I regularly get ~500kB/s downloads from public trackers. Yes, I also get 20kB/s. That's life. But moaning about how us, dirty unwashed masses, always get 30kB/s all the time just paints you as a spoiled, whining elitist in search of "special" treatment.
Well, that's true that the "private" trackers (i.e. tree-houses for pimple-faced "leet" pricks who want to feel better about themselves while getting thoroughly suckered by the site owner) do demand that you durn DHT off. But that is because with DHT and peer exchange, their "private" little clubs would soon join the public swarm of peers with that torrent they are trying to squirrel away. The DHT does not affect the "share ratio" of the person who had it on to the exclusion to all else, but instead it allows the connecting clients to find out all of the peers in the "private" swarm and connect to all of them. Since the "private" tracker has no way of knowing who is connecting to whom outside of its knowledge, it is simply blissfully unaware of the bigger swarm in which its "private" swarm is now participating.
Russia is in a big hurry to decommission large parts of its nuke arsenal.
You forgot to mention "old" in that sentence. Russia is indeed trying to get rid of old and unreliable ICBMs etc, but maintenance of their strategic nuclear posture is very much dear to their hearts. Just last month there was a significant increase in the Russian military budget specifically for upgrades of the ICBM systems and commissioning of new missiles and warheads (which are being supposedly being designed with the US Missile Defense System in mind). There is a powerful nationalist element in Russian politics and Putin is no fool. Also the unpopularity of the US policies and the general suspicion about the motives of the US is presently at its highest since the fall of the Soviet Union and that is reflected in the ability of the Russian military-industrial complex to drum up public support for major expenditures in that area.
The law works in a slightly non-intuitive way here.
This is a sure-fire way to tell that the law is fundamentally flawed and does not work. Copyright and patent laws were created by men with good intentions but were based on fatally flawed assumptions about the nature of information and are now "non-intuitively" requiring ever expanding, outlandish and convoluted legal scaffolding to prop the whole teetering tower of rank nonsense up.
Not positioned? Who, exactly, is in a better position to produce and distribute hydrogen fuel? The god-damn Girl Scouts?
You misunderstood. The major difference between oil and most of the alternate fuels is that they can be manufactured locally. Hydrogen fuel needs only electrical power and widely available (locally sourced) materials. In this way the oil companies lose completely the stranglehold on the markets granted them presently by the ownership of oil fields. Mom an Pop can start a hydrogen "gas" station in which they produce the fuel themselves. Similar things to apply biodiesel and other organic matter related fuels. That is why Big Oil hates non-oil fuels. If they become popular it spells the permanent end of these massive corporations bigger then many nations.
The oil industry isn't just going to roll over and die.
No they merely will be relegated to the back stage, having lost their gigantic income and geo-political leverage. They will simply become yet another group of large companies, much, much poorer and smaller then in these halcyon days of theirs. They are obviously not looking forward to that state of affairs.
Be sure to share this with your fellow True Believers first who shout, yell and bray that everything from medical care, municipal infrastructiure, highways, roads, all the way to fire and police services should fall under the domain of completely unrestricted free markets, and who do so on every TV channel, newspaper or blog and rooftop that would have them.
Except of course that the oil companies are in no way positioned to take advantage of any of the alternate fuel research, particularly because most of the technologies researched are decentralised and do not lend themselves to control by gigantic multinational conglomerates.
I never claimed that the oil companies cannot think long term, the point was that they are simply doing things they believe will result in the maximum payoff possible, irrespective of long term implications for the rest of us.
Either way you look at it, it does them absolutely no good to tell us that there's lots of oil available.
See above. Alternate fuels are the anathema for the gargantuan oil conglomerates and spell their doom. They have all the incentive in the world to prolong their existence.
Actually the main problem the silly "Free Marketeers" fail to observe is that Adam Smith's ideas are not universally applicable to everythin. However since the "Free Market" is now to some of these individuals pretty much a religion, they of course attempt to apply it just about anywhere.
Free market, the real kind, excells in allocation of resources and growth of wealth in only one specific scenario: a very large number of small businesses competing in products about which the consumer is perfectly informed and which he is capable of fully evaluating.
That's it.
