Page 3 of the ipoque white paper (Content Protection in the Internet), under "Reality Check", contains the observation:
"P2P networks are a good example. While the overwhelming proportion of exchanged content violates copyrights, the networks themselves are important new technologies." http://portal.ipoque.com/downloads/ I suspect that's not sufficient for you and note that ipoque is in a unique position to have such knowledge. Perhaps they could be invited to do a presentation at Stockholm and we might put this matter to rest? Till then, and to the extent you genuinely wish to know the answer to your question, you might reach out to your local ISP -- they have the specific knowledge you seek and can speak authoritatively. And on the non-zero chance I might be correct, I encourage you to think about ways to incorporate content protection into ALTO. There's little to lose and much to gain in terms of network efficiency and user experience -- not to mention the benefit of making the Net less of a mess. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Lars Eggert Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 10:45 AM To: DePriest, Greg (NBC Universal) Cc: alto Subject: Re: [alto] Adopting two I-Ds as WG documents Hi, Greg, On 2009-4-17, at 16:20, DePriest, Greg (NBC Universal) wrote: > a) The easiest way to determine how much network traffic is illegal > P2P > is to ask a large network operator. You'll need to sign an NDA and I > encourage you to do so. > > b) You might also think about ipoque's numbers. The company notes > that > 66% of network traffic in Southern Africa is P2P, 65% in South > America, > 44% in the Middle East. What percentage of those numbers do you think > is scientific data sharing, Linux downloads, or WoW updates? > > c) You might also go to any index site and check out the Top 100 > downloads in any category and in the aggregate. Perhaps I missed it > but > I could not find one piece of content in either group that was not > copyrighted. > > It's easiest to turn a blind eye and I hope you won't. I'm not. It's pretty obvious that varying fractions of Internet traffic are illicit, depending on the region, and the sources you point to illustrate this with some datapoints. What those datapoints in my opinion don't support is stating as fact that illicit traffic is - in your words - "the root cause of network congestion today." I wouldn't argue if you had stated it as an hypothesis or a possibility, but it's not a verified fact. (We might also have a terminology mismatch - "congestion" has a pretty precise meaning in the transport community.) Lars > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf > Of > Lars Eggert > Sent: Friday, April 17, 2009 4:46 AM > To: DePriest, Greg (NBC Universal) > Cc: alto > Subject: Re: [alto] Adopting two I-Ds as WG documents > > Hi, > >> a) ipoque GmbH's Internet Study 2008/2009 notes that P2P generates >> the most traffic in all regions. >> >> b) Per an AP story about Sweden's new ipred law dated April 1, 2009: >> > http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090403/ap_on_re_eu/eu_sweden_online_piracy_ > 3 >> >> c) A recent study at Illinois State University in the US found 119k >> "likely infringements" in a one-month period (April 2007). > > thanks for the pointers! They do illustrate that P2P traffic makes up > a sizeable fraction of Internet traffic in some regions (a), and that > at least some fraction of P2P traffic in some regions is transferring > copyrighted content without permission (b + c). > >> To me, the conclusions are inescapable: P2P constitutes the >> majority of network traffic and almost all P2P is "sharing" of >> copyrighted content without the copyright holders' permission. > > I wouldn't feel comfortable making this broad generalization, based on > those three studies alone. (My interpretation is above.) But without > additional data, we could argue about what is accurate forever. > > I would like to point out though that none of the three studies say > that illicit content is the root cause of network congestion today > (which was your claim that I responded to). Or, to turn this around, > that network congestion would disappear if the transmission of illicit > content somehow suddenly stopped. > > It's clear that some volume of traffic would be removed from the > network if that happened, but whether that volume is sufficient to > alleviate network congestion to some degree depends *a lot* on many > other factors. > > Lars _______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
