no, it will be The Open Edge Content Delivery Network.

http://www.toecdn.org/

http://internationalextraditionblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/us-sweden-extradition-supplementary-treaty-35-ust-2501.pdf
The supplementary treaty between Sweden and U.S.

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/06/25/the_brilliant_legal_calculus_behind_assanges_asylum_request
The legal calculus behind Assange's asylum request

And you also have this monster thread regarding this (in Swedish) with over 62000 comments!
https://www.flashback.org/t1275257
Wikileaks grundare Julian Assange eftersokt for valdtakt i Sverige

No, you are wrong.

We (Sweden) have a separate agreement with the U.S. regarding this. That's why he's scared of being transported to the U.S. from Sweden.

is not Blu-ray quality and thats what we want.

TOECDN trump p2p networks for distribution.

Yeah, don't think so.

(If I mentions TOECDN I'm going to get modded down, so I will not mentions TOECDN).

Yes it does. Which other cache solutions does allows you as a customer to setup your own cache at home and at the same time is open for anyone to use?

Think of all the websites on the Internet which is run as non-profit. My first thought and example would be wikipedia. They do have alot (alot!) of static content which is the main part of their traffic.

Now add a ISP which is in the third world. Up link via a satellite. How many of the current cache providers would actually place their cache-servers at this ISP? None. To small. On the other hand this is an very good example which will benefit with a cache-server since they do have very limited of bandwidth.

My point is that it will require someone quite big (like wikipedia) to start using TOECDN in the first place. Then the rest will follow.

Have in mind that the concept of TOECDN in released in public domain. Just for the purpose to keep it neutral and for everyone to use.

Actually with TOECDN it goes from 14 to 1 solution.

I, as independent content provider can not and are not allowed to use Netflix caching solution. That is not what I call Net Neutrality.

My point with these two examples is that this content is also much cache-able (its static so it doesn't change), so you don't need mirrors anymore!

What I mean is that nobody is interested in TOECDN as a solution to cache static content, independent of whoever is the origin of the content.

With TOECDN you as an ISP only need one setup of cache-servers not one from each content provider (as in my examples). Easier to maintain and to deploy. And its free for everybody to use. Net Neutrality.

It might be exaggerated but you are seeing stories like this one atleast once a week now.

Netflix has its own caching.
Amazon has their own caching.
Akamai has their own caching.
Limewire has their own caching.

Apache has their own caching http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/ (talking about download their software, not their cache server).
Sourceforge has their own caching http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/sourceforge/wiki/Mirrors/.

(I think you can add alot more of my examples).

Why have gazillions of differents caching solutions when you only need one, which honor Net Neutrality by design?

I prefer my router so that it can cache the content from all the device on my network. But that's just me.

Since we are talking about static content, you can have it cached right next to the consumer, if you want.

BUT.

No one is interested in a solution which not only solve this, but also let anyone to use and cache their content, independent of the provider.

What everybody in the Internet industry is doing instead is trash-talking each other.

Your ISP sells you a product which they know is oversold in capacity. Instead of fixing their capacity problem they now try to get you a their consumer to not use their product (the cap limit).

The concept of TOECDN solves the distribution of static content on the Internet. NetFlix, Youtube, Steam and whatever you are using to go over your cap can and should be fixed by TOECDN.

TOECDN place the cache server as close as possible to you as a consumer - even with the possibility to have your own cache server at home!

If you place cache-servers within the ISP networks, they, as a benefit, don't have to upgrade their networks connection to be able to push out more data to their consumers.

Before anyone reply and say: it won't work, it will never work, I will make sure its not going to work, I have invested heavenly in CDN companies stocks so your solution can not see the light, etc...

I would like to ask you: How does _your_ solution looks like to be able to let anyone on the Internet to cache their content on cache-servers within a ISP?

http://www.toecdn.org/