Any distortion, such as for example consolidation into large "brands" or creation of barriers to entry to competitors (be it by external forces or by many other factors -- the bit Libertarian flavoured "Free Marketeers" so love to miss) or existence of other factors preventing consumer choice, such as for example you being unconscious in an ambulance and thus unable to read brochures of competing doctors and pick the best one to be driven to, destroy the whole principle behind the "free market".
And thus in many, many scenarios "free market" is simply not applicabe or very ill fitting. All of this of course being completely lost on the True Believers.
In a truly free market, incompetent doctors would put themselves out of business because all their patients would be dead - problem solved!
Duh! Of course, patients being alive was the problem to be solved by the "free market" all along! Why didn't I think of that before?! It all makes perfect sense now.
I was not aware of it but one field (of a very modest size and high difficulty to exploit) found in over 30 years of exploration difference does not make. Please note that I specifically mentioned "major" fields, similar to those of other major producers. There are a large number of very small fields being discovered but the economics of their development is such that the price of oil would have to permanently exceed $50-80 per barrel to make them profitable. Peak Oil is not really about all the wells running dry but about the economics of crude oil becoming such as to make many of the present applications of oil products no longer viable. When the cost of the plastic packaging begins to exceed the value of what is being wrapped, such packaging ceases to be economically sound. When the cost of a daily commute exceeds the wage of the commuter, the commute is no longer feasible. Etc and so on.
As has already been pointed out, the oil industry doesn't gain anything from debunking peak-oil. In fact, they have more opportunity to profit if they help the peak-oil theories gain wider acceptance. Gives them an excuse to jack up prices.
Except that is not the case. True, they can jack up prices in the short term but that -- combined withe the awarness of Peak Oil scenarios -- will only drive development of alternative energy sources as well as fuel saving measures -- and with it obscolecence and ruin of these companies -- faster then ever.
That if our consumption levels remain flat, there's 122 years of conventional reserves left. They make this point for illustrative purposes to counter the 'peak oil' argument.
Except that the conventional reserves are known to be near dry in many places already, thus rendering this prediction highly suspect.
That consumption will rise (the "Asian Phoenix" scenario) but that total oil output (conventional and unconventional ; tar sands, new extraction techniques, etc) will rise to cope.
Except that this is insufficient, of course, since the point of "peak oil" predictions is not just the mismatch between supply and demand but the overall cost to the consumers of the oil products. Tar sands and what not are all orders of magnitude more expensive processes and thus must result in a permanent increase in cost of oil, in addition to the fact that the consumption is already rising exponentially in places like China.
All of the "predictions" of this report are exceedingly conservative from the point of view of demand and exceedingly optimistic from the point of view of supply.
Peak oil theorists always seem to assume that we will never find new reserves,
There have been no new discoveries of major fields since the 1970s, despite of near continuous exploration by all the major oil companies and many smaller explorers.
When gasoline is $10/gallon..
That is the whole point of the "peak oil" prediction. No one expects the oil supply to run dry completely, merely the mismatch between demand and supply to result in prohibitive prices, which in turn will make production of plastics, international transportation and local commutes impractical from the cost point of view. This of course will result in a huge cascade of events since so much of the Western economes depend so foolishly on oil for nearly all of their transportation and manufacturing needs. The resulting economic upheavals is what "peak oil" is all about.
The graph misses two things at least. The first of them is that the supply of the "easy" oil, the sweet light crude has been steadily declining for decades now and places like Saudi Arabia have their best fields running nearly dry. The increased supply comes from the much more difficult and increasingly expensive sources such as the tar sands in Alberta, Canada. So while the supply might be increasing, the total cost per barrel is also. The second is that all of the "predictions" of the increase in supply are simply wild guesses and depend on a myriad of factors, such as an ability to drill in national parks and other places, increasingly either more destructive and/or difficult to access.
This is more accurate than an estimation based on future practices.
"Accurate" theoretically but practically useless. That is like saying: "If I keep saving a dollar a year, I will be a BILLIONAIRE in just a billion years!".
I'm usually not this blunt, but this seems like a good time: are the authors of this report FUCKING IDIOTS?
Well, I do believe they think themselves quite smart when they count their payoff money. They probably figure that when the shit hits the fan they will be retired with enough resources to weather whatever storm will come at all of the rest of us, "suckers".
