Reuters UK has a story this morning which indicates that over one third of Internet traffic is now acounted for by legal…and illegal uses of BitTorrent. What the article doesn't discuss is what the other 65% is being used for. My money is on spam.
BitTorrent sucks off the bandwidth
Reader Comments
(Page 1)2. Any sane calculation of bandwidth consumption of spam results in something south of 1% of internet traffic, and pratically invisible bandwidth on LANs.
Posted at 4:49AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Craig Hughes
3. Here's the link to the original CacheLogic study cited in the article: http://www.cachelogic.com/research/slide1.php
For a breakdown of the other 65%, check out this slide:
http://www.cachelogic.com/research/slide6.php
It does appear P2P is taking the lion's share of internet traffic, particularly as compared to the web, which seems surprising. Although it makes sense if you think about it - P2P clients are extremely good at automating large file downloads, whereas most web browsing is still text files and images (though multimedia content is ever growing), which are relatively small so consume less bandwidth, cumulatively.
Posted at 4:49AM on Dec 19th 2005 by barb dybwad
6. Any sane calculation of bandwidth consumption of spam results in something south of 1% of internet traffic, and pratically invisible bandwidth on LANs.
Posted at 4:49AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Craig Hughes
7. Here's the link to the original CacheLogic study cited in the article: http://www.cachelogic.com/research/slide1.php
For a breakdown of the other 65%, check out this slide:
http://www.cachelogic.com/research/slide6.php
It does appear P2P is taking the lion's share of internet traffic, particularly as compared to the web, which seems surprising. Although it makes sense if you think about it - P2P clients are extremely good at automating large file downloads, whereas most web browsing is still text files and images (though multimedia content is ever growing), which are relatively small so consume less bandwidth, cumulatively.
Posted at 4:49AM on Dec 19th 2005 by barb dybwad
1. the article has been taken down from the Reuters site. Interesting. That 35 percent seems implausible to me. Possibly some fact-checking killed the article...? Anyway, here's a copy of it in Yahoo!:
http://in.tech.yahoo.com/041103/137/2ho4i.html
Posted at 4:49AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Brad Hill