P2P Doesn't Account For Most Net Traffic, Thanks To YouTube

from the fun-with-statistics dept

Tue, Jun 19th 2007 1:16pm — Carlo Longino

An exec from NBC Universal recently made the claim that P2P activity accounted for 60-70% of all internet traffic as part of a comment saying the FCC should force ISPs to police their networks for copyrighted content that's being illegally shared. Such claims aren't new, and are often trotted out by ISPs complaining that bandwidth hogs are bogging down their networks, even though it certainly appears that they're overstating the problem. In any case, a new study from a maker of deep packet inspection gear (the stuff ISPs use to monitor and filter traffic on their networks) says that HTTP has surpassed P2P as the most prevalent type of traffic, thanks largely to YouTube. The study says that site now accounts for 10 percent of all traffic on the net, and has boosted HTTP traffic to now account for 46% of all traffic, with P2P responsible for just 37%. While these figures might undermine the contention that the bulk of internet traffic is for P2P sharing, it's unlikely they'll temper calls from certain ISPs to choke certain kinds of traffic based either on its content or who's sending it.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

30 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Michael Long, 19 Jun 2007 @ 1:37pm

Just?
Just 37%? Of all traffic?

You're right, there's no issue there whatsoever...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2007 @ 1:47pm

Won't someone think of the children?
Have these executives tried claiming that like say (have to make a good number but not too good a number) "25% of all net traffic is realated to child porn and that's just unacceptable"? If you're going to manipulate statistics and occasionally outright lie to back up your point then go for broke.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2007 @ 1:53pm

Michael is right. 37% of all traffic for people sharing mostly copyrighted material is still an issue. What good does all the p2p traffic bring to society as a whole other than (illegally) free software and music?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jLl, 19 Jun 2007 @ 2:06pm

Re: Just?
"You're right, there's no issue there whatsoever..."

I don't think he was trying to say that it's not an issue...
But, it's not the "end-of-the-world" issue that the "60-70%" seemed to broadcast.

Compared to the end of the world, there isn't much that seems like more than "just" an annoying gnat.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PhysicsGuy, 19 Jun 2007 @ 2:09pm

Re:
and how much of that 37% is for illegal file sharing? WoW uses the bittorrent protocol to distribute its updates, 8 million people worldwide would presumable contribute a bit of that. Ever download a Linux distro? Chances are if you've done so recently you did so using a torrent file. I've been seeing more and more places using the bittorrent protocol as a means of legitimate distribution. While I can say that a majority is presumably for "illegal" file sharing, to think that entire 37% is entirely used for copyright infringement is irrationally absurd and can be entirely misleading in any kind of rational debate about the subject...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2007 @ 2:11pm

Copyright is dead. Information screams to be free. Viva la revolucion!!!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2007 @ 2:14pm

Re: Re:
Keyword was: "mostly".

Never said the entire 37% was illegal sharing.

I think anyone can agree that the majority is, though.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Matt, 19 Jun 2007 @ 2:34pm

Re:
@ Coward,

It's only illegal because of greedy corporations and artists... Show me a study that proves Metallica will be eating out of garbage dumpsters if i don't stop downloading their music...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Liam, 19 Jun 2007 @ 3:02pm

wow
10% of all traffic all going to one site.
Thats pretty damn impressive seeing as it is only 2 years old.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2007 @ 3:08pm

Re: Re:
@ Matt,

No, it's only illegal because copyright infringement is illegal. You are making a distinction that it is okay to steal from corporations and artists that have a lot of money. Using that logic, why don't you go steal from oil companies and not pay at the pump for your gas. You won't, because you'll get caught. You cannot justify downloading music based on the amount of money they make.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Trey, 19 Jun 2007 @ 3:13pm

Re: wow
While this is a VERY impressive number, don't forget that we're talking about Bandwidth in terms of KB, not necessarily number of users.

There are lots of websites out there (ebay and amazon to name a few) that have MANY MANY more users that use FAR less bandwidth.

