Video sites blamed for web-traffic crisis

Advertisement (Why?)

CNET News have published an article documenting how the recent explosion in online video sites has experts worried and searching for more efficient technology to deliver the goods.

Sites such as Google Video, YouTube and Apple's ever expanding collection of movie trailers are alledgedly putting excess strain on ISPs, as consumers strive to own faster internet connections. The popularity of voice over IP (VoIP) technology has also had an impact on ISPs who are now looking at ways of combating these "traffic jams".

Peer-to-peer technology such as BitTorrent is largely untouched by online-content vendors, but ISPs such as NTL are trialing the effectiveness of Bram Cohen's filesharing platform. As reported in February, Warner Bros. are also taking P2P technology onboard.

The need for more efficent technology breeds new companies, one of which is Itiva. Led by ex-HP and ex-Apple exec Michael Billard, the company aim to deliver HD content using their new patented Quantum Streaming technology.

According to their website: "By breaking content into quanta (pieces that are smaller than the average web page), Itiva takes advantage of readily available, lower cost bandwidth worldwide."

View: CNET News

View: itiva.com

(1 reply) #1 Homer™ on 23 Feb 2006 - 16:32

The internet is there to be used, if the ISP's can't cope with the traffic then they should not be in that sector.

#1.1 jcook740 on 01 Mar 2006 - 02:36

The problem is not that ISP's can't hang with the big boys. It is a physical limitation that we are seeing. There are bigger and bigger files being sent across the internet along with more and more general traffic. Exactly like the freeway system jamming up at peak times in the largest city near you, this problem will have to be resolved with 'more lanes' etc. Fiber to the curb will really help and so will IP V.6., but we will end up needing 'pipelines' in every neighborhood to really resolve this issue.

#2 zingysaturn on 23 Feb 2006 - 16:35

I think "blamed" is the wrong word to be using.
VoIP and streaming media are popular and always will be. ISPs have to find ways of coping with it!

(2 replies) #3 weemies on 23 Feb 2006 - 16:49

Yeah this is ridiculous... If you sell people the connections, they have the right to make full use of them.

#3.1 iOsiris on 24 Feb 2006 - 05:29

Especially when they advertise it at a certain speed and bandwidth. They can't just advertise it and then expect people to not use it..

#3.2 shao on 24 Feb 2006 - 15:00

the bandwidth a user gets from a webpage or web server, compared to what they are actually paying for is not entirely reliant on the user's ISP, since the traffic will go over many hops between the user and the resource they are trying to access. in fairness, better planning of internet pipes and isp's resources would help increase speed.. in much the same way as several isps realised that intelligent planning of network infrastructure could lead to latency improvements for their online gaming customers.

#4 sphbecker on 23 Feb 2006 - 16:50

We all know that traffic demands will increase. You can't start giving customers 6Mbps connections and not expect to see usage pickup. As the cost of bandwidth goes down, ISPs should be increasing their capacity, not their profit margins.

(3 replies) #5 Octol on 23 Feb 2006 - 17:03

Agree with everybody above.

#5.1 tmaxxtigger on 23 Feb 2006 - 17:09

LOL

#5.2 GSDragoon on 23 Feb 2006 - 18:51

Like everyone is saying, they are offering us so much bandwidth to use. It's most likely capped too. So when customers are actually using what they paid for, it's now a problem? That's sad...

#5.3 BBinder on 24 Feb 2006 - 10:35

NTL has dropped the cap's on their 1mb and 2mb service but damm my 2mb connection still feels like 1mb :|

(4 replies) #6 zivan56 on 23 Feb 2006 - 17:25

There is something called fibre optics which has been in use for quite some time now. There is an isp (Novus) who only serve a rather small area, but all their equipment consists of ethernet cabling in buildings and fibre optic cables going down streets to a termination point in buildings.

#6.1 sphbecker on 23 Feb 2006 - 18:58

Yeah, a lot of smaller towns that are just now getting high-speed for the first time are getting it in methods far superior to DSL or Cable.

However, this article isn't talking about the last-leg connection (the connection between you and the ISP), it was talking about the connections between ISPs and major Internet corridors.

#6.2 zivan56 on 23 Feb 2006 - 21:50

Actually its in downtown Vancouver. It seems to be talking ISP in the article, and they often own their own backbones. Although Novus uses Peer1, so they need not worry about this, other ISPs which do have to worry about it should just upgrade their ageing infrastructure. Again, Novus provides dark fibre services as a bandwidth wholsaler as well, so my reply does apply to the topic.

