> > But that’s already happening. All big content providers are doing just > that. They even sponsor you the appliance(s) to make more money and save on > transit costs ;)
Noted; this was a comment on what's already the case, not a proposal for how to address it instead. Apologies as I used poor phrasing here. -- Hugo Slabbert | email, xmpp/jabber: h...@slabnet.com pgp key: B178313E | also on Signal On Sun, Mar 22, 2020 at 6:45 PM Łukasz Bromirski <luk...@bromirski.net> wrote: > Hugo, > > > On 23 Mar 2020, at 01:32, Hugo Slabbert <h...@slabnet.com> wrote: > > > > I think that's the thing: > > Drop cache boxes inside eyeball networks; fill the caches during > off-peak; unicast from the cache boxes inside the eyeball provider's > network to subscribers. Do a single stream from source to each > "replication point" (cache box) rather than a stream per ultimate receiver > from the source, then a unicast stream per ultimate receiver from their > selected "replication point". You solve the administrative control problem > since the "replication point" is an appliance just getting power & > connectivity from the connectivity service provider, with the appliance > remaining under the administrative control of the content provider. > > But that’s already happening. All big content providers are doing just > that. They even sponsor you the appliance(s) to make more money and save on > transit costs ;) > > — > ./
