HTTP Overtakes P2P Traffic

I have to use the web to access my email, news, stocks, forums, banking, research...as do many of the users.

Does everyone use eMule, BitTorrent, Ares, etc...?

And does everyone watch YouTube (oh the resolution is like watching the Honeymooners inside an aquarium smear with vaseline)?

Yeah, the internet tubes will fill up with crap. RotorRooter is needed then. You'll be fine. Ban FUD.

now that we have flash video streaming, and cheap unlimited bandwidth webhosting-everyones instead just goes to sites like peekvid and ssupload and pirates movies and tv shows that way!

Imagine how much traffic youtube was getting before google got it and starting taking down good content.

Prices must be raised now! -- well because people are -- err -- actually using the services we are selling them -- and err -- well we can't make money like that!

»Re: More media hype
»home.businesswire.com/po ··· sLang=en

The data may have been presented yesterday in one form or another, but the message was certainly skewed to show the bias....which is really disheartening and typical of late....

Yesterday, we were all a bunch of pirates screwing the poor ISPs who are going broke because we're unfairly using the bandwidth that it's a privilege for us to have. Shame on us for not providing the execs with 9 figure salaries.

Today however, apparently P2P is taking a back seat to HTTP traffic, the kind they so wanted us to use the day before, instead of our mass pirating via P2P.

Funny how the same data can be used to show such different perspectives. Certainly makes me not believe anything they ever say.

And before you go and say again how you can safely assume 99.999 3/4% of HTTP media streaming is pirated, ask your crystal ball whether it's going to rain today for me, I can't tell...the sky looks a bit funny.

Bottom line is they need to change with the times and offer a competitive product.

I remember a post yesterday where someone added together a whole bunch of traffic and then argued that NBCU's bogus charges were accurate.... This thread of course straightens out those erroneous claims....

The list of uses seems to say that Email usage is minimal since it is not even listed. I seem to remember when it was supposed to be a large portion of the traffic on the net.

According to this data, Time Warner has started to shape the wrong traffic! They should be traffic shaping all of the HTTP on their networks! (Should this hold true for Time Warner.)

Edit: Extra erroneous 'The'.

No one?

I don't think all the gopher (left) in the world could account for one video lip-syncing to Britney Spears.

Are there any real gopher sites even around anymore?

Part of this is to demonize other network services, and traffic shaping them out of existence, thus freeing up bandwidth that will then be available for corporate video services. I guess they feel that if they do this, then they can stave off any significant capital investment in bandwidth capacity and thus, make the Wall Street Analysts very happy.

They get everything they want, they have all the rf spectrum they need and more, but they want to hijack the eyeballs on the internet through any means, fair or foul.

This correction of the NBCU numbers proves that they are not above calumny most foul. But having worked in the entertainment business all my life, I am hardly surprised. It is hardly an industry that places high values on ethics.

they place high value on eyeballs by any means they deem fit to gain them. and for TV that means fighting the internet with more dirt then a dump truck. the internet takes eyeballs away from them, if they could they would place their ads in MMORPGs because well just think at peak there must but 1.5-2million eyeballs looking at WoW and not network TV.

And that is why you see so many "news stories" about the terrible scourge of civilization, video games.

Why the hell does it matter? Instead of complaining, broadband providers need to work on a solution, which involves increasing the bandwidth supplied to customers. There is obviously a demand for the use that it's getting. Streaming video, p2p, and other forms are the future and there seems to be more complaining about it than there are on possible solutions to integrate these forms of distribution by companies.

my 2 cents

I see an unsustainable mismatch between the value and volume of internet traffic. p2p + youtube account for nearly half of all internet traffic. Yet it is highly unlikely that the users of those application would be willing to pay for half the cost building and maintaining internet infrastructure. I expect we have about spent our dot com bandwidth inheritance. So, who is going to pay for the next round of capital improvements?

We will If the Telcos and Cableco lose the NetNetural debate they will simply tack on 2 extra bucks to your bill(not saying they was'nt going to do that anyway )to make their investors happy

Already has been paid for. And is being paid for every single day. Yet that doesn't mean they won't cry and demand we pay for it again.

90% of traffic originating from residential broadband connections is p2p. That is the "problem" the residential ISPs are whining about. They have networks that are optimized for asymetric bandwidth.

If the isp don't like all the extra traffic they can stop selling unlimited and start charging by the byte.

But wait, that doesn't sell as good to the consumer as the unlimited that isn't really unlimited if you read the tiny tiny print in your user agreement.

Dont you people have anything better to do with your lives? FFS!

"Dont you people have anything better to do with your lives? FFS!"

No. :|

I don't use p2p, and i never will, it's a waste of time. Even though i have fiber, it's still useless to try and "steal" movies etc when i can get customer support for "legal" copies of software, and i can sell dvd's.