Akamai State Internet Q2 2009

2nd Quarter, 2009
Volume 2, Number 2
REPORTThe State of
the Internet

The “spinning globe” featured in the Akamai NOCC represents where Akamai servers are located and how much traffic they are seeing.

Each quarter, Akamai publishes a quarterly “State of the Internet” report. This report includes
data gathered from across Akamai’s global server network about attack traffic and broadband
adoption, as well as trends seen in this data over time. It also aggregates publicly available
news and information about notable events seen throughout the quarter, including Denial of
Service attacks, Web site hacks, and network events, including outages and new connections.
During the second quarter of 2009, Akamai observed attack traffic originating from 201
unique countries around the world. The United States and China were the two largest attack
traffic sources, accounting for nearly 45% of observed traffic in total. Akamai observed attack
traffic targeted at more than 4,100 unique ports, with the top 10 ports once again seeing
roughly 90% of the observed attack traffic. (The additional concentration in the second quarter
was again likely related to traffic associated with the Conficker worm.) Numerous Web site
hacks and Web-based exploits were reported during the quarter, as were distributed denial of
service attacks targeted at DNS infrastructure.
Only minor network outages and routing issues were reported in the second quarter. Web site
outages during the quarter impacted popular Google applications and Web hosting providers.
A number of new submarine cable projects were announced or deployed in the second quarter.
These deployments are ultimately expected to improve Internet connectivity for countries in
Africa, Northern Europe, and the Asia-Pacific region. New WiMAX projects and deployments
will bring broadband wireless connectivity to countries in Europe, Africa, and Asia, as well as
the United States. Fiber-to-the-home efforts announced in the second quarter will benefit users
in the United Kingdom, the United States, Germany, Spain, and the Philippines.
The second quarter saw an increased push for IPv6 adoption, as ARIN adopted new
requirements governing applications for additional IPv4 address space, and cable provider
Comcast announced the availability of IPv6 transit services. In a number of countries around
the world, funding was allocated to drive increased broadband deployment, while in the
United States, the FCC began seeking comments on the creation of a national broadband plan.
Akamai observed a nominal one percent increase (from the first quarter of 2009) globally in
the number of unique IP addresses connecting to Akamai’s network. From a global connection
speed perspective, South Korea returned to having the highest levels of “high broadband” (>5
Mbps) connectivity and also maintained the highest average connection speed, at 11 Mbps. In
the United States, New Hampshire moved into the top position, with 56% of connections to
Akamai occurring at 5 Mbps or greater. However, Delaware maintained the highest average
connection speed in the United States, at 6.4 Mbps.
Executive Summary

© 2009 Akamai Technologies, Inc. All Rights Reserved
1: Introduction 3
2: Security 4
2.1 Attack Traffic, Top Originating Countries 4
2.2 Attack Traffic, Top Target Ports 5
2.3 Attack Traffic, By Day 6
2.4 Conficker 6
2.5 Distributed Denial of Services (DDoS) Attacks 7
2.6 Web Site Hacks & Web-Based Exploits 9
2.7 DNS Hijacks 9
2.8 DNSSEC 10
3: Networks and Web Sites: Issues & Improvements 11
3.1 Network Outages 11
3.2 Routing Issues 12
3.3 Web Site Outages 12
3.4 Significant New Connectivity — Undersea Cables 14
3.5 Significant New Connectivity — Wireless 16
3.6 Significant New Connectivity — Fixed Broadband 17
3.7 IPv6 19
3.8 DNS 19
3.9 International Broadband Funding 20
3.10 United States National Broadband Plan 21
4: Internet Penetration 22
4.1 Unique IP Addresses Seen By Akamai 22
4.2 Global Internet Penetration 23
4.3 United States Internet Penetration 24
5: Geography 25
5.1 Global Average Connection Speeds 26
5.2 United States Average Connection Speeds 27
5.3 Global High Broadband Connectivity 28
5.4 Global High Broadband Connectivity:Speed Distribution 29
5.5 United States High Broadband Connectivity 30
5.6 United States High Broadband Connectivity: Speed Distribution 32
5.7 Global Broadband Connectivity 33
5.8 United States Broadband Connectivity 34
5.9 Global Narrowband Connectivity 36
5.10 United States Narrowband Connectivity 37
7: APPENDIX: Selected International Data 38
8: ENDNOTES 39
Table of Contents
2