Not really. Some are variations on the "democratically elected dictator" theme, which does not prevent them calling themselves "democratic". It is what the governments do that counts, not the labels they give to themselves. For example, the USA has officially ceased to be a Republic on October 17, 2006 with the passage of the Military Commissions Act, which grants the Executive Branch some unchecked and extremely dangerous dictatorial powers. The fact that the President was democratically elected, does not prevent him from being a de-facto dictator.
... we would face a great danger of a vote for the complete withdrawl of troops from Iraq, which would be the beginning of World War III...
Are you trying to be sarcastic here? Ironic? Snarkish? Because I cannot fathom someone holding such views for real. WWIII? With whom? A bunch of beturbaned goofuses armed with AK-47s whose whole military advantage is based on guerilla warfare in their own neighbourhoods and who have no large scale (never you mind intercontinental) military capabilities? China? Russia? What the heck is this all about?
and for which the Arab world would never forgive us
Arab animosity towards the US is based on its foreign policy towards Israel for the last 50 or so years. Iraq is just the icing on the cake.
Instead we have leaders who are given the opportunity to actually study the situation...
If you find the way in which the Bush Administration "studied" the situation to be something to admire, you must also find horse manure enchanting.
So in a Republic what you get instead is the out-of-power party tapping into that sentiment, implying that they will get out of Iraq, but meanwhile assuring the Iraqi leaders that they will not. It's a good thing... or at least better than any alternative I can think of.
This makes no sense whatsoever. You seem to assume that somehow Republics make by definition better choices then, say, pure democracies, communes, feudal lords or dictators. Republics have no inherent monopoly on wisdom and all of the decision of all of these entities have to be considered individually. Republics however do something better then other systems of governance: they, on average, represent the will of the governed populace, while at the same time protecting its minorities better then other forms of government. That is all. But they are still prone to stupid mistakes just as the next King or a dictator.
Its a large advantage to ISPs even if the are billed the same amount
Multicast requires that the originating hosts' software uses it. That means changes to customer's software for ISP's gain and a dubious advantage to the customer.
It means that they can have more data on their backbone while costing the same amount.
See above.
The extra capacity means they dont need to expand as rapidly.
It also means they get to charge less per customer.
Compression? Yeah lets just try compressing a ~750 gigabit fiber link. I'm sure that'll work.
The simplistic type of compression mentioned can be done easily. More complex solutions exist in hardware implementations for speed. Also how do you think that ~750 Gigabit link is being fed? Magic? Or perhaps there are fast routers (with fast CPUs running router software) that are attached to both ends of that thing, no?
If multicast was implemented then only 1 stream would be sent accross the ocean.
You stubbornly refuse to see the reality here. Let me give you a practical example: originating host is located in, say, Montana. A portion of the destinations is in Australia. That means that the host in Montana has to go to all the trouble of implementing multicast in its software, somehow compensate for the possibility of some ISPs in, say, Turkey lacking the ability, all for the purpose of saving the bandwith for an Australian ISP and other unrelated to its operations ISPs and all of it either for no monetary gain (the Montana ISP bills for the multiple of the packets times the number of destinations) or exclusively for the Australian ISP's and other ISP's gain, and the loss of revenue to the Montana ISP (who I am sure would be very excited about the idea). Now do you get it?
With Video streaming becoming more popular it will save even more bandwidth.
This technology existed since the inception of the commercial Internet and there is no interest from the ISPs in implementing it for all the reasons I mentioned. IPv6 changes absolutely nothing in this dynamics. Multicast puts the ISPs in the position of oil companies when being asked to support and promote fuel saving measures.
Counting the number of hosts the packet is going to and multiplying that by the packet size isnt difficult.
ISPs can still rip off each other with multicast.
Then this offers no advantage of any kind to the originating host. Why bother if you are getting billed for sending multicast packets at the same rate as regular ones? The only winner would be the ISP who now can resell your bandwith to someone else. Unless a different billing scheme is offered as an incentive and unless all the ISPs of all of the destinations participate, this is simply is a lot of work for dubious gain. In fact an inferior result is likely, since if some of the ISPs do not participate, you end up losing those end-points.
I'm in Australia so Net Neutrality isnt much of a concern and since international bandwidth is scarce ISPs would love to have multicast.
