Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

World Internet Traffic To Top 966 Exabytes In 2015

Roblimo posted more than 3 years ago | from the all-those-Netflix-streams-add-up dept.

The Internet 100

Mark.JUK writes "Networking giant Cisco has released its latest annual Visual Networking Index (VNI) today, which forecasts that world internet traffic will quadruple by 2015 to reach 965.5 ExaBytes per year (up from 242.4 ExaBytes in 2010); when 40% of the world's population will be online (i.e. 3bn Internet users). Internet video will account for 61% of all consumer traffic in the same year, while P2P (File Sharing) will decline significantly to just 16%."

cancel ×

100 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

966 EB (1)

loonyjuice (1744114) | more than 3 years ago | (#36308522)

That's a lot of porn

Re:966 EB (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36308650)

Now if only Slashdot admin would get a clue about JavaScript we could get rid of the irritating "Working..." graphic permanently stuck at the bottom of each page.

Oh yeah and when you click on a post in a message they could fix their CSS so every single click (even to cut and paste) doesn't redirect you to the top of the page.

Do they never preview and test anything before putting it on the production servers? Sloppy and unprofessional.

Re:966 EB (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36308732)

Shut up, you pedantic douchebag. It got Rob Malda's approval, so that's all we need. The site is soooo much cooler now that it's loaded up with Javascript. So what if it takes a while to load and has a few bugs here and there? This is Web 2.0. Get used to it.

Re:966 EB (5, Insightful)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 3 years ago | (#36308764)

Now if only Slashdot admin would get a clue about JavaScript we could get rid of the irritating "Working..." graphic permanently stuck at the bottom of each page.

Oh yeah and when you click on a post in a message they could fix their CSS so every single click (even to cut and paste) doesn't redirect you to the top of the page.

Do they never preview and test anything before putting it on the production servers? Sloppy and unprofessional.

Also, it would be nice if the score of a post would be shown also if several parent posts are collapsed. And if clicking somewhere in a post with collapsed ancestors would do whatever the action is for that place (follow a link, place focus into input box, etc) instead of uncollapsing one of the ancestors.

Or basically, make Slashdot again a site that works.

Re:966 EB (1)

PJ6 (1151747) | more than 3 years ago | (#36309618)

It makes me mad when I see an application that has lots of users and remains broken indefinitely. That's because I'm a software developer and I have to actually fix my mistakes before a project's considered done.

When I see obvious breakage, I ask myself, "What was going through developer X's mind? Did he just not care? I don't have to use ./ so I guess it doesn't count, but when I see it in software I must use, it makes me want to give the developer/PM a good hard slap across the face and ask them if they know how many people they shit on by not having any pride of workmanship.

Re:966 EB (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312720)

It would be good if, while commenting, clicking the text area simply positionated the cursor at the place you clicked, instead of placing the cursor at the end of the comment, and sending the focus to the first comment on the thread.

Re:966 EB (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36308774)

Haha! God damn, these jokes just stay funny forever! Ha ha! Kill yourself

Re:966 EB (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36308860)

u mad bro?

check out my doubles

Re:966 EB (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 3 years ago | (#36308916)

u mad bro?

check out my doubles

I tried, but half of them are NaNs, most of the rest are infinite, and the few remaining are denormalized.

Re:966 EB (1)

Pseudonym Authority (1591027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36314902)

On the subject of post numbers, why are they all even?

Re:966 EB (1)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 3 years ago | (#36308894)

It's a lot of information. Too bad most of it is wrong.

Re:966 EB (1)

Gilmoure (18428) | more than 3 years ago | (#36309240)

Only 965.9 EB is porn.

Re:966 EB (1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 3 years ago | (#36310280)

It's even more online American Idol.

How do they get the numbers? (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#36308546)

A much more interesting story than a bunch of increasing marketing numbers by a company that benefits from increasing numbers, would be an explanation of how they made up these numbers...

Re:How do they get the numbers? (1)

ISoldat53 (977164) | more than 3 years ago | (#36308856)

I was hoping the site would be slashdotted.

Come on, we can do 34 more exabytes! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36308554)

We're that close to 1 zettabyte. We can do it.