Akamai’s globally distributed network of servers allows us to gather massive
amounts of information on many metrics, including connection speeds, attack
traffic, and network connectivity/availability/latency problems, as well as traffic
patterns on leading Web sites.
In the second quarter of 2009, observed attack traffic continued to target a
consistent set of ports, and attacks likely related to the ongoing spread of
the Conficker worm were responsible for an overwhelming percentage of the
observed attacks. China and the United States continued to be top sources
for this observed attack traffic.
A number of leading providers experienced availability issues during the second
quarter, reinforcing the need for failover services, such as those offered by Akamai.
Global connectivity continued to become more robust, with new WiMAX mobile
broadband services announced or launching in a number of countries, new fiber-
to-the-home initiatives bringing higher speed connectivity to subscribers in multiple
countries, and new submarine cable projects increasing global Internet capacity and
improving Internet connectivity around the world. Second quarter funding of broad-
band deployment initiatives around the world is intended to improve the availability
of broadband Internet connections to users in more rural areas.
In the second quarter of 2009, the quarterly change in average connection speeds
among countries around the world was mixed, though most countries continued to
see increasing speeds on a year-over-year basis. In addition, the quarterly change in
high broadband (connections to Akamai’s network at speeds in excess of 5 Mbps)
penetration was mixed, though most countries continued to see increasing high
broadband penetration on a year-over-year basis as well. In spite of the growth in
availability of, and options for, broadband connectivity, many countries and U.S.
states unexpectedly saw increasing percentages of narrowband (<256 Kbps) connec-
tions to Akamai during the second quarter.
Introduction
3

Akamai maintains a distributed set of agents deployed across the Internet that serve to monitor
attack traffic. Based on the data collected by these agents, Akamai is able to identify the top
countries from which attack traffic originates, as well as the top ports targeted by these attacks.
(Ports are network layer protocol identifiers.) This section, in part, provides insight into Internet
attack traffic, as observed and measured by Akamai, during the second quarter of 2009. While
some quarter-over-quarter trending may be discussed, it is expected that both the top countries
and top ports will change on a quarterly basis.
This section also includes information on selected DDoS attacks, Web site hacking attempts,
Web-based exploits, and other attacks and events as published in the media during the second
quarter of 2009. Note that Akamai does not release information on attacks on specific customer
sites and that selected published reports are simply compiled here.
SECTION 2: Security
2.1 Attack Traffic, Top Originating Countries
countries were responsible for just over half
of the observed attack traffic. A significant
increase was seen in the level of observed
attack traffic from India, causing the country
to appear among the top 10 countries for the
first time since the first quarter of 2008. In
addition to India, in the second quarter, the
Netherlands and Mexico also saw enough
growth in attack traffic to move up into the
top 10, while Sweden, Poland, and Romania
all dropped out of the top 10.
Akamai observed
attack traffic
originating from 201
unique countries
around the world.
During the second quarter of 2009, Akamai
observed attack traffic originating from
201 countries. This count is up significantly
from the first quarter (68 countries), and
represents a return to levels seen in 2008,
indicating that the significant drop in the
first quarter may have been an anomaly. In
the second quarter, China remained in first
place, while the United States and South
Korea maintained their second- and third-
place positions respectively, as illustrated
in Figure 1. Cumulatively, these top three
Country % Traffic Q1 09%
1 China 31.35% 27.59%
2 United States 14.63% 22.15%
3 South Korea 6.83% 7.53%
4 India 3.93% 1.60%
5 Taiwan 2.32% 2.22%
6 Brazil 2.29% 2.60%
7 Netherlands 2.06% 1.16%
8 Mexico 1.96% 1.21%
9 Japan 1.95% 1.79%
10 Germany 1.93% 2.95%
– OTHER 30.75% –
Figure 1: Attack Traffic, Top Originating Countries
7
9
3
5
2
1
10
8
6
4
4

2.2 Attack Traffic, Top Target Ports
During the second quarter of 2009, Akamai observed
attack traffic targeted at over 4,100 unique ports. While
approximately 80% lower than the port counts seen in
the prior two quarters, it is arguably more in line with
(though nearly 70% higher than) the port count seen in
the third quarter of 2008. It is not clear exactly what was
responsible for the significantly inflated port counts in
the prior two quarters. With over two-thirds of the
observed attacks once again being targeted at Port 445,
likely related to continued activity around the Conficker
worm and other variants/offshoots (such as Neeris), the
concentration of attack traffic in the second quarter
remained roughly in line with the first quarter of 2009,
with the top 10 ports accounting for approximately 91%
of the traffic, as shown in Figure 2. Despite some (expect-
ed) variance in percentages, the top 10 ports remained
consistent with the prior quarter.
Port 445 remained the most-targeted port for the fifth
consecutive quarter, and continues to be overwhelmingly
responsible for the highest percentage of attacks. Un-
surprisingly, the largest number of attacks was targeted
at Port 445 from nine of the top 10 countries, in some
cases with more than 20x as much traffic as the second
place port. (The lone holdout was Mexico, where Port
5900 was the most targeted, followed closely by Port
445.) Ports 22 and/or 23 (SSH and Telnet) were among
the top five most targeted ports from all of the top 10
countries, likely indicating that brute force login attempts
remain a popular way to try to gain unauthorized access
to Internet-connected systems.
For the fifth consecutive quarter, attacks targeted at Port 445 were responsible for the highest percentage
of the observed attacks.
Destination Port Use % Traffic Q1 09%
Port
445 Microsoft-DS 68.47% 67.80%
23 Telnet 6.67% 2.40%
139 NetBIOS 4.36% 6.20%
135 Microsoft-RPC 3.08% 3.60%
22 SSH 2.54% 4.40%
5900 VNC Server 1.71% 1.30%
80 WWW 1.57% 1.30%
1433 Microsoft SQL Server 1.28% 1.00%
4899 Remote Administrator 0.62% 0.60%
25 SMTP 0.60% 0.80%
Various OTHER 9.10% –
Figure 2: Attack Traffic, Top Target Ports
WWW
SSH
Telnet
NetBios
Microsoft
SQL Server
Microsoft-RPC
VNC Server
OTHER
Microsoft-DS
Remote
Administrator
SMTP
5

