Some very interesting stats have been released by a company called Ellecoya, who optimise broadband networks for operators. They relate to North America, but I can't imagine the picture would be radically different in the UK.

The statistics cover the relative approximate proportions of different types of web traffic, as deduced by analysing the usage data of about a million subscribers:

HTTP - 46 percent
P2P - 37 percent
Newsgroups - 9 percent
Non-HTTP video streaming - 3 percent
Gaming - 2 percent
VoIP - 1 percent

Very interesting. VoIP remains lower than gaming, a lot of things remain lower than newsgroups (still!), but more importantly HTTP is a fair bit higher than P2P - for the first time in four years.

It would be interesting to see the same study done on UK traffic...

I've just returned from a wildly infuriating lunch with a bunch of frothy-mouthed social media 2.0 evangelists. I will refrain from naming any of the people or companies involved in this, other than to say that one of them is a pretty darn big name which apparently differentiates itself from its rivals based on the fact that it's "all about people".

And it's rivals are about what, marsupials? It's this kind of thing that exemplifies the problem with this social media malarkey (and yes, I realise that ZDNet.co.uk is a social networking site of sorts, but I like to think we avoid the sheer daftness and triviality of things like Twitter). All the people at this lunch were either hacks like me or people representing business in one form or another. All there for the benjamins, yet to listen to them you'd think it was a cult gathering. I'm used to people tossing around nonsense-words like "leverage" and even "bio-break", but today things hit a new low with a discussion about "lifestreams" ("lives", you mean?) and how they need to be analysed or data-mined or what-have-you. It was like having lunch with people who'd been temporarily beamed over from a parallel dimension.

A lot of it is a serious case of Emperor's New Clothes, and oddly reminiscent of the absurdities that were bandied around in the last big bubble, before the dotcom crash. It's not just the stupid names (see here and here for recently blogged examples), but also the complete and utter vagueness of what this stuff is all for. With our site, it makes sense - everyone knows what we're here for and here to discuss. Excellent. But Twitter? Oh, said one person at this lunch importantly, what a wonderful thing it is to receive a Twitter from someone you sort-of-know saying "I've had a baby!". Sure, I said, but that's a pretty small percentage of what you get. "I've had a sandwich", maybe, or "Popping out for a newspaper". Who the heck cares?!

Same goes for most of the information you get blasted with on Facebook. Sure, it's nice to hook up with old friends, but the amount of self-important trivia that gets conveyed is way out of proportion to what most people with a real-world social life want to know. Surely if these people were really such close friends, you wouldn't have to tell them all this stuff in the first place? Or have I missed something here?

Blogging was/is a different kettle of fish. Before blogging, not many people (relatively speaking) got to publish their thoughts and knowledge, because the publication process was a fairly closed shop. Now everyone can do it and make it an interactive thing to boot - that's what I call a revolution. Social networking is for the most part no more (and usually far less) liberating than stepping out your front door and making some real friends. Y'know, people you get together with face-to-face. It doesn't let you do something that you couldn't do before, not in the same way blogging does.

And I haven't even started on the problems of online identity and reputation (one? many?), and how kids today are growing up with a very odd idea of what privacy should entail.

You'll have to excuse me. I gave up smoking yesterday, which might explain the ranty nature of this post - but I stand by my sentiments. Anyway, you can probably see why I'm never overly popular at these lunches...

From the early days of Windows comes this frankly indescribable Microsoft ad for 386. It's a bit long, but worth sticking with for the merciless ratcheting up of squirminess - rather like watching Requiem For A Dream.

I won't comment much on the sheer surrealism of this clip, except to point out the way in which the mysterious boss says "That's very good Linda, very good!" like he's about to pat her on the head and give her a sweetie. Oh how times have changed (for the better).



PS - If you know a worse Windows ad, do feel free to post it below...

A year ago, Vodafone supremo Arun Sarin almost got booted out by livid shareholders. How times change! According to the Times, since then he's gratefully accepted a cool £7.3m from the company, the majority in performance-related bonuses.

Excessive payouts for the upper boardroom classes? We seek your comments - but ultimately this one is up to Vodafone's shareholders to judge.

I can see the meeting now:

"OK, so we're doing a mobile content conference. Any ideas for names?"

"Mobconstravaganza?"

"Nah, too hard to remember."

"Mobile Content World?"

"Nope, there's one of those already..."

"I know! MoCollywood!"

"Sheer brilliance! Consider yourself promoted!"

I kid you not. And they're having an awards ceremony too, called... the MoCoscars.

Go on, industry-that-excels-in-silly-branding, beat that!

UPDATE - It seems that "MoCollywood" is Mobile Content World, rebranded. Which makes it all even sillier. Anyway, the organisers are claiming it now combines the "fun, interactivity and energy of music festivals... with the networking opportunities and hard hitting strategic inspiration offered by traditional conferences". If you're interested, it runs from 2-3 October at Old Billingsgate in London.