Re:Come on, we can do 34 more exabytes! (1)

cashman73 (855518) | more than 3 years ago | (#36308620)

They could do another 34 more exabytes easily, but according to Rule 34, you probably will wish it wasn't there,. . . ;-)

It's all... (1)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | more than 3 years ago | (#36308558)

Netflix's fault! Their clogging up the tubes. Them and that insidious YouTube will all those horrible lol cats.

Re:It's all... (1)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | more than 3 years ago | (#36308572)

eh'em "they're" clogging up the tubes. Now I must seek coffee, fast.

Re:It's all... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36308598)

Where is Netflix? There, clogging up the tubes!

Re:It's all... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36308592)

This would've been a more amusing post without all of the egregious typos and grammar mistakes.

Re:It's all... (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#36308920)

Actually, I don't think it would.

Re:It's all... (1)

sarysa (1089739) | more than 3 years ago | (#36312824)

You lost me when you bashed lolcats.

Decline in P2P? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36308562)

I'm not sure I'd agree that p2p will decline! After all, now that MS bought Skype, I'd imagine Skype will continue to grow, and that's p2p. And many video sources could go that route also. And in the past, even MS has said p2p would be a nice way to sell software.

Re:Decline in P2P? (2)

ciderbrew (1860166) | more than 3 years ago | (#36308770)

but p2p is how paedophiles, terrorists and people who copy files use the internet. They are all evil and the same and and and .. . must be stopped!

Re:Decline in P2P? (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | more than 3 years ago | (#36308928)

Pedophile 2 Pedophile?

Backronym doesn't work as well with terrorists though :(

Re:Decline in P2P? (2)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 3 years ago | (#36308980)

Pedophile 2 Pedophile?

Backronym doesn't work as well with terrorists though :(

Just rename them to pterrorists.

Re:Decline in P2P? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36309360)

How about Perpetrator 2 Perpetrator

Re:Decline in P2P? (1)

ciderbrew (1860166) | more than 3 years ago | (#36309584)

I only consider one of those things a crime!?!

Re:Decline in P2P? (1)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 3 years ago | (#36311428)

Pterrordactyl 2 Pterrordactyl?

(Wow that was bad, even for me)

Re:Decline in P2P? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36308778)

They're arguing that as a share of total internet traffic, it'll decline. The overall numbers will probably increase.

Re:Decline in P2P? (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 3 years ago | (#36309750)

How exactly is Skype P2P? its a centrally managed system. If skype goes down, i cant call anyone, thats not P2P.

Re:Decline in P2P? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36311122)

Skype P2P telephony explained (http://www.skype.com/intl/en-us/support/user-guides/p2pexplained/) or An Analysis of the Skype Peer-to-Peer Internet Telephony Protocol (http://www1.cs.columbia.edu/~salman/publications/skype1_4.pdf) should answer your question.

It's hard to predict, especially the future (3, Insightful)

jandrese (485) | more than 3 years ago | (#36308574)

I wonder if 4 years ago Cicso was saying that streaming video was going to account for the majority of internet traffic in 2011? Trying to extrapolate future data use based on current trends is a risky business, and historically people have gotten it wrong a lot. 4 years is a very long time in internet time, who knows what new technology will come along in the meantime and soak up all of the bandwidth?

Re:It's hard to predict, especially the future (1)

Zarhan (415465) | more than 3 years ago | (#36308722)

Well, they just acquired Tandberg, so they are hoping to sell a *lot* of HD-quality videoconferencing hardware :)

Re:It's hard to predict, especially the future (1)

mbone (558574) | more than 3 years ago | (#36309642)

I wonder if 4 years ago Cicso was saying that streaming video was going to account for the majority of internet traffic in 2011?

Yes, they were

Re:It's hard to predict, especially the future (1)

Vlado (817879) | more than 3 years ago | (#36323132)

Second this.

I deliver quite a few Cisco trainings and I remember at least 3 years ago there was information there which stated that Youtube will be the main reason for ISPs to upgrade their infrastructure.