2.3 Attack Traffic, By Day
In examining a quarter-long view of attack traffic during the prior two quarters, Akamai
found that peaks in attack traffic volume were roughly coincidental with the publication
of Microsoft Security Bulletins for those months, potentially indicating that attackers were
attempting to exploit the critical vulnerabilities described in those bulletins ahead of the
patch release. However, in looking at overall global daily attack traffic patterns for the
second quarter, as illustrated in Figure 3, we found that the monthly peaks were not as
clearly coincidental. April’s attack peak occurred on the 6th, three days before the Micro-
soft Security Bulletin Summary for April 2009 was originally published.1
May’s attack traffic
peak occurred on the 27th, two weeks after Microsoft released their security updates.
However, a secondary peak on the 7th is in fact coincident with the security bulletin
advance notification originally issued that day.2
In June, the highest level of attack traffic
was recorded on the 10th — one day after Microsoft issued what was considered to be a
“record” update, patching 31 vulnerabilities in Windows, Internet Explorer, Excel, Word,
Windows Search and other programs.3
SECTION 2: Security(continued)
2.4 Conficker
The Conficker worm caused a great deal of concern leading up to April 1, the day that
it was set to “activate.” However, April 1 largely came and went without any significant
amount of digital pandemonium, though the worm continued to remain a menace into
the second quarter. As noted above in Section 2.2, Port 445, associated with the spread
of Conficker, continued to be the most heavily targeted port for attack traffic observed
by Akamai in the second quarter.
It is believed that what Conficker did do on April 1 was update itself — the update may
have provided instructions to infected systems for connecting to the thousands of new
nodes that were registered by Conficker.C during the previous few weeks, which would
effectively serve to increase the size of the botnet to a point where it would be extremely
Monthly peaks in
the second quarter
were not as clearly
coincidental with the
publication of Microsoft
Security Bulletins.
Figure 3: Attack Traffic, by Day of Quarter
6

Several DDoS
attacks in the second
quarter targeted
DNS infrastructure.
hard to stop.4
A week later, it was also reported that the Conficker worm updated itself
via P2P communications among infected systems, dropping a “mystery” payload onto
these systems that hides behind a rootkit — reportedly, the worm tried to connect to
several popular Web sites as a way to test for Internet connectivity, then deleted all traces
of itself (but not the worm code itself) in the host machine, and was set to shut down on
May 3.5
In addition, it was reported that this update also installed fake antivirus software
called Spyware Protect 2009 on infected systems, as well as an e-mail spam engine.6
Also in April, a four year-old worm known as Neeris re-surfaced,7
exploiting the same
MS08-067 vulnerability on Microsoft Windows-based systems that enabled Conficker to
spread, causing problems for systems still not patched. It is possible that Neeris-related
traffic may also have contributed to the high percentage of attacks targeted at Port 445
in the second quarter.
2.5 Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) Attacks
In April, Web site hosting service provider and domain name registrar Register.com was
targeted by a DDoS attack that lasted from the 2nd to the 5th, causing intermittent out-
ages for the company’s hosting and DNS customers.8
On the 6th and 7th of April, name
servers at The Planet were also targeted with a DDoS attack, causing Web site outages for
customers of the Web hosting provider.9
Also in April, researchers at security firm Symantec uncovered evidence of Apple Macin-
tosh-based malware that was being used to build a Mac OS X botnet designed to launch
DDoS attacks. The malware was found in pirated copies of the iWork ’09 and Adobe
Photoshop software packages that were being distributed via P2P networks.10
In May, a DDoS attack targeted the DNS servers of Chinese domain name registrar DNS-
Pod.com. According to published reports, Internet access was affected in five northern
and coastal provinces.11
In June, political activists launched DDoS attacks against “pro-Ah-
medinejad” Iranian Web sites, including a number of news and government sites.12
These
attacks were reportedly generated through a combination of tools, including multiple
iframe loading scripts, a public Web page “refresher” tool (later disabled due to abuse),
and a PHP script.
Data published in May by Danny McPherson, Chief Security Officer at Arbor Networks,
provided interesting insight into the attack traffic volumes generated by DDoS attacks
that had been observed by Arbor during the preceding two months. According to the
data, approximately 10% of the attacks generated 1 Gbps or more of traffic, while only
0.8% of the attacks generated traffic volumes in excess of 10 Gbps. In examining the
data, McPherson also noted that the larger attacks typically have longer durations.13
7