Then the solution is compression. One only has to remove the payload of all but one of the packets with the same payload, and then restore it at the other end. In fact I am resonably sure that this is already being done. The only gain to be had by using multicast in this case is the additional compression of some header data which would become consolidated in a multicast packet.
Because the peering agreements between ISPs get in the way of them charging extra for the service. Instead, the ISPs to which large hosts are connected are able to charge you 100 times the bandwith for 100 users instead of just once. You are new to the corporate way of thinking and you did miss the fact that lowering the host's bandwith usage means less profit for the ISP, didn't you? On top of that, multicast shifts the effort of duplication of packets from the originating host onto the ISPs that have to carry the "multi" part of the multicast. Needless to say they do not feel warm and fuzzy about the idea.
Since IPv6 requires various upgrades its a good oppotunity to reenable multicast.
Not unless network neutrality is destroyed or the ISPs come up with some way of charging for multicast packets that transcends peering agreements. One way or the other the only gain will be for the ISP profits and very little difference for the users.
Multicast is in the best interest of the ISP. It means that their backbone carries less traffic which allows them to spend less money expanding their capacity.
Except the ISPs are not interested in increasing the upload capacity of home users. Quite the oposite in fact.
Why not P2P? Multicasting is just a packet with multiple destination addresses.
P2P has a seeder who sends a chunks of a file to people who dont have the chunk.
Being able to upload the data once but have it addressed to many peers allows files to be transfered far faster.
All of which has been possible with IPv4 UDP multicast for ages and all of which has been purposefully disabled in nearly all the routers owned by the abovementioned ISPs.
I dont see any flaw in my logic but do tell me if you find a problem with using Multicast for P2P.
The flaw in your logic is that discrimination against end-user originating multicasts has been in effect for many years now and the ISPs have no incentive whatsoever to turn that feature back on just because you got yourself a shiny new protocol that re-implements the same old feature.
If the people say they want a witch hunt then you have to give the people a witch hunt. If you think democracy is some magic wand where everyone does right then you're wrong. It's an excuse for the masses to hunt the minorities while feeling they have the high ground and "doing the right thing".
That is why most "democratic" nations are actually variations on a theme called "Republic". That is the democractic will of the masses is constrained by a set of rules, such as the Bill of Rights, Habeas Corpus, and the like. This prevents (at least in theory) tragic outcomes of the proverbial situation where 2 wolves and a sheep vote democratically on "what's for dinner?".
And that is precisely why the recent abolishment of Habeas Corpus by the "conservative" fear mongerers is such a devastating (and maybe fatal) blow to the integrity of system of government of the US.
Multicast is a good example of something new in IPv6.
It means less bandwidth consumption for stuff like streaming audio/video.
It also means that P2P is far faster.:D
Err.. IPv4 always had multicast. Simply none of the ISPs chose to enable it on their routers.
What makes you think that they will treat IPv6 any different? Multicast from large media companies down to brainless consumers... maybe... for a significant extra fee. P2P? You gotta be kidding.
The inherent demand that I correct my behavior for the deficiencies of the sender does create in me a sense of dismissive flippancy. I'm only a little bit sorry about that.
You are very fortunate that your employer tolerates this. In most places I am familiar with, being flippant about those "deficiencies of the sender" usually means being flippant about customer's communications and subsequently lost orders, complaints to the CEO etc. Which usually has rather adverse effect on the prospects of continuation of one's gainful employment in the capacity of the systems administrator.
My customer's adventures with real-time black hole systems and the like usually come to an unseemly end via heated conversations with a red faced member of managment who just got told by his buddy at the competitor's all about how that buddy's new best customer came to him instead to my client because that customer's initial email request for quotation got chucked by the RBL.
Slashdot Mirror
I regularly get ~500kB/s downloads from public trackers. Yes, I also get 20kB/s. That's life. But moaning about how us, dirty unwashed masses, always get 30kB/s all the time just paints you as a spoiled, whining elitist in search of "special" treatment.
Which you are.
I've never been a part of any "private" tracker. The whole idea of P2P is to share. "Private" trackers go contrary to that notion.
Not true.
