Change:
issue
From NAME There are places that could benefit from more citations. For example, Section says, "Historical data shows that users consume more videos and at a higher bit rate than they did in the past..." but does not explain what data this is.
There are many results on a google search, for example, see: URL Most if not all of such reports will be marketing reports, I am not sure how appropriate they are for us to cite, though (reports do not necessarily agree with each other). If it is going to be better, we can reword the sentence as: s/ Historical data shows that users consume more videos and at a higher bit rate than they did in the past on their connected devices. / Users consume more videos (also likely at a higher bit rate) than they did in the past on their connected devices. And maybe even add the following to the end of the sentence above: "evident from the growth of the streaming media providers and increased monthly CDN traffic and consumptions on broadband connections." This argument probably requires some sort of citation as well (although no one will dispute), but those references might be easier to come up with. Maybe NAME might provide some numbers from Akamai.
I think Akamai numbers for the last few years may have a systematic failure to capture a significant amount of growth from some of the streaming services that make for an important quantity of video. I happened across a report that claims this on page 12: "Our data show in the first half of 2021 bandwidth traffic was dominated by streaming video, accounting for 53.72% of overall traffic, with YouTube, Netflix, and Facebook video in the top three." URL That's down as a share of traffic from the 2018 estimates from cisco. Unfortunately these things don't really show their methodology very well...
One reason for that is probably because services use multiple CDNs at the same time. But then I would weigh the actual numbers more than the predictions from 3-4 years earlier. As we all know covid has caused significant changes in broadband consumption.
I think we talked about this when we were removing an outdated forecast for 2022 ("but that forecast was from 2017, and it's 2022 now?!?"). When we couldn't find a forecast for streaming video that was dated later than 2017 or 2018, I suggested that one possible explanation was continued use of encryption ("if I don't know anything about what was encrypted, what's my strategy for knowing whether it's streaming video?") What I suggested at that time, was observing that the numbers from 2017 said about 75 percent of traffic, was streaming video, so if total traffic grew by (say) 20 percent over some period, it's likely that streaming video also grew by something like 20 percent over the same period. It's a guess, but I'm assuming that the percentage of total traffic that's streaming video in 2022 isn't like half of what it was in 2017 - and if it's not, what grew and took the place of streaming video in 2022? If making that assumption isn't a good plan, I think we'd need to know a lot more about methodologies behind the numbers we cite than we've been able to find. But we'll talk (soon).
(Adding reference from section 2 here as well...)
closed by pr

Discussion:
As the Internet has grown, an increasingly large share of the traffic delivered to end users has become video.  The most recent available estimates found that 75% of the total traffic to end users was video <del> in 2019.  At that time, the share of video traffic had been growing for years and was projected to continue growing (Appendix D of CVNI). </del> <ins> in 2019 (as described in RFC8404, such traffic surveys have since become impossible to conduct due to ubiquitous encryption).  At that time, the share of video traffic had been growing for years and was projected to continue growing (Appendix D of CVNI). </ins> A substantial part of this growth is due to the increased use of streaming video.  However, video traffic in real-time communications