Re:It's hard to predict, especially the future (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36314812)

Did you know that disco record sales were up 400% for the year ending 1976? If these trends continue A-y-y-y!

Sorry guys (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36308610)

"to reach 965.5 ExaBytes per year "

Sorry guys, my fault. It's easy to get carried away trying new Linux ISOs.

EB or EiB? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36308660)

Are they calculating their numbers in 1000 or 1024 bytes chunks?

Re:EB or EiB? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36308866)

They would have said "exbibyte" if they meant EiB. Dude, when an article mentions "5 km", do you also jump in and ask "km or miles?, calculating in 1000 or 5280 chunks?"

Re:EB or EiB? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36310570)

I would assume exabytes too, but so many people still think that 1 KB = 1024 bytes that I keep wondering.

Armageddon for ISPs (2)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 3 years ago | (#36308714)

ISPs must be worried. At the moment they can throttle "heavy" users and still claim "unlimited" service, but even now we are seeing many of them being unable to copy with streaming video demands in the evenings. Soon everyone will be a heavy user.

Re:Armageddon for ISPs (1)

The O Rly Factor (1977536) | more than 3 years ago | (#36309110)

I think they'll be fine with it. It'll give them another excuse to cry to the government for subsidiaries "for infrastructure upgrades," and then pocket the money instead...again.

Re:Armageddon for ISPs (0)

Kamiza Ikioi (893310) | more than 3 years ago | (#36309472)

They always need excuses to raise rates. This is their excuse, even before usage goes up. "Projections show we need to quintuple bandwidth!" 500% increase in rates on all users, purchase a new routers for major urban areas, screw everyone else.

Meanwhile in Canada... (2)

Frederic54 (3788) | more than 3 years ago | (#36308734)

in 2015, our monthly cap would have increased from 50GB/month to maybe 100GB/month, with $7 per additionnal GB, all of this for only $99/month!

Re:Meanwhile in Canada... (1)

cdpage (1172729) | more than 3 years ago | (#36308938)

The CRTC has put a hold on that still, as far as i knew.
It will be nice though when the major providers open that back up.

Canada is going to be SO far behind the in the internet economy in a couple years.

Re:Meanwhile in Canada... (1)

cdpage (1172729) | more than 3 years ago | (#36309432)

good article on how things stand in Canada as of May.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/269531-why-canadian-cable-companies-and-telecoms-are-in-trouble

It is worth noting that SHAW is increasing it's Cap on its higher end rape options, i mean subscriptions. June 7th 2011

Shaw's High Speed plan caps for High Speed will jump from 60GB to 125GB. The Extreme from 100GB to 250GB. Other plans will at least double their monthly allowance.
as well, Videotron and Telus have increased there Caps to 170GB and 250GB

Re:Meanwhile in Canada... (1)

Combatso (1793216) | more than 3 years ago | (#36310406)

only on third party ISPs.. the big ISPs (Rorgers, Bell) have capped usage, and they dont intend to stop.

Re:Meanwhile in Canada... (4, Informative)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#36308956)

in 2015, our monthly cap would have increased from 50GB/month to maybe 100GB/month, with $7 per additionnal GB, all of this for only $99/month!

Actually, by 2015 I see our monthly cap getting smaller as they continue to not invest in upgrading their networks.

The last decade has more or less been comprised of Bell and Rogers charging us more for less, and telling us it's an improvement.

If I tried to buy the same cell-phone plan I have now from the same company, it would cost $10/month more -- for less minutes, and the "evenings and weekends" starting after 9pm instead of 6pm.

From what I can tell, the major telcos are using their 10 year old infrastructure, charging is more for it, and telling us that it's new and improved.

Re:Meanwhile in Canada... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36314338)

Hmm I found that there was an improvement to my fido account not long ago, and I got unlimited incoming calls, evenings and weekends after 6pm (previously 7) for the same price (about $38 a month). Of course it's annoying that these improvements come along and they don't tell existing customers, even though only an idiot would use the old plan rather than the new one, but that's not the same as it getting more expensive.