Well, that's true that the "private" trackers (i.e. tree-houses for pimple-faced "leet" pricks who want to feel better about themselves while getting thoroughly suckered by the site owner) do demand that you durn DHT off. But that is because with DHT and peer exchange, their "private" little clubs would soon join the public swarm of peers with that torrent they are trying to squirrel away. The DHT does not affect the "share ratio" of the person who had it on to the exclusion to all else, but instead it allows the connecting clients to find out all of the peers in the "private" swarm and connect to all of them. Since the "private" tracker has no way of knowing who is connecting to whom outside of its knowledge, it is simply blissfully unaware of the bigger swarm in which its "private" swarm is now participating.
You forgot to mention "old" in that sentence. Russia is indeed trying to get rid of old and unreliable ICBMs etc, but maintenance of their strategic nuclear posture is very much dear to their hearts. Just last month there was a significant increase in the Russian military budget specifically for upgrades of the ICBM systems and commissioning of new missiles and warheads (which are being supposedly being designed with the US Missile Defense System in mind). There is a powerful nationalist element in Russian politics and Putin is no fool. Also the unpopularity of the US policies and the general suspicion about the motives of the US is presently at its highest since the fall of the Soviet Union and that is reflected in the ability of the Russian military-industrial complex to drum up public support for major expenditures in that area.
This is a sure-fire way to tell that the law is fundamentally flawed and does not work. Copyright and patent laws were created by men with good intentions but were based on fatally flawed assumptions about the nature of information and are now "non-intuitively" requiring ever expanding, outlandish and convoluted legal scaffolding to prop the whole teetering tower of rank nonsense up.
You misunderstood. The major difference between oil and most of the alternate fuels is that they can be manufactured locally. Hydrogen fuel needs only electrical power and widely available (locally sourced) materials. In this way the oil companies lose completely the stranglehold on the markets granted them presently by the ownership of oil fields. Mom an Pop can start a hydrogen "gas" station in which they produce the fuel themselves. Similar things to apply biodiesel and other organic matter related fuels. That is why Big Oil hates non-oil fuels. If they become popular it spells the permanent end of these massive corporations bigger then many nations.
No they merely will be relegated to the back stage, having lost their gigantic income and geo-political leverage. They will simply become yet another group of large companies, much, much poorer and smaller then in these halcyon days of theirs. They are obviously not looking forward to that state of affairs.
Be sure to share this with your fellow True Believers first who shout, yell and bray that everything from medical care, municipal infrastructiure, highways, roads, all the way to fire and police services should fall under the domain of completely unrestricted free markets, and who do so on every TV channel, newspaper or blog and rooftop that would have them.
Except of course that the oil companies are in no way positioned to take advantage of any of the alternate fuel research, particularly because most of the technologies researched are decentralised and do not lend themselves to control by gigantic multinational conglomerates.
I never claimed that the oil companies cannot think long term, the point was that they are simply doing things they believe will result in the maximum payoff possible, irrespective of long term implications for the rest of us.
See above. Alternate fuels are the anathema for the gargantuan oil conglomerates and spell their doom. They have all the incentive in the world to prolong their existence.
Actually the main problem the silly "Free Marketeers" fail to observe is that Adam Smith's ideas are not universally applicable to everythin. However since the "Free Market" is now to some of these individuals pretty much a religion, they of course attempt to apply it just about anywhere.
Free market, the real kind, excells in allocation of resources and growth of wealth in only one specific scenario: a very large number of small businesses competing in products about which the consumer is perfectly informed and which he is capable of fully evaluating.
That's it.
Any distortion, such as for example consolidation into large "brands" or creation of barriers to entry to competitors (be it by external forces or by many other factors -- the bit Libertarian flavoured "Free Marketeers" so love to miss) or existence of other factors preventing consumer choice, such as for example you being unconscious in an ambulance and thus unable to read brochures of competing doctors and pick the best one to be driven to, destroy the whole principle behind the "free market".
And thus in many, many scenarios "free market" is simply not applicabe or very ill fitting. All of this of course being completely lost on the True Believers.
Duh! Of course, patients being alive was the problem to be solved by the "free market" all along! Why didn't I think of that before?! It all makes perfect sense now.