#6.3 MrCobra on 24 Feb 2006 - 09:47

My area is getting fibre in the summer. I can't wait for the 10/10 line.

#6.4 Rascally on 25 Feb 2006 - 03:54

Heh.

Not only am I a novus customer, I also work for Novus' upsteam. Let me tell you, having a 10mbps port in my townhouse is almost as fun as taking my laptop to work and using my connection there.

Actually, what's cooler is, Youtube is ALSO one of our customers via our cheap-dedicated-server division for a lot of their content (which isn't hosted on their main site). It's damn fast to see the stuff, but MAN do they suck up a lot of bandwidth.

#7 chicken-royal on 23 Feb 2006 - 17:28

~~Hopefully this will make more 'average' people put pressure on ISPs and bandwidth quotas (we get them over here in the UK, atleast) will be dropped completely.~~

edit: sorry, misunderstood it

Last edited by chicken-royal on 23 Feb 2006 - 19:29

(2 replies) #8 markjensen on 23 Feb 2006 - 17:40

First, Video killed the Radio Star. Now it is causing web-jams?

#8.1 nookadum on 23 Feb 2006 - 17:47

IN MY MIND
AND IN MY CAR
WE CAN'T REWIND
WE'VE GONE TOO FAR

#8.2 Beastage on 24 Feb 2006 - 11:51

rofl!

(1 reply) #9 KC on 23 Feb 2006 - 18:03

I think this has more to do with the internet's backbone then the last mile to your house.

Chicken-Royal: Why would they remove quotas if the ISP's connection to the backbone isn't able to handle the traffic? Thats like saying my car is almost out of petrol so I am going to drain the rest of it out.

#9.1 Chrysalis on 25 Feb 2006 - 00:24

for marketing purposes

#10 chopyaedoff on 23 Feb 2006 - 18:16

This quanta work in a very similar way to that of Bit-Torrent. Hmmmm.....

(1 reply) #11 mrk on 23 Feb 2006 - 18:46

I'm guessing this affects mostly ADSL providers since cable providers have up to 100MB to provide to homes (NTL are trialling 100mb cable in homes right now ready for release next year)

#11.1 sphbecker on 23 Feb 2006 - 18:59

Not really, they are talking about the ISP's connection and the Internet's instructor, not the last leg to your house.

(1 reply) #12 ArtOf_War on 23 Feb 2006 - 19:30

ISPs should have the infrastructure to deliver teh goods they sell regarless of what users do with the service...

#12.1 DigitalDude on 23 Feb 2006 - 21:45

I agree, make it so we have tons more bandwidth for everyone with fiber optics and things and we wont have this problem anymore, all the bandwidth we will ever need for awhile

(2 replies) #13 Quick Reply on 24 Feb 2006 - 03:50

I think that Opera has the key. The are working on implementing the BitTorrent protocol in their browser, I'm ot sure if they are implementing it like if it were a traditional client or not, but if it because possible to embed a BitTorrent steam within a Web page (instead of having to load up a client or download to file), then that could ease distribution of large multimedia files (ie: embed a video or high-res image in a page hosted on Bit Torrent, rather than HTTP like YouTube does for instance). Also I'm not sure if there is support in Bit Torrent to give priority to download for geographically closer/faster connectors (ie: Downloading from others on the same ISP).

Could also use NNTP/Usenet instead of Bit Torrent within the browser, so download from your ISP's news servers instead of somewhere else.

If you are confused with my point, here is an example:
Instead of <IMG SRC="http://www.foo.bar.com/high-res-image.tif">

Use: <IMG SRC="bittorrent://www.foo.bar.com/high-res-image.tif.tracker">

And both would display inline as if they were both hosted on the webserver.

#13.1 extasy on 24 Feb 2006 - 09:24

this has been discussed before..

the problem with this is that not all sites are legal, and since everyone will be chipping in, they could all get sued for it.. and who would want to help run a pedo site?

#13.2 Lt-DavidW on 24 Feb 2006 - 10:29

extasy is right - it is a stupid idea to improve technology because it might be used by unlegal sites.

The whole internet should be closed down, that would fix the problem...

#14 paulhaskew on 24 Feb 2006 - 05:09

eh... just give me fiber... screw cable...

