Comment 8 for bug 102974

There's (from my POV, IMO) several reasons why bittorrent should
certainly not be the default and probably low key.

(1) The bittorrent server story is _terrible_. Every server we've
    looked at is completely unreliable (we run our current one in a
    while loop it crashes so often!) and doesn't scale well (sic).

(2) bittorrent, on the client side, still fails ungracefully in a lot
    of situations (NAT, networks with egress restrictions, asymmetric
    links). This can lead to a bad user experience (much worse than a
    'slow' download of an ISO, IMO).

(3) bittorrent fundamentally changes the proposition for the user and
    that needs to be well explained. It's gone from "I'm downloading
    this file" to "I'm downloading this file and using my up bandwidth
    to share what I've got with others (including after I finished
    downloading)". This also has implications for people in varying
    situations, e.g.

     (1) people on asymmetric links which degrade when their up
         bandwidth is maxed out
     (2) people on corporate networks who's sysadmins don't appreciate
         their up bandwidth being used in this way
     (3) people in countries with metered bandwidth, esp. where you
         pay more for international traffic

Don't get me wrong, bittorrent works great for a lot of people and I'm
happy we continue to support people who choose to use it (as it helps
the load in my DC!) but I don't think it's yet ready to be 'default'
or 'prominent' for millions of new/casual users.