It would be interesting to see the percentages of PEOPLE DOING WHAT, as opposed to just how much bandwidth a small portion of these people are using. (IE P2P... many people never touch this technology, but it is a third of all internet "traffic").
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2007 @ 3:16pm

Anonymous.... I wouldn't agree with the "majority" claim without data to back that up. Studies have shown that the illegal downloading of music has subsided over the pas few years, mostly because of legal download systems. As posted above MANY systems use P2P for valid file distribution. So, yeah I would agree that P2P is still used for illegal purposes, but not to the same degree it has been in the past. P2P need no special (intrusive) regulation.

Matt.... The problem is that the record companies NEED to put themselves in the same boat as artists. I don't think many people would complain if it was the artists we're supporting. But the fact of the matter is, we're supporting the recording industry on the whole 10 to 1, compared to what most artists actually receive. And despite the fact that the NEED for the recording industry has decreased over the years, they have a choke-hold on the art itself! So now its impossible to differentiate where the artist ends and the industry begins. They did a great job of making it this way.

Problem is, now what do we do about it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike, 19 Jun 2007 @ 3:22pm

Thank God there is no such thing as "copyright infringement" in America. Well, at least it's not enforced. P2P will continue to be a large part of bandwidth usage, however its not surprising that sites like youtube and myspace, that have users whom stay on all day with nothing better to do, are taking bandwidth usage through the roof.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2007 @ 3:24pm

Re:
Michael is right. 37% of all traffic for people sharing mostly copyrighted material is still an issue.
And just exactly what "material" isn't "copyrighted"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Charles Griswold, 19 Jun 2007 @ 3:26pm

Re:
Michael is right. 37% of all traffic for people sharing mostly copyrighted material is still an issue.
All copyrighted, actually.
What good does all the p2p traffic bring to society as a whole other than (illegally) free software and music?
Linux is mostly distributed via P2P these days. Yes, Linux is copyrighted and yes, it's legal to download. Please revise your personal definition of "copyrighted" to be more in line with the legal definition.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2007 @ 3:27pm

Re: Re: Re:
You are making a distinction that it is okay to steal from corporations and artists that have a lot of money.
Saying that "copyright infringement" is "stealing" is lying.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2007 @ 3:32pm

Re: Re: Re:
Never said the entire 37% was illegal sharing.

Please put a reliable number to it then.

I think anyone can agree that the majority is, though.
Just because you say so?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Joe Penguin, 19 Jun 2007 @ 3:43pm

Linux torrents
Only way I get my Linux. I don't use p2p for anything else. If you wait long enough, those movies you are so eager to download will be in the 5.50 or even 3.99 price range so just wait and buy the stupid thing at the correct price point where it should be sold to start off with.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2007 @ 3:47pm

Okay, technically copyright infringement is not stealing. But , get real. Downloading a song that you would otherwise have to buy is money lost to the store, record company, and artist. So, whatever you want to call it, the argument still holds that Matt is making the distinction that it is okay to download music instead of buy it because "of greedy corporations".

There are much better ways to justify the downloading of free music.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2007 @ 3:56pm

Re:
Downloading a song that you would otherwise have to buy is money lost to the store, record company, and artist.
So, you're saying it's OK if you wouldn't have bought it otherwise?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2007 @ 4:03pm

Re: Re:
No, you are missing the point.

I'm not trying to justify it either way.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
krum, 19 Jun 2007 @ 4:12pm

NASA
I've used torrents to download large landsat images from NASA's website that are over 2 gigs each. If others are doing the same, that's probably a good chunk of legal p2p bandwidth.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dosquatch, 19 Jun 2007 @ 4:24pm

Re: Metallica
Show me a study that proves Metallica will be eating out of garbage dumpsters

More to the point, what makes them too special to get "real" jobs like the rest of us? I know in my profession that I'm certainly not being paid lifetime royalties for work I've done in the past.