(3 replies) #15 dl0711 on 24 Feb 2006 - 05:33

Video sites blamed for web-traffic crisis????? WTF?? It should say ISP's are blamed for web-traffic crisis for NOT keeping up with Technology. what happens when Windows Live comes out of BETA will Microsoft be the one who is blamed for web-traffic crisis?.

#15.1 seta-san on 24 Feb 2006 - 06:20

video can cause large bottlenecks for other users. blaming isps for not having infinate money to upgrade existing technology is retarded. They are having enough issues just getting internet to small towns and rural areas.

#15.2 MrCobra on 24 Feb 2006 - 09:46

Video cause huge bottlenecks. But, if my ISP doesn't want me utilizing the bandwidth that I pay for because thier technology can't handle it, then they shouldn't sell it.

#15.3 Jugalator on 26 Feb 2006 - 15:53

"blaming isps for not having infinate money to upgrade existing technology is retarded."

Warning: Flaw in argument detected -- it doesn't take infinite money to provide/upgrade to enough bandwidth for video sites.

(2 replies) #16 aleck79 on 24 Feb 2006 - 09:10

Time to invent the new tech: Accelerated Fiber. Everyone is familiar with Fiber, it travels at the speed of light and has great speed. Well that simply won't cut it, Since when is "almost unlimited bandwidth" in face Unlimited. I have developed Accelerated Fiber, as it actually gets 'accelerated' faster than fiber, than light itself. How you ask?I don't have a clue but it does.

Imagine you use my Accelerated fiber, no need for waiting, as the data is sent so fast going faster than light, it goes back in time. Bandwidth so fast, your Movies/MP3's/ect will be waiting on you!

...but ****, the people in Korean already have 5x the speed of light..rofl

Damn I need to lay off the weed...

PATENT PENDING!!!!

#16.1 Havin_it on 24 Feb 2006 - 13:52

I know how to do this!

Put the fibre on the back of a truck and drive the truck at high speed towards the customer's house.

Speed of light + speed of truck = DAAAAMN fast.

© me

#16.2 zORYn on 26 Feb 2006 - 13:46

correct me if im wrong, but regardless of the referential, light always travels at the same speed. if you put a truck going towards the customer's house and other going the other way, both lights arrive at the same time (in theory)

(1 reply) #17 xorian on 24 Feb 2006 - 09:42

If everyone would stop watching porn, they'd save a lot of bandwidth

#17.1 aleck79 on 24 Feb 2006 - 10:19

nahh, the FCC just needs to make it legal on basic cable. 1/2 the male (including me) poplulation would be watching Madden anoucning the gameplay in somethine a little more interesting. hah

#18 Foub on 26 Feb 2006 - 01:03

Does anyone see the irony of using P2P as the solution to this problem?

#19 Magallanes on 26 Feb 2006 - 13:06

The web-traffic crisis is about the ISP promising a high-speed but you cannot use it!.

The main goal of the ISP is to have customers that paid for a 10mb connection for only read their email and see some webpages but discourage the users that really use the 10mb, for p2p, porn, videos, videochats, online radio and such..

The truth is we don't need more speed, we need quality!. For example a 1mb connection is enough for see realtime videos but even with a 4mb you cannot see realtime videos without lags.

#20 Jugalator on 26 Feb 2006 - 15:47

"Sites such as Google Video, YouTube and Apple's ever expanding collection of movie trailers are alledgedly putting excess strain on ISPs, as consumers strive to own faster internet connections."

Huh? Can't say that is noticeable anyway. Google Video is usually fast as hell for me. :-S

But well, as for P2P:
+ Minimizes server load dramatically.
+ The more clients that want the content, the faster it gets. The opposite to what happens with server-side distribution.
- Copyrighted content will be placed on clients, which may not be what they want, even if protected. There's a lack of control here. I think that's why legal P2P services are slow to take off. Right now they can just stream it from a server and it gets tricky enough to pirate (although possible), and I think that makes media companies more happy than having P2P participants distribute their content between each other, albeit DRM'ed.
- P2P participants have to sacrifice (upload) bandwidth just to gain the content, and thus may not be so willing to additionally pay for the content as they feel they're donating enough in network traffic.

#21 Achille on 27 Feb 2006 - 00:54

Well, you pay for the service you may as well use it. No isp has a clause that says you may only surf text-based websites.

Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!

Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.

Neowin.net