SolarPupOffice365 Rockstar Premium Member join:2002-03-07 Windsor, CO |
SolarPup
Premium Member
2008-Jun-27 9:21 am
And they know this data because...90% of the large class ISP's in the world use their hardware and report back to them? | |
|
| |
Maynard G Krebs
Anon
2008-Jun-27 2:16 pm
Re: And they know this data because...said by SolarPup:90% of the large class ISP's in the world use their hardware and report back to them? I'd feel a lot more confident about these sort of statistics if they came from an independent source, rather than a hardware vendor who has a vested interest in seeing that their equipment is widely used, or a Comcast or TWC-like company. A source I'd trust better would be organizations like Peer 1 or a Global Crossing like network operator who only sells trunk capacity and has no vested interest in throttling residential end users. | |
|
|
It's That Low?They gotta have "their music". | |
|
moonpuppy (banned) join:2000-08-21 Glen Burnie, MD |
moonpuppy (banned)
Member
2008-Jun-27 9:29 am
VOIP only 0.2%?Wonder why HSI companies complain about the amount of traffic it uses. | |
|
| |
Re: VOIP only 0.2%?said by moonpuppy:Wonder why HSI companies complain about the amount of traffic it uses. HSI = incumbent phone or cable company in 90+% of cases. telco doesn't like VOIP competition to landline business, hence it is "bad" and must be demonized. cableco doesn't like competitor VOIP because they are getting into that market, hence it is "bad" and must be demonized. cableco VOIP, of course, is OK. | |
|
| |
to moonpuppy
said by moonpuppy:Wonder why HSI companies complain about the amount of traffic it uses. VoIP doesn't use that much bandwidth at all. Very little. Not sure what company says it does. | |
|
| | moonpuppy (banned) join:2000-08-21 Glen Burnie, MD |
moonpuppy (banned)
Member
2008-Jun-30 7:50 am
Re: VOIP only 0.2%?said by LeftOfSanity:said by moonpuppy:Wonder why HSI companies complain about the amount of traffic it uses. VoIP doesn't use that much bandwidth at all. Very little. Not sure what company says it does. A couple of ISPs did block VOIP traffic claiming it was a bandwidth hog. One in either Michigan or Minnesota did get hit by the FCC hammer for blocking it illegally. | |
|
|
Sure...now is there any reason why I shouldn't view this "report" as simply a marketing/self-promotional tool for Sandvine? | |
|
| andyb Premium Member join:2003-05-29 SW Ontario |
andyb
Premium Member
2008-Jun-27 9:35 am
Re: Sure...Thier competitor,ellacoya,says that streaming and http have surpassed p2p so who do you believe? I'd say neither of em and just scrap thier equipment since it's all done for marketing. | |
|
FicmanS Premium Member join:2005-01-11 Brownsburg, IN |
FicmanS
Premium Member
2008-Jun-27 10:01 am
Not sure I buy it...Those numbers seem difficult for me to buy into 43.5% for file sharing and on the flip side .2% VOIP? O Really...? | |
|
| FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ 1 edit |
FFH5
Premium Member
2008-Jun-27 10:12 am
Re: Not sure I buy it...said by FicmanS:Those numbers seem difficult for me to buy into 43.5% for file sharing and on the flip side .2% VOIP? O Really...? VOIP streams can be compressed in to about 64 kbps upstream. The amount of bandwidth needed is very little. Even if the compression is not as severe, VOIP at most will use about 256 kbps. Not surprised that VOIP traffic is so low. 10 years ago, we compressed VOIP down to 32 kbps with dedicated hardware cards in our internal network. So even software based compression can easily do 64 kbps. | |
|
|
1 recommendation |
ISP_Guy to FicmanS
Anon
2008-Jun-27 9:08 pm
to FicmanS
As someone who works for a major ISP with Sandvine's fully deployed, I can venture to say this report is probably pretty accurate. We push (at peak times) anywhere from 25-30GE/sec to our various upstream providers in my market. 30-35% is easily BT and other p2p traffic. Most the other traffic is http. | |
|
fireflierCoffee. . .Need Coffee Premium Member join:2001-05-25 Limbo
1 recommendation |
fireflier
Premium Member
2008-Jun-27 10:02 am
Proof?Would Sandvine care to list these "leading" ISPs they compiled data from? How about actual traffic stats from those ISPs?
So I'm supposed to believe the claims of a company that's selling equipment to fix a problem they say exists without direct evidence the problem really exists? Did you guys know there's a special breed of Hippo that's purple? It must be true because someone said it was.
Next up: Sandvine's unverifiable numbers will be quoted by "leading" ISPs as proof that P2P is eating up their network bandwidth. | |
|
knightmbEverybody Lies join:2003-12-01 Franklin, TN 1 edit |
Our Stats. ISP Stats - WISP |
Might as well mix ours with theirs right? Based off of this week (48 GB 'gigabytes' used among all customers) This is just the download, not the upload. Our customers range from Clueless Grandmom to Linux Master Bob. Note: P2P can technically fall under "other" if it's encrypted traffic | |
|
|
and zero % businessThis study accounts for is residential accounts and ignores all the business data that moves across the net and leads the reader to belive that 44% of the internet data is P2P.
What kind of news is this? Obivously people use their home connections to do stuff like this from home.
