[smileysteve]

> Why would users choose the slower 1000-seeders network over the 10-high-bandwidth-data-centers network?

Because Level3's peering agreements with Verizon/Comcast are under negotiation and the 10 high bandwidth data center owners don't want to set a precedent of paying more for a pipe because the end users want it (and are paying both services already), so the streams get throttled. But with a decentralized world, maybe it's harder to track a bunch of small packets that never leave the Verizon/Comcast network.

Source: https://www.theverge.com/2014/7/21/5922793/verizon-level-3-n...

[hudon]

The post I was replying to was talking about us discussing technical limitations, not artificial ones. Whether or not ISPs throttle streaming is an artificial limitation. You're right that the decentralized solution would have censorship resistance so would be free of this limitation. This is the biggest (only?) value in decentralizing a system. However, it still would be less performant than its centralized alternative if you remove the artificial limits.

[Matt3o12_]

Another advantage is that the costs would be lower for the streaming provider, which could mean that the costs for the user are lower (although it should only be marginal for services such as Netflix). Furthermore the speed could be higher because the data often doesn't need to travel far and I don't have to worry about if my ISP has good private peering. While those limitations could be considered artifical, it is much easier to prevent them by having a distributed network and thus not be bound by a few agreements and have hundreds of thousands alternative routes, some which might be ultra fast because they are your neighbor.