P2P Doesn't Account For Most Net Traffic, Thanks To YouTube
from the fun-with-statistics dept
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Just?
You're right, there's no issue there whatsoever...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just?
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 chronology ]
Won't someone think of the children?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re:
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Stealing from the Rich
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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 chronology ]
Re: Re: Stealing from the Rich
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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 chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Never said the entire 37% was illegal sharing.
I think anyone can agree that the majority is, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Just because you say so?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wow
Thats pretty damn impressive seeing as it is only 2 years old.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: wow
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 chronology ]
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 chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Linux torrents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There are much better ways to justify the downloading of free music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm not trying to justify it either way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"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 chronology ]
NASA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But what about...
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 chronology ]