P2P dominates bandwidth, and BitTorrent is the dominant platform. Those are the conclusions of two research firms, with a third saying that unauthorized P2P remains the most desirable method to obtain music. I don't really see anything surprising in the conclusions of the studies by CacheLogic, TeleGeography or Ipsos-Insight, but at least one member of the Free Culture Movement has taken issue with one study. I'll address that in a moment.

First I'll quickly summarize of the findings here; Wired has more. TeleGeography claims global bandwidth demand grew 42% last year, and that P2P is the single fastest-growing consumer of capacity. CacheLogic's CTO told Wired reporter Joanna Glasner that P2P is estimated to consume 60-80% of consumer ISP capacity. CacheLogic's own data suggests that BitTorrent, popular with movie and TV downloaders, is now the top P2P application, dwarfing Gnutella, FastTrack and eDonkey. Reflecting that, the size of downloaded files is increasing, reflecting the increased demand for unauthorized video content. Meanwhile, an Ipsos-Insight survey found that even when presented with multiple legal download services including pay-per-song, tethered and mobile subscription services, 62% still chose unauthorized P2P file-sharing. This meshes with CacheLogic's contention that suits haven't made a dent in unauthorized P2P use. So what's to criticize?

The Free Culture Movement defender faults CacheLogic's study in particular, noting that it isn't a peer-reviewed piece published in an academic journal that can have its methodology examined. True enough, and as a skeptic myself who enjoys statistical analysis I always look to the methodology section first. He also doesn't want data to be cited until it has been independently verified. Fair enough. But this landscape is changing rapidly, and he of all people should know just how difficult it is to accurately assess P2P bandwidth usage. These networks use dynamic ports, and often traffic is disguised as web surfing or e-mail. If we wait for perfect science it will never come.

But there's a larger issue here. CacheLogic, like the other two operations, is a for-profit enterprise. The Free Culture advocate faults CacheLogic for wanting to sell its research to ISPs. What is it we talk about here at IPcentral regarding markets? Oh yes, receiving financial rewards for creation. What incentive would CacheLogic have to do the research if it weren't paid? CacheLogic's opponent here derides its "press release" of information, but I would suggest that this individual, who has in the past expressed support for the free market, purchase the report himself. He knows a lot about the subject and I'd be curious to hear his scientific analysis of the paper and its methodology, but I'm less interested in his critique of CacheLogic's press release.

I hear my Free Culture friends saying "But information wants to be free!" Fine. But if we forfeit the scholarship in this debate to only those who will work for free, we'll get only our money's worth.

posted by Patrick Ross @ 11:20 AM | Internet: P2P, Search Engines...

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | Post a Comment(0)