2.6 Web Site Hacks Web-Based Exploits
Security firm WhiteHat Security released data14
in May that showed that most Web sites
have at least one major vulnerability, and that over 80% of sites surveyed have at least
one security flaw that can be classified as high/critical/urgent. Based on vulnerability data
gathered from WhiteHat’s own enterprise clients, the company highlighted the most com-
mon vulnerabilities that can be exploited by attackers. According to the company, approxi-
mately 30% of Web sites are likely to contain content spoofing bugs; 18%, insufficient
authorization; 17%, SQL injection; 14%, predictable resource location; 11%, session
fixation; 11%, cross-site request forgery (CSRF); 10%, insufficient authentication; and 9%,
HTTP response-splitting flaws. In addition, they highlighted the fact that these vulner-
abilities can be found on Web sites belonging to all types of companies: social networking
companies have an 82% chance of having unresolved high/critical/urgent flaws in their
Web sites; IT firms, 75%; financial services, 65%; insurance, 64%; retail, 61%; pharma-
ceutical, 59%; telecommunications, 54%; and healthcare, 47%.
Popular micro-blogging site, Twitter, came under attacks from a number of worms early
in the second quarter. On Saturday, April 11, the “StalkDaily worm” exploited a cross-
site scripting (XSS) vulnerability to spread rapidly across the site.15
Users who visited the
profile pages of other infected users became infected themselves — the worm reportedly
modified the user’s “About Me” section to include a link to the worm, and also sent
unauthorized messages from infected accounts that directed users to the StalkDaily Web
site.16
The following day, the “Mikeyy” worm also spread across Twitter, posting unwanted
messages from the accounts of infected users. Both worms were ultimately traced to a
17-year old high school senior, who claimed to have created the worms “out of bore-
dom.”17
A follow-on worm dubbed “cleaningUpMikey” kept Twitter administrators busy
on Monday as well, as they highlighted their efforts to secure compromised accounts and
delete “tweets” that could have been used to further spread the worm(s).18
The Koobface virus, covered in prior issues of this report, continued to spread in the
second quarter as well, despite efforts to stem its growth. In April, Microsoft announced
that it was adding Koobface detection to its Malicious Software Removal Tool, in an ef-
fort to keep the virus off of Facebook.19
However, in late May, Websense Security Labs
highlighted a resurgence in Facebook-based Koobface attacks,20
and in June, security firm
Kaspersky Labs highlighted an explosion in the number of detected Koobface variants,
from 324 at the end of May to nearly 1,000 by the end of June.21
In addition to the XSS vulnerability that led to the Twitter worms mentioned above, cross-
site scripting continued to create security issues for many other sites. As was mentioned in
the 1st
Quarter, 2009 State of the Internet report, XSSED.com, a Web site that tracks XSS
issues, published22
more than 600 advisories in April, May, and June and listed XSS vulner-
abilities for Web sites belonging to some of the Web’s most recognizable brands, including
several vendors of security tools and software. However, a post23
on June 22 to ZDNet’s
SECTION 2: Security (continued)
Popular micro-blogging
site, Twitter, came under
attacks from a number
of worms early in the
second quarter.
More than 600 XSS
vulnerability advisories
were published in the
second quarter.
8

Zero Day security blog noted that engineers at Mozilla are
working on a project, known as Content Security Policy,
which is designed to shut down XSS attacks by providing
a mechanism for sites to explicitly tell the browser which
content is legitimate.
Malware known as Gumblar, named for the gumblar.cn
domain it attempted to contact, resurfaced in April, and
reports indicated that it had compromised several thou-
sand legitimate Web sites.24
According to security experts,
Gumblar targets known flaws in software from Adobe
Systems and uses them to install malware on a victim’s
machine. The malware steals FTP login credentials from
victims, if found on the machine, and uses these logins
to spread further. In addition, the malware also hijacks
the victim’s Web browser, replacing links in Google search
results with links specified by the attackers. Cleanup of
infected systems proved to be challenging, because in
early May the attackers replaced the original malicious
code with dynamically generated and heavily obfuscated
JavaScript so that the scripts change from page to page
and are difficult for security tools to spot. Later in May, it
was estimated that more than half of all malware found
on Web sites was identified as Gumblar, and a new Web
page was becoming infected every 4.5 seconds.25
According to security vendor Websense, an attack known
as Beladen spread across a reported 40,000 Web sites in
June by using infection vectors similar to those exploited
by Gumblar. Websense noted that these sites appear to
have been compromised with rogue JavaScript code that
redirects users to a fake Google Analytics site, after which
they are directed to a site (beladen.net) that tries to
exploit 15-20 different Internet Explorer or Firefox
vulnerabilities to infect that system with malware.26
Websense also issued an alert in June regarding a
multi-level redirection attack it called Nine-Ball, again
named after the final Web site that a victim contacts.
The Nine-Ball attack reportedly compromised more
than 40,000 Web sites with obfuscated JavaScript code
that aims to install malware known as a trojan down-
loader onto a user’s system.27
2.7 DNS Hijacks
DNS continued to not only be a popular target for DDoS
attacks but was also a popular vector for attacks on
specific Web sites. In April, an attack on the main DNS
registrar in Puerto Rico led to the local Web sites of
Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, Coca-Cola, and several other
major companies being redirected for a few hours to
rogue Web sites falsely claiming that the sites of these
companies had been hacked.28
Traffic to the Web sites
for Google Uganda and Google Morocco was redirected
to different sites for a short period in May due to un-
authorized changes made to the DNS entries for both
sites.29
In addition, a DNS cache poisoning attack on
Brazilian service provider NET Virtua resulted in custom-
ers of one of Brazil’s biggest banks being redirected to
fraudulent Web sites that attempted to install malware
and steal passwords. Such cache poisoning attacks were
described last year in the 3rd
Quarter, 2008 State of the
Internet report.
In May, it was estimated that more than half of all malware found on Web sites was identified as Gumblar, and
a new Web page was becoming infected every 4.5 seconds.
9