Re:Meanwhile in Canada... (2)

Tanktalus (794810) | more than 3 years ago | (#36309120)

According to my Shaw customer-care page, my monthly cap (at 25Mbps) is 100GB (up+down). Last month, I managed to get to 94GB. My normal is about 60GB.

While this doesn't really invalidate your point (why merely 100GB per month?), I do think proper numbers are in order. It may just be that Shaw sucks less than Rogers. Then again, you probably live in Toronto, which thinks that "Toronto" and "Canada" are synonymous, thus the confusion. (Your nick makes me think Quebec, but I find it's generally pretty rare for Quebecers to refer to themselves as "in Canada".)

Re:Meanwhile in Canada... (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 3 years ago | (#36309370)

The monthly cap for Télébec (2MBits and 5MBits cable modems) is only 35GB (up+down).

I'd loooooooove to have 25Mbps with a 100GB monthly cap. How much is that?

Re:Meanwhile in Canada... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36309684)

Hate limits as much as the next person. Only thing is if you put in the time to get 94 Gb, where is the time to actually do something with >all of this, before the month is over? Sort of apt that it's a new month already.

Re:Meanwhile in Canada... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36310600)

Starting this month, Shaw is finally moving into the 21st Century.

www.shaw.ca/newpackages

$104 for 100/5 with a 500gb cap, and digital basic with 12 HD channels. Still not great (forced tv bundle) but it's cheaper than the current standalone price for less.

Re:Meanwhile in Canada... (1)

Frederic54 (3788) | more than 3 years ago | (#36311288)

I live in QC yup, and here the monopoly is Bell (ADSL) and Videotron (cable), and they are about double price and half cap, compared to other provinces.

And I am Canadian! :-)

P2P decline only as a percentage (2)

hackertourist (2202674) | more than 3 years ago | (#36308736)

According to TFA P2P volume increases, just not as quickly as other traffic.

to 16%... haha (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36308742)

File shareing will decrease... LOL, where do they get this information. Filesharing has increased everyyear espically as Games get larger. For me and other IT pro's I know we dont even watch TV anymore. We stream/download everything though a torrent site.

Re:to 16%... haha (1)

CecilPL (1258010) | more than 3 years ago | (#36308896)

Decrease as a percentage of the total usage, while still increasing in absolute terms.

In other words, streaming video will outpace file sharing, which I certainly believe.

Re:to 16%... haha (1)

supersloshy (1273442) | more than 3 years ago | (#36308924)

You misread. The article says that the percentage of total internet traffic that belongs to file-sharing will decrease; not necessarily that there will be less file-sharing. I can only assume that Netflix and similar services are to blame for videos taking up so much bandwidth, as they're incredibly popular. On a related note, you really should try Netflix. I have almost no urge at all to pirate anything with them. Every week they add tons of movies and shows, some of which are absolutely fantastic (FLCL, anyone?), and whatever isn't available on streaming is available on DVD very easily. Why pirate when something as relatively inexpensive and not-bandwidth-hogging as Netflix is exists?

The only things I've ever even *thought* of pirating now are those old Digimon shows I used to see as a kid, because Bandai won't sell them to me on DVD. Rawr...

Re:to 16%... haha (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#36309102)

You should try Icefilms. Sure Netflix might have more stuff, but Icefilms has more TV than I can watch anyway. You can't get current Daily Show on Netflix so honestly, it's just about useless.

Sturgeon's Law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36308754)

that 90 percent of anything is crap... will need to be updated, with a few additional 9's.

Break down (4, Funny)

benwiggy (1262536) | more than 3 years ago | (#36308766)

50% Porn
23% Lol Cats
10% Facebook
5% Teen sensation
2% Conspiracy theories, petitions, "Do this to stop Facebook checking up on you", etc.
0.5% Email
0.4% Business
0.1% Literature, Science, Art, other stuff that is beneficial to mankind

Re:Break down (1)

benwiggy (1262536) | more than 3 years ago | (#36308790)

No one knows what the missing 9% is for....

Re:Break down (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36308848)

No one knows what the missing 9% is for....

/b/

Re:Break down (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36309096)

WoW....