The fact that this study does not mention the results of residential traffic vs. the total internet data makes this a big pile of FUD | |
|
BK3 join:2001-04-10 Geneva, IL |
BK3
Member
2008-Jun-27 10:54 am
Where's email?I believe that at one time I read that a very large chunk of internet traffic was email (specifically spam). Yet, I don't see a consumption percentage for email at all. | |
|
| |
Re: Where's email?That was my question to. Where's the email. And Sandvine better never say that email was so little that they didn't measure it. There is so much spam and they seem to use pictures in almost all of it. Email isn't in the list so I say it isn't a valid list. | |
|
1 edit |
SaNDVINE LIES wowhow is it possible that 44% is p2p when bell throttles to point of unusability for even normal stuff, such that for ten hours or 10/24 (do the math) almost half the net is off.
Sandvine ought to be raided , arrested and jailed for hacking and exploiting and violating the privacy act of canada. ------------------------- in off case thats correct that means that of the 25 million net accounts , 11 million are using p2p
using those old 2005 stats , 5.4 million ( sept 2005) march 2006 9.8 million ( march) which as we are today this means that there attempts to stop it have FAILED.
MOVE on get a new career, your not needed sandvinigar | |
|
|
Capitalist
Anon
2008-Jun-27 11:43 am
Nice brochureDon't forget the downstream only numbers:
Web browsing and streaming have combined to overtake file sharing in terms of traffic on downstream Internet connections. As a stand-alone category, P2P file sharing is still the leader at 35.5% of traffic, followed by web browsing at 32% and streaming at 18%.
All data included in this study was gathered at the subscriber access network only. Therefore, P2P numbers (due to the nature of the protocol) will be significantly increased.
Capacity and utilization are unmentioned. | |
|
|
No point in faster speeds . . .If they take away our right to faster speeds, even if it's for P2P as they are claiming, what need is there for superfast speeds? Might as well stay with DSL speeds of 3,000/768 which works perfectly fine with CNN Video or YouTube. The only reason why you really need 10,000/2000 or higher speeds is for large file transfers. Most servers don't respond that quickly or even at those high speeds. Sure they'll be a few people who legitimately need fast speeds for something but the vast majority of us won't pay the high prices for fast internet if we can't use it. I guess ISPs want us all to become Slowskys. | |
|
ChiyoSave Me Konata-Chan Premium Member join:2003-02-20 Salisbury, NC ·Hotwire Communic..
|
Chiyo
Premium Member
2008-Jun-27 12:10 pm
well DUH they are a hardware vendorok seriously why has nobody said this? They are selling hardware to ISPS to throttle connections and stuff. Its their business model are they going to say say they are wrong and push customers away from them? NO!!
either way this is just company propaganda why is this news/ | |
|
|
We should have a national NO internet use day.Maybe they will stop complaining | |
|
| |
Re: We should have a national NO internet use day.Then they'll just sell hardware to flood the ISP's network with random packets guaranteed to be identified as "P2P" packets.
Anyway, as any tech-savvy Comcast user knows, you should always obfuscate as much P2P traffic as possible, which would make those packets undetectable as "P2P", which means those numbers should be much lower right there.
Also, there's no mention of consumption versus available bandwidth. It's yet another propaganda campaign. | |
|
|
Definitely don't trust those numbers...When a gear vendor comes out with numbers that obviously push their product, I'm highly suspicious. We definitely need someone to confirm those numbers otherwise their results get filed under the "BS, these numbers were cooked up to sell out gear" category. | |
|
| |
ISP_Guy
Anon
2008-Jun-27 11:18 pm
Re: Definitely don't trust those numbers...As someone who works for a major ISP with Sandvine's fully deployed, I can venture to say this report is probably pretty close to accurate. We push (at peak times) anywhere from 25-30GE/sec to our various upstream providers in my market. 30-35% is easily BT and other p2p traffic. Most the other traffic is http. | |
|
45612019 (banned) join:2004-02-05 New York, NY |
45612019 (banned)
Member
2008-Jun-27 3:11 pm
Is there a problem?So? 44%, that's an interesting statistic and all, but who cares? There's nothing wrong with any type of Internet traffic. | |
|
| meister_sd Premium Member join:2006-01-29 La Mesa, CA |
Re: Is there a problem?Wasn't spam accounting for something like 60% of internet traffic? I guess if you take away spam and P2P - no one is using the internet. | |
|
| | |
hanker345
Anon
2008-Jun-29 12:55 pm
Re: Is there a problem?60% of email traffic perhaps.
I doubt you can find a source anywhere anytime that says it was 60% of ALL internet traffic | |
|
|
BS!Those numbers are made up solely based on the fact that they decided to exclude SPAM! Don't tell me that no longer exists as of creation of that article. Remember this is about bandwidth. | |
|
nydwarf1 join:2008-04-11 St Catharines, ON |
So?So? | |
|
Maggs Premium Member join:2002-11-29 Jackson Heights, NY |
Maggs
Premium Member
2008-Jun-28 8:15 am
Here's some statistics for you.I think 100% of the people posting here are posting to dslreports.com . Statistics are designed to lie. | |
|
|
fred_23
Anon
2008-Jun-28 9:49 am
P2P consumptionTo all you P2P advocates with your head in the sand...
The Network admin's already know what percentage of traffic is P2P, without the Sandvine study. P2P consumes a lot and is getting bigger every day. Its long overdue that the hogs start to pay for their share. | |
|
|
|