2.8 DNSSEC
In the second quarter, DNSSEC adoption took several critical steps forward. In June, the
United States Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA) and National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announ-
ced that the two agencies are working with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names
and Numbers (ICANN) and VeriSign on an interim approach to deployment, by year’s
end, of DNSSEC at the authoritative root zone.30
ICANN noted that details of the process
were still being worked on, but that discussions between the Department of Commerce,
VeriSign and ICANN have identified that VeriSign will manage and have operational
responsibility for the Zone Signing Key in the interim arrangement, and that ICANN will
manage the Zone Signing Key process. ICANN will work closely with VeriSign regarding
the operational and cryptographic issues involved.31
In an additional nod to the complexi-
ties of having the DNS root zone signed, the DNSSEC Industry Coalition convened a two
day invitational symposium in June to identify potential issues and proposed solutions,
recommended solutions, and next steps for reaching solutions.32
Signing of the DNS root will likely help accelerate the global deployment and implementa-
tion of DNSSEC. However, not everyone is waiting for a signed root to implement DNSSEC.
As noted in the 1st
Quarter, 2009 State of the Internet report, DNSSEC was implemented
on the .gov top level domain (TLD) in February. In June, the .org TLD became the first open
generic TLD to implement DNSSEC, as well as the largest domain registry to implement it
to date.33
The CTO of Afilias, the technology provider for the .org TLD, noted that at the
peak of effort around signing .org, a team of 30-40 people were working on it on a full-
time basis, and estimated that the effort was a “multi-million dollar exercise.”34
In May, the European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA) published the
results of a survey that it conducted around DNSSEC deployment plans. The survey found
that 78% of service providers in Europe have plans to deploy DNSSEC within the next
three years, though 22% do not. According to the survey, among service providers plan-
ning to deploy DNSSEC, 86% of the respondents highlighted complexity as a key barrier
to deployment, while only 29% cited the lack of a signed root as a key barrier.35
SECTION 2: Security (continued)
In June, the .org TLD
became the first open
generic TLD to implement
DNSSEC, as well as the
largest domain registry to
implement it to date.
78% of service providers in Europe have plans to deploy DNSSEC within the next three years.
10

Just over forty years ago, on April 7, 1969, the first Request for Comments (RFC) was published.
Titled “RFC1 – Host Software,” it established a framework for how networking technologies and
the Internet itself work. The RFC model ultimately became the formal method of publishing In-
ternet protocol standards, and today, there are more than 5,700 of them available.36
Without the
grounding provided by the RFCs, the issues and improvements highlighted within this section may
not have been possible.
SECTION 3: Networks and Web Sites:
Issues Improvements
Figure 4: Iranian Internet Traffic Through Iran’s Six Upstream Providers (Source: Arbor Networks)
3.1 Network Outages
In early April, it was reported37
that vandals
were responsible for several cuts to ATT
fiber optic cables in the California cities of
San Jose and San Carlos. According to
published reports, the damage to the cables
impacted landline and cell phone service,
as well as Internet access for many in the
affected areas. Some Web sites, hosted in
data centers connected to the damaged
fiber, also experienced time-outs and slow
page loading times as traffic was re-routed.38
While not due to physical damage to net-
work infrastructure, it is interesting to note
that monitoring of Internet traffic from Iran
showed a near complete outage for several
hours on June 13, as shown in Figure 4.
After the Iranian elections, it appeared that
the state-owned Data Communication
Company of Iran (DCI) essentially severed
the upstream transit connections that carry
Internet traffic for the country, according
to monitoring done by security firm Arbor
Networks’ “Internet Observatory” project.39
Additional analysis of the data by Arbor
Networks showed that while Web and
e-mail traffic returned at reduced levels
after the “outage,” Adobe Flash streaming
video traffic did not.40
Monitoring of Internet
traffic from Iran showed a
near complete outage for
several hours on June 13.
While Web and e-mail traffic
returned at reduced levels
after the “outage,” Adobe
Flash streaming video traffic
did not.
11