Re:Break down (1)

otaku244 (1804244) | more than 3 years ago | (#36311496)

9% Cyber Black Ops?...-Patriot Act

Re:Break down (1)

aywang31 (2078102) | more than 3 years ago | (#36313988)

Spam Mail

Re:Break down (1)

ckhorne (940312) | more than 3 years ago | (#36309248)

0.1% Literature, Science, Art, other stuff that is beneficial to mankind

And if this was actually true, that'd be 1 exabyte (1 million terabytes) for shared knowledge. Still considerable, given where the world was just 20 years ago.

Re:Break down (1)

Combatso (1793216) | more than 3 years ago | (#36310434)

to be fair, porn and lolcats are this generations Art.

Re:Break down (1)

funkatron (912521) | more than 3 years ago | (#36310536)

You must have a low opinion of lolcats to call them that.

Re:Break down (1)

chrismcb (983081) | more than 3 years ago | (#36314474)

0.1% Literature, Science, Art, other stuff that is beneficial to mankind

Because obviously keeping in touch with friends, doing business, having an occasional laugh, and discussing issues with peers is NOT beneficial to mankind

This will add up over 100% (1)

qwerty shrdlu (799408) | more than 3 years ago | (#36308874)

Because so much of the P2P _is_ video.

Just another WAG (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36308974)

Why don't they answer some questions that are really interesting, like how much drive space will porn will take up in 2015, or how many ... aw, screw it, journalism today sucks, if they can't be professional, at least try for humorous, but no, they fail at that as well.

If those numbers reflect reality... (1)

realsilly (186931) | more than 3 years ago | (#36309058)

.... then I think it's time for the ISP providers to stop bitching' about having to build the infrastructure and just build it already, because that's an awful lot of info being passed around, whether or not it's music, videos, movies or what ever. The world is ever changing, people and companies have to constantly change with the technology if they wish to stay up with the world. As more and more companies push for people to go through the web to do business more and more people will get online, and if the ISP providers just keep sitting on their profits, complaining on how all the investments are theirs, they forget that so is the potential business.
The faster, more reliable, less limited the service provider makes things, the more business they will bring in.

Look at all those copies... (2)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 3 years ago | (#36309198)

Look at all those copies. It's no wonder that our outdated copyright laws can't possibly keep up in the Information Age.

We couldn't obey those laws if we tried... How many copies traverse routers without license -- I've yet to see a web page that says:

Copyright (c) 2001, 2008-2010 Someone
Duplication of this content is expressly permitted via intermediary routers and information caching servers for the sole purpose of distributing this work to visitors of this website so long as these intermediary duplications are temporary -- destroyed after a period having a duration no longer than 72 hours.

Every last one of us commits contributory infringement via inducing the breach of copyright on our behalf...

Ironically, it seems that only works produced under the Free Software, Creative Commons, and Open Source copyright licenses can be legally transmitted simply because these licenses seek to reverse or nullify the restrictions granted by copyright. ("Copyleft -- all rights reversed.")

The founding fathers wrote that we should uphold the spirit of the laws they set forth -- Thus allowing old laws to remain relevant and sever their purpose instead of being twisted by time and interpretations of the letter of the law.

Copyright was allowed to exist for the benefit of the society as a whole. Now that it can not be upheld, and the society suffers its weight it should be abolished. How do you know the web page's copyright notice until you've already copied the page many times?!.

Copyright was intended to allow artists & authors to keep the greedy publishers at bay -- Now the greedy publishers use the law to harm the general public and the authors/artists. Additionally, with our own computers we are all elevated to the status of "publisher" or "distributor" when we should not have been, thus allowing the harsh law to ensnare us all when it was intended to restrict only a few.

The spirit of the law has been violated; We ignored the foresight of the founding fathers. Now we suffer in our arrogance.

Re:Look at all those copies... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36309436)

Are you trying to be modded funny?

Re:Look at all those copies... (1)

RazzleFrog (537054) | more than 3 years ago | (#36309512)

Copyrights predate the Constitution.

Copyrights benefit society by giving a creator exclusive rights to profit from his work therefore encouraging him to create more.

"Greedy publishers" didn't even really exist as we know them today. Whoever had access to a printing press was essentially a publisher. Big conglomerates like today didn't exist.