I'm not just making noise on this point, either - there are patented mechanisms that I designed in a particular model of a particular manufacturer's industrial sewing machine (NDA, yadda yadda). That's my intellectual property, still making money. Aww, gee, but I still have to go to work for my paycheck.

I just have a real hard time getting bunged up about whether or not somebody is still getting paid for work they did years and years ago. I read that word "limited" in the copyright clause as meaning "reasonable". Nearly a century is not reasonable. That is all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dosquatch, 19 Jun 2007 @ 4:35pm

Re: Stealing from the Rich
You are making a distinction that it is okay to steal from corporations and artists that have a lot of money.

What do you expect from a species that holds Robin Hood as a hero? Steal from the rich. Give to the poor. The rich are so upon the labor of the poor - we're not taking, we're just taking back! Hip-Hip-Hurrah!

Or something like that, anyway.

why don't you go steal from oil companies and not pay at the pump for your gas.

Copyright infringement is not theft. Go forth and write it a hundred times on the blackboard. Theft deprives a rightful owner of their physical property. Duplicating data is not deprivation of property in this sense. Painting my own version of the Mona Lisa is not the same as stealing the original from the museum.

My biggest problem with all of this noise is this - I can record a show or movie from broadcast on TV, I can record a song from broadcast on radio, but if I torrent any of these, I'm some sort of high criminal picking the pockets of the deprived artists.

I call bullshit. Err, shenanigans. Whatever.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2007 @ 4:41pm

Re: Re: Stealing from the Rich
Maybe you should read post #19.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dosquatch, 19 Jun 2007 @ 6:00pm

Re: Stealing from the Rich
Sorry, I read threaded. That post is outside of the thread, and well below what I was responding to in threaded view. (I had to switch to flattened just to figure out which one is "#19")

You still don't address the fundamental difference between a torrent and recording from broadcast.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PhysicsGuy, 19 Jun 2007 @ 7:13pm

Re: Re: Stealing from the Rich
amazing! i've been using this site for a while and never noticed you could view messages threaded! amazing!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Jun 2007 @ 7:13pm

But what about...
ArsTechnica reports that perhaps the relationship between piracy and music sales are not what you would expect:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070212-8813.html

Now, I'm not saying one way or another whether it's right or wrong, but it significantly effects the statements in post 19.

Now, if you know alot about the music industry, the horrible machine that it is, you would know that there is very little money made in royalties for artists. The largest piece of a musicians funds come from signing bonuses and sponsors, concerts etc...

As another thought, perhaps the reason why the quantity of net traffic from p2p is down is because the products the music and movie industry are producing are utter CRAP! Some of the music that comes out nowadays isn't even worth downloading... just some food for thought.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
SailorRipley, 20 Jun 2007 @ 6:24am

Re:
You ask people to "get real" yet less than 15 words later, you fall of the "real"-wagon...

"Downloading a song that you would otherwise have to buy is" only "money lost to the store, record company, and artist" IF

1) you don't buy the song/CD later
2) you had the intention of buying the CD

You should get real: copyright infringement is not stealing, not just technically, it just plain isn't...just because the word "property" is part of "intellectual property" doesn't mean you can just transpose every right/principle of "property" onto "intellectual property"...no matter how much you'd like to. It's not "just" a technicality that makes copyright infringement different from stealing.

And while we (surely that includes you) are all "getting real":

when I download a song/CD, listen to it and (later) buy it,
when I download a song/CD that I didn't have the intention of buying anyway
there is no money lost to the store, record company and artist.

Now we can disagree what percentage of downloads represent one of those scenarios and what percentage represents your freeloaders who download (and not buy) music they would have bought if they didn't have access to the internet. Personally, I think the majority is the former...
However, stating as fact that every download is the latter, now that is anything but getting real...go shill yourself
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Matt, 20 Jun 2007 @ 12:14pm

Re: Re: Re:
Based on your logic, you could be arrested everytime you let someone borrow a DVD movie from you... shame shame...
[ link to this | view in thread ]