Issues Improvements (cont’d)
3.2 Routing Issues
The 1st
Quarter, 2009 State of the Internet report
discussed a routing issue caused by a Czech network
provider that triggered a bug in older Cisco routers, as
well as routers from Latvian vendor MikroTik. In May,
a routing update from the African Network Operators
Group (AfNOG) triggered a buffer overflow problem in
older versions of free routing software called Quagga.
According to network monitoring firm Renesys,41
multiple
prepends of a 4-byte ASN (autonomous system number)
on an announced routing path caused routers running
pre-October 2008 versions of Quagga to drop the as-
sociated BGP sessions, resulting in network outages and
instabilities in Indonesia, Bulgaria, Germany, Romania,
Brazil, Russia, the United States and many other places,
as shown in Figure 5. The United States was impacted
the worst, with 224 networks experiencing issues, ac-
cording to Renesys’ data, while Bulgaria, Russia, and the
Ukraine all saw just over 200 networks with problems.
In addition, the Quagga bug also disabled several “Route
Servers” at key Internet Exchange (IX) points around the
world, though it did not cause direct outages at these
IXs. These Route Servers trade prefixes between peer
networks at the IXs. When these Route Servers crashed,
network traffic had to be diverted to transit links (off of
peering connections), which caused short outages as traf-
fic was re-routed, and also caused congestion as transit
links became full. The Renesys data does not show these
networks as being unreachable (having outages) because
the transit path still existed.
3.3 Web Site Outages
A number of Google services experienced outages in the
second quarter, according to published reports. On April
16, a problem with Google Mail (Gmail) affected a “small
subset” of users for approximately six hours,43
and anoth-
er outage occurred on May 8.44
Just a week later, on May
14, a significant Google Apps service outage occurred.
The company reported that the outage, which started a
little before 11 a.m. EDT, caused about 14% of Google
users to face slow service or interruptions. The problem
affected all Google products, including Google Search,
Google News, Gmail, Google Maps and Google Reader.45
A Google vice president claimed that the problems
occurred due to a system error that directed some of
their traffic through Asia. According to Arbor Networks,
Google’s traffic constitutes up to 5% of all Internet traf-
fic, and the company provided an interesting visualization
of the impact of this Google service outage.46
Figure 6
illustrates that during the approximately two-hour period
of the outage, the average traffic levels across ten Tier1/2
ISPs in North America to Google’s network dropped
significantly. Additional problems with Google News
were reported on May 18 and 19,47
and YouTube users
reported service outages and delays on June 3.48
Figure 5: Network Outages By Country (Source: Renesys)
12

Grid hosting provider Media Temple experienced problems on May 4 that took more than
16,000 customer Web sites offline. About 14,000 of the sites came back online after 10
hours of downtime, while the remaining 2,000 were down for more than a day. Accord-
ing to Media Temple, the problems occurred within a storage system, and were similar to
those that caused a 38-hour outage in early March.49
The company said that it would issue
one-year service credits to affected customers.50
Just a week later, hosting provider The Planet experienced network problems that resulted
in several half-hour periods of downtime on May 12 and 13. The downtime impacted not
only hosting customers of The Planet, but also customers of HostGator and Site5, hosting
companies that lease servers from The Planet. According to the company, the outage on
May 12 was a result of human error, and the May 13 outage was likely caused by a soft-
ware failure in several routers in Houston.51
June proved to be no better for hosting providers, as 100,000 customer Web sites hosted
at VAserv.com were wiped out when intruders gained root access to the systems, appar-
ently through a zero-day exploit in virtualization management software.52
On June 10, a
lightning strike caused a multi-hour outage for a number of server instances hosted on
Amazon’s EC2 service.53
Closing out the quarter, a 45-minute power outage to hosting
provider Rackspace’s Grapevine, Texas data center on June 29 caused site outages for an
unspecified number of hosting customers, and also impacted Rackspace’s own Web site.54
Customers of Akamai’s site delivery services can, in many cases, leverage site failover capa-
bilities to maintain Web site availability in the event that their origin becomes unavailable
due to an outage at their hosting provider (or any other reason).
Figure 6: Average Traffic Across Ten Tier 1/2 ISPs in North America to Google’s Network (Source: Arbor Networks)
Outages at Web hosting
providers impacted
the availability of
thousands of Web sites
in the second quarter.
13

