is carried by Comcast-approved hosts?


It will be a cat-and-mouse game.


All Comcast has to do is not whitelist any of your peers.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: