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.


Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “P2P Doesn't Account For Most Net Traffic, Thanks To YouTube”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
30 Comments
jLl says:

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: 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.

Dosquatch says:

Re: Re: 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.

Dosquatch says:

Re: Re: Re:3 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.

Dosquatch says:

Re: 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.

Charles Griswold (user link) says:

Re: 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.

PhysicsGuy says:

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…

Trey says:

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”).

Anonymous Coward says:

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.

Mike says:

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

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.

SailorRipley says:

Re: 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” onlymoney lost to the store, record company, and artistIF

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

Anonymous Coward says:

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.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...