3.4 Significant New Connectivity — Undersea Cables
According to data published55
in May by network research firm TeleGeography,
telecommunications companies plan to lay 16 new undersea cables in 2009, which
exceeds the number of cables laid in 2001, at the peak of the submarine cable investment
bubble. TeleGeography notes that total projected spending on submarine cable construc-
tion in 2009 will reach USD$2.6 billion, which is a fraction of the USD$13.5 billion spent
during the 2001 peak. This difference in spend is likely due to the newer cables covering
shorter distances, as well employing simpler designs than earlier cable systems — many
are intended to provide redundancy on popular existing cable routes, where outages have
caused connectivity disruptions in the past.
Telecommunications
companies plan to
lay 16 new undersea
cables in 2009.
The 1st
Quarter, 2009 State of the Internet report noted that Hibernia Atlantic had been
selected to deploy a new cable network as part of Project Kelvin, intended to connect Ire-
land to the United States, Canada, and Europe. In June, Hibernia Atlantic announced that
they had completed the first phase of the deployment, directly connecting North America
to Northern Ireland through a cable landing at Portrush.56
Africa continued to see a significant amount of activity in the second quarter as well,
with The East African Marine System (TEAMS) entering construction in April,57
Namibian
mobile operator Mobile Telecommunications joining the West Africa Cable System (WACS)
consortium and pledging funding towards it,58
and the planned extension of the ACE
cable system to South Africa, connecting all countries along the West coast of Africa.59
Completion of the SEACOM cable was delayed approximately a month, from June 27 to
July 23. According to a post on the SEACOM Blog,60
“The increase in pirate activity during
April and May 2009, both in terms of intensity and geographical coverage, necessitated
a change in SEACOM’s cable installation plans…The planned route required the ship to
transit an area of increased pirate activity where other ships had been attacked or seized.”
Figure 7: Submarine Cable Buildout, 1998-2011 (Source: TeleGeography)
14

Mumbai
India
Djibouti
Port Sudan
Sudan
Fujairah
United Arab
Emirates
Cochin
India
Mogadishu
Somalia
Altavista
Canary Islands
Asilah
Morocco
Sesimbra
Portugal
Dakar,Senegal
Douala, Cameroun
Lagos, Nigeria
Cotonou, Benin
Accra,Ghana
Abijan,CoteD'Ivoire
Dar Es
Salaam
TanzaniaCacuaco,Angola
Librevile, Gabon
Massiwa
Eritrea
Mombasa
Kenya
Tamatave
Madagascar
Maputo
Mozambique
Mtunzini
South Africa
Melkbosstrand
South Africa
Marseille
France
St Paul
Reunion
Baie du Jacobet
Mauritius
African Undersea Cables (2011)
SAT3/SAFE
EASSy
TEAMs
Seacom
1280 gigabits
360 gigabits
1400 gigabits
1280 gigabits
WACS
5120 gigabits
Version 17 - Jul 2009
London
England
Bonny, Nigeria
Pointe Noir, Congo
Luanda,Angola
MaIN OnE
1920 gigabits
http://manypossibilities.net/african-undersea-cables
Vigo
Spain
Nouakchott,M
auritania
GLO-1
640 gigabits
The
G
am
bia
G
uinea-Bissau
Conakrie,G
uinea
Freetow
n,Sierra
Leone
M
onrovia,Liberia
Lome,Togo
ACE
1920 gigabits
Cape Verde
Walvis Bay
Nambia
Toliara
Madagascar
Colombo
Sri Lanka
Chennai
India
Tripoli
Libya
Annaba
Algeria
Bizerte
Tunisia
Casablanca
Morocco
Bata, Equatorial Guinea
Cairo
Egypt
Alexandria
Egypt
Tripoli
Lebanon
Palermo, Italy
Monaco
Oman
Karachi
Pakistan
Sub-Saharan Undersea Cables
Active/Upgrading
Q4 2009
Q3 2009
Active
Active
Q2 2010
2011
Q4 2010
Q2 2011
Lion
1300 gigabits
Mediterranean Undersea Cables
Atlas Offshore
SEA-ME-WE 4
I-ME-WE
EIG
Active
Active
Q4 2009
Q2 2010
N.B. Several smaller Mediterranean cables not shown
320 gigabits
1280 gigabits
3840 gigabits
3840 gigabits
Figure 8: African Undersea Cables, 2011 (Source: http://manypossibilities.net/african-undersea-cables)
15