I was not aware of it but one field (of a very modest size and high difficulty to exploit) found in over 30 years of exploration difference does not make. Please note that I specifically mentioned "major" fields, similar to those of other major producers. There are a large number of very small fields being discovered but the economics of their development is such that the price of oil would have to permanently exceed $50-80 per barrel to make them profitable. Peak Oil is not really about all the wells running dry but about the economics of crude oil becoming such as to make many of the present applications of oil products no longer viable. When the cost of the plastic packaging begins to exceed the value of what is being wrapped, such packaging ceases to be economically sound. When the cost of a daily commute exceeds the wage of the commuter, the commute is no longer feasible. Etc and so on.
Except that is not the case. True, they can jack up prices in the short term but that -- combined withe the awarness of Peak Oil scenarios -- will only drive development of alternative energy sources as well as fuel saving measures -- and with it obscolecence and ruin of these companies -- faster then ever.
Except that the conventional reserves are known to be near dry in many places already, thus rendering this prediction highly suspect.
Except that this is insufficient, of course, since the point of "peak oil" predictions is not just the mismatch between supply and demand but the overall cost to the consumers of the oil products. Tar sands and what not are all orders of magnitude more expensive processes and thus must result in a permanent increase in cost of oil, in addition to the fact that the consumption is already rising exponentially in places like China.
All of the "predictions" of this report are exceedingly conservative from the point of view of demand and exceedingly optimistic from the point of view of supply.
There have been no new discoveries of major fields since the 1970s, despite of near continuous exploration by all the major oil companies and many smaller explorers.
That is the whole point of the "peak oil" prediction. No one expects the oil supply to run dry completely, merely the mismatch between demand and supply to result in prohibitive prices, which in turn will make production of plastics, international transportation and local commutes impractical from the cost point of view. This of course will result in a huge cascade of events since so much of the Western economes depend so foolishly on oil for nearly all of their transportation and manufacturing needs. The resulting economic upheavals is what "peak oil" is all about.
The graph misses two things at least. The first of them is that the supply of the "easy" oil, the sweet light crude has been steadily declining for decades now and places like Saudi Arabia have their best fields running nearly dry. The increased supply comes from the much more difficult and increasingly expensive sources such as the tar sands in Alberta, Canada. So while the supply might be increasing, the total cost per barrel is also. The second is that all of the "predictions" of the increase in supply are simply wild guesses and depend on a myriad of factors, such as an ability to drill in national parks and other places, increasingly either more destructive and/or difficult to access.
"Accurate" theoretically but practically useless. That is like saying: "If I keep saving a dollar a year, I will be a BILLIONAIRE in just a billion years!".
Well, I do believe they think themselves quite smart when they count their payoff money. They probably figure that when the shit hits the fan they will be retired with enough resources to weather whatever storm will come at all of the rest of us, "suckers".
Not really. Some are variations on the "democratically elected dictator" theme, which does not prevent them calling themselves "democratic". It is what the governments do that counts, not the labels they give to themselves. For example, the USA has officially ceased to be a Republic on October 17, 2006 with the passage of the Military Commissions Act, which grants the Executive Branch some unchecked and extremely dangerous dictatorial powers. The fact that the President was democratically elected, does not prevent him from being a de-facto dictator.
Are you trying to be sarcastic here? Ironic? Snarkish? Because I cannot fathom someone holding such views for real. WWIII? With whom? A bunch of beturbaned goofuses armed with AK-47s whose whole military advantage is based on guerilla warfare in their own neighbourhoods and who have no large scale (never you mind intercontinental) military capabilities? China? Russia? What the heck is this all about?
Arab animosity towards the US is based on its foreign policy towards Israel for the last 50 or so years. Iraq is just the icing on the cake.
If you find the way in which the Bush Administration "studied" the situation to be something to admire, you must also find horse manure enchanting.
This makes no sense whatsoever. You seem to assume that somehow Republics make by definition better choices then, say, pure democracies, communes, feudal lords or dictators. Republics have no inherent monopoly on wisdom and all of the decision of all of these entities have to be considered individually. Republics however do something better then other systems of governance: they, on average, represent the will of the governed populace, while at the same time protecting its minorities better then other forms of government. That is all. But they are still prone to stupid mistakes just as the next King or a dictator.
Multicast requires that the originating hosts' software uses it. That means changes to customer's software for ISP's gain and a dubious advantage to the customer.
See above.
It also means they get to charge less per customer.