You have a gross misunderstanding of how networks work.

Re:Look at all those copies... (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 3 years ago | (#36314166)

No. I know perfectly well how networks work. I know that 1000 to 1500 bytes of data is a mere fraction of a movie or a song. I know that I would be able to take this fractional part of such a copyrighted work and use it under the fair-use provisions, including the distribution of it to my neighbors. I know that following this logic, a bittorrent file sharing system should be able to simply claim fair use on any movie or song download (following the letter of the law), especially if only a single packet (1000 to 1500 bytes in length), or a very small portion of the whole is obtained via each peer. I know that the copyright lawmakers could not have foreseen this technology. I know that if more people had "printing presses" in their homes than did not (as we do now in the US) that the copyright laws would have been written very very differently.

I know that this bittorrent example is ridiculous because it does not follow the spirit of the current copyright laws.

I know that Monarchies and Dictatorships predate copyright law. I know that slavery was once legal. I know that Jim Crow was once a law. I also know that copyright laws do exist, and yet any oppressive law can be abolished because they are merely allowed not required. Furthermore, I know that laws themselves are simply mental machines that exert no force and have no power other than that which we allow them to exert.

I also know that those ancient laws no longer make sense -- That publishers have extracted a high penalty from the common man who allegedly infringes, yet when a the publishers themselves are sued they call such high penalties "outrageous", "impossibly high", and seek a much lower penalty for themselves -- the very ones the laws should most restrict and penalize, since they have the most power and actually seek to monetize their infringements.

I know that as an author and artist and creator of software, it is not necessary to wield suits of alleged copyright infringement in order to make money. I know that the works I've created under licenses that nullify the copyright laws have earned me more wealth than those produced under a strict "all rights reserved" license have.

I know that when I build a house or fix a car, I am only paid for my labors, not for the effects my labors have upon others' continued use. I know that being paid only when you work is even more rewarding than working once and trying to get people to pay for that labor multiple times via threat of copyright and DRM infringement lawsuits.

I know that basic economic principals reduce prices to zero as they become infinitely available. I know that many people see artificial scarcity as artificial as it is. I know that an electronic copy has many properties above and beyond that of the physical world, and that it is foolish to restrict them as if they did not. I know that free flowing of ideas, communication, knowledge and culture is the foundation of the human race -- to which we owe our very society and laws. I know that to outlaw or restrict the flow of information, knowledge, communication, ideas or culture is to deny our human natures, and that laws which provide such restrictions are the tools of a police state!

What I do not know is if you have any experience publishing your own works sans copy restrictions. What I do not know is how a scientists, or any rational being for that matter, would call you qualified to make the argument for copyright, if you have never lived without it.

17 USC 512(a) (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36310300)

How many copies traverse routers without license

I don't know about foreign law, but 17 USC 512(a) [bitlaw.com] appears to exempt the ephemeral copies made in the RAM of a router from liability for infringement.

Re:Look at all those copies... (1)

chrismcb (983081) | more than 3 years ago | (#36314570)

The spirit of the law has been violated; We ignored the foresight of the founding fathers. Now we suffer in our arrogance.

Yes you are right. The spirit of the law has been violated because of all the greedy people who don't want to pay for their entertainment (rationalizing their theft in a variety of ways) Allowing "copies" of works to to exist to be transferred from the "publisher" to your screen doesn't break the spirit of the law. Copyright exists for the benefit of the creator, whether that creator is an individual or a conglomerate, it doesn't matter. And yes you can obey the law if you tried. But most people don't care, they want to listen to the latest music, watch the newest movie, or play the latest game. Without paying... And yet they claim the companies are greedy.

Bad Assumptions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36309216)

Not with Usage Based Billing it won't

I can read it now (0)

Jedi1USA (145452) | more than 3 years ago | (#36309226)

Bill Gates quoted as saying...

640 ExaBytes should be enough for anyone.

or...

965.5 ExaBytes? Wow, what a coincidence! That's the same as the minimum system requirement for Windows 8.

Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36309352)

The way ISPs are coming up with smaller and smaller monthly quotas, you'd think bandwidth usage would almost start decreasing year after year.