The simplistic type of compression mentioned can be done easily. More complex solutions exist in hardware implementations for speed. Also how do you think that ~750 Gigabit link is being fed? Magic? Or perhaps there are fast routers (with fast CPUs running router software) that are attached to both ends of that thing, no?
You stubbornly refuse to see the reality here. Let me give you a practical example: originating host is located in, say, Montana. A portion of the destinations is in Australia. That means that the host in Montana has to go to all the trouble of implementing multicast in its software, somehow compensate for the possibility of some ISPs in, say, Turkey lacking the ability, all for the purpose of saving the bandwith for an Australian ISP and other unrelated to its operations ISPs and all of it either for no monetary gain (the Montana ISP bills for the multiple of the packets times the number of destinations) or exclusively for the Australian ISP's and other ISP's gain, and the loss of revenue to the Montana ISP (who I am sure would be very excited about the idea). Now do you get it?
This technology existed since the inception of the commercial Internet and there is no interest from the ISPs in implementing it for all the reasons I mentioned. IPv6 changes absolutely nothing in this dynamics. Multicast puts the ISPs in the position of oil companies when being asked to support and promote fuel saving measures.
Then this offers no advantage of any kind to the originating host. Why bother if you are getting billed for sending multicast packets at the same rate as regular ones? The only winner would be the ISP who now can resell your bandwith to someone else. Unless a different billing scheme is offered as an incentive and unless all the ISPs of all of the destinations participate, this is simply is a lot of work for dubious gain. In fact an inferior result is likely, since if some of the ISPs do not participate, you end up losing those end-points.
Then the solution is compression. One only has to remove the payload of all but one of the packets with the same payload, and then restore it at the other end. In fact I am resonably sure that this is already being done. The only gain to be had by using multicast in this case is the additional compression of some header data which would become consolidated in a multicast packet.Because the peering agreements between ISPs get in the way of them charging extra for the service. Instead, the ISPs to which large hosts are connected are able to charge you 100 times the bandwith for 100 users instead of just once. You are new to the corporate way of thinking and you did miss the fact that lowering the host's bandwith usage means less profit for the ISP, didn't you? On top of that, multicast shifts the effort of duplication of packets from the originating host onto the ISPs that have to carry the "multi" part of the multicast. Needless to say they do not feel warm and fuzzy about the idea.
Not unless network neutrality is destroyed or the ISPs come up with some way of charging for multicast packets that transcends peering agreements. One way or the other the only gain will be for the ISP profits and very little difference for the users.
Except the ISPs are not interested in increasing the upload capacity of home users. Quite the oposite in fact.
All of which has been possible with IPv4 UDP multicast for ages and all of which has been purposefully disabled in nearly all the routers owned by the abovementioned ISPs.
The flaw in your logic is that discrimination against end-user originating multicasts has been in effect for many years now and the ISPs have no incentive whatsoever to turn that feature back on just because you got yourself a shiny new protocol that re-implements the same old feature.
That is why most "democratic" nations are actually variations on a theme called "Republic". That is the democractic will of the masses is constrained by a set of rules, such as the Bill of Rights, Habeas Corpus, and the like. This prevents (at least in theory) tragic outcomes of the proverbial situation where 2 wolves and a sheep vote democratically on "what's for dinner?".
And that is precisely why the recent abolishment of Habeas Corpus by the "conservative" fear mongerers is such a devastating (and maybe fatal) blow to the integrity of system of government of the US.
Err.. IPv4 always had multicast. Simply none of the ISPs chose to enable it on their routers.
What makes you think that they will treat IPv6 any different? Multicast from large media companies down to brainless consumers ... maybe ... for a significant extra fee. P2P? You gotta be kidding.
You are very fortunate that your employer tolerates this. In most places I am familiar with, being flippant about those "deficiencies of the sender" usually means being flippant about customer's communications and subsequently lost orders, complaints to the CEO etc. Which usually has rather adverse effect on the prospects of continuation of one's gainful employment in the capacity of the systems administrator.
My customer's adventures with real-time black hole systems and the like usually come to an unseemly end via heated conversations with a red faced member of managment who just got told by his buddy at the competitor's all about how that buddy's new best customer came to him instead to my client because that customer's initial email request for quotation got chucked by the RBL.