Télébec: 35GB per month (upload+download combined). Switch ISP? Impossible, since they operate in regions with no competition.

Wrong units. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36309384)

Sorry, unless you tell me how many Libraries of Congress we'll be transmitting in 2015, or provide a car analogy, I really can't make sense of this article.

965.5?! (1)

Arrepiadd (688829) | more than 3 years ago | (#36309394)

I wonder if these people have never heard of significant digits... what is the point of going to the first decimal? Are they trying to tell me their four year away prediction is that accurate?

Cisco working hard to sell its Internet video gear (1)

Julie188 (991243) | more than 3 years ago | (#36309404)

Video is already a big reason people use the Internet and no doubt all forms of Internet traffic will grow. But I'm always struck at how hard Cisco is working to sell the idea of video growth ... given that it is trying to convince the world that they need to ditch their current routers and switches and upgrade to its latest, greatest wares. Maybe it's true, but it still feels like a sales pitch.

Julie

Nothing like meaningless precision. (1)

mbone (558574) | more than 3 years ago | (#36309628)

Come on guys, 966 EB ? Why hold back ? Why not 966.1415927 EB in 2015 ?

Seriously, I would doubt any claim to know this number to better than about 50%.

Re:Nothing like meaningless precision. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36311254)

He meant 1 ZiB, which the editor changed to 1 ZB, which Windows then displayed as 966 EB.

I know, it should be 976 EB for the joke to be funny.

Earlier predictions... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36309710)

In 2008, Cisco predicted 291 Exabytes/Year for 2010. That's 20% more than the actual value measured 2 years in the future. Extrapolated from those numbers, my prediction for the actual 2015 value is roughly 670.486EB. Source: http://newsroom.cisco.com/visualnetworkingindex/

If someone finds even earlier predictions, please post since we could drastically improve the accuracy of the values by extrapolating over larger timespans.

Blame it on the... (1)

pasv (755179) | more than 3 years ago | (#36310638)

increased divorce rates and HD porn. Single horny men in a surplus with a higher res outlet for spank? The equation couldn't be more simple.

61% Video Traffic? (2)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 3 years ago | (#36311380)

As champions of the internet, I believe that it is Comcast's solemn duty to start sabotaging video traffic now, before things get out of hand.

Re:61% Video Traffic? (1)

Bengie (1121981) | more than 3 years ago | (#36319624)

The recent Netflix data about average speed had my ISP above Comcast. If I tracert the data from Netflix, it's coming from Comcast. Somehow my ISP has a better connection to Comcast than Comcast's own customers. Go Figure.

In other news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36311442)

A company selling a product predicts the need for their product to increase tenfold after this message hits the interwebs.

I've heard such a prediction before... (1)

geschild (43455) | more than 3 years ago | (#36313332)

It was around the year 2000 I heard a long speech by a short American woman in the Kürhaus in Scheveningen (The Netherlands.) This freshly arrived UUNet manager proclaimed that the Internet would double in traffic every 9 months.

I preferred to listen the two (very tall, Dutch) senior networkadminstrators that looked at each other in disbelief while muttering "Where did she get her figures from?"

Contrary to what some might expect, I believe Cisco is akin to the very short American UUNet manager, not the very tall networkadmins.

That prediction was before (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 3 years ago | (#36313612)

All the ISP's instituted their bandwidth caps. The reality will be much smaller now.

500 TB per second (1)

Dr.Ruud (98254) | more than 3 years ago | (#36318422)

The DNA replication in a human body does about 500 TB per second.

This is the future - 1 hr video file in a few kB (1)

techno_sleuth (2002664) | more than 3 years ago | (#36327052)

Without verifying or validating Ciscos forecast, the fact remains that traffic will grow to unmanageable proportions. Bandwidth caps or costly bandwidth will not act as a deterrent and should not too. The solution is definitely better compression of any media as these are the guzzlers. We at Chazz Studios identified this and are working on the worlds most powerful Media compressors. Imagine a 1 hour video file in a few Kilobytes.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>