Two new cables were announced in the Asia-Pacific
region during the second quarter. In May, nine Asia-
Pacific telecommunications companies announced61
the
formation of a new consortium for the construction of
a new regional undersea cable system dubbed the Asia
Pacific Gateway (APG). Consortium participants include
NTT Com (Japan), Chunghwa Telecom (Taiwan), China
Telecom (China), China Unicom (China), KT Corp (South
Korea), PLDT (Philippines), TOT (Thailand), Telekom
Malaysia (Malaysia) and VNPT (Vietnam). This planned
8,000 km cable will connect Taiwan, China, South Korea,
Japan, Hong Kong, Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, Ma-
laysia and Singapore. The APG cable will have a minimum
capacity of 4 Tbps, and is expected to be ready for service
in 2011. In June, Chunghwa Telecom and China Telecom
announced plans to lay a 50-60 km submarine cable
across the Taiwan Strait, between Kinmen and Xiamen.62
In addition to investments being made in new subma-
rine cables, investments are also being made in capacity
upgrades to existing systems. In June, Global Crossing
announced63
that they would be adding capacity to three
of their fiber routes:
• The Mid-Atlantic Crossing (MAC) cable, which con-
nects New York to Florida and the Virgin Islands.
• The Pan-American Crossing (PAC) cable, which cuts
through Panama and connects Central America and
the Caribbean to the west coast of the United States
and to various transpacific cables.
• The South American Crossing (SAC) cable, which
connects to both MAC and PAC and encircles most
of South America.
3.5 Significant New Connectivity — Wireless
In April, satellite operator Eutelsat Communications
launched its new Tooway consumer broadband ser-
vice in the UK and Ireland, aiming to offer download
speeds of up to 2 Mbps.64
In June, Eutelsat announced
that they would be raising the Tooway download
speeds to 3.6 Mbps, with a planned increase to 10 Mbps
after the launch of their KA-SAT satellite in 2010.65
Satellite broadband provider WildBlue Communications
demonstrated download speeds of 18 Mbps in April,
although their high-end offerings will likely only offer
speeds of 10 Mbps, and may not do so for at least an-
other three years.66
Weather balloons acting as satellite substitutes may bring
affordable broadband Internet access to Africa in the fu-
ture.67
Two entrepreneurs have secured exclusive rights to
market technology developed by American telecommuni-
cations company Space Data throughout the African con-
tinent, and will operate through a formative consortium
called Spaceloon. As individual users contact the balloons
via modem, the balloons bridge them to a nearby Earth-
bound network operations center (NOC), and the NOC
in turn connects to various Internet gateways. Spaceloon
will focus on four countries initially -- Sierra Leone, Libe-
ria, Ghana, and Nigeria. The company is seeking subsidies
from the governments to prove the concept, followed
by plans for rollout as soon as possible. Spaceloon claims
that transmission speed will depend on the customer’s
line of sight and the amount of bandwidth purchased,
but that download speeds should match or exceed those
of satellite Internet solutions, such as 10 Mbps for corpo-
rate customers.
In addition to Internet connectivity via satellite and
weather balloon, the second quarter saw yet more
announcements of planned WiMAX deployments and
activations of new deployments around the world. While
submarine cables will help to connect Africa to other
countries, more WiMAX deployments on the continent
will bring Internet connectivity to people living there.
16

Orange Cameroun expanded its WiMAX network to
three new cities in May,68
while in June, the Nigerian
Communications Commission announced a partnership
with Nigerian WiMAX operator ipNX to bring broadband
access to all 36 states in the country through the ‘State
Accelerated Bandwidth Initiative’ (SABI).69
Saudi provider
Mobily announced in June that it would be extending
WiMAX coverage within the country from four cities to
twenty by the end of 2009.70
A number of WiMAX announcements were made across
Europe during the quarter as well. Users in the Athens
and Thessaloniki regions of Greece will gain access to
WiMAX service through Greek ISP Net One, the company
announced in April.71
May brought the announcement
of WiMAX services in Catalonia, Spain;72
seven cities in
Montenegro;73
and Kaunas, Lithuania.74
In June, Maltese
telecom operator GO,75
Telecom Italia,76
and Norway util-
ity company Hafslund77
all announced the deployment of
WiMAX services across their respective countries.
In Asia, commercial WiMAX services were launched in
April in Malaysia78
and Taiwan.79
In May, Comstar United
TeleSystems announced that it would launch its WiMAX
service in Moscow,80
and a consortium of ISPs in Indone-
sia announced plans to invest in WiMAX services if they
successfully secured a license in the country’s July auction.81
As mentioned in the 1st
Quarter, 2009 State of the Inter-
net report, Clearwire’s WiMAX service continued to ex-
pand its footprint, and was officially launched in Atlanta
in June.82
Reports in the second quarter also indicated
that Clearwire unofficially began offering service in Las
Vegas in June, ahead of the planned commercial launch
later in the summer.83
Clearwire also announced that it
would be launching what it called a “WiMAX innovation
network” in California’s Silicon Valley, with the aim of fa-
cilitating the development of new WiMAX applications.84
Not to be left out, Verizon Wireless said that the new 4G
network that the company is building will blanket the en-
tire continental United States, including the far corners of
rural America.85
Verizon’s 4G network will leverage Long
Term Evolution (LTE) technology, and is targeted to reach
20-30 markets by the end of 2010. In addition, ATT an-
nounced in late May that it planned to double the speed
of its wireless broadband network by 2011, moving first
to High Speed Packet Access (HSPA) technology, and
eventually to LTE.86
3.6 Significant New Connectivity —
Fixed Broadband
Fiber-to-the-home/premises (FTTH/FTTP) initiatives
continued to gain momentum in the second quarter,
with some telecommunications companies announcing
plans for new FTTx initiatives, while others announced
the availability of new FTTx services. The June 2009
statistics published by the FTTH Council Europe found
that FTTH adoption in Europe grew 18% during the
first two quarters of 2009, and that Sweden leads the
region in FTTH adoption, with nearly 11% of broadband
connections leveraging the technology.87
In April, the i3 Group announced the availability of
the first “Fibrezone” in South Ayrshire (UK), which will
provide customers with connections at speeds up to 100
Mbps.88
i3 Group also called on the UK government to
commit to 100 Mbps FTTH broadband services, or “risk
the country being left behind in the wake of a worldwide
digital revolution.”89
German network operator Arcor
launched a FTTH pilot in Hanau, connecting ‘Coloneo’, a
rural housing project with 300 homes, at speeds of up to
100 Mbps.90
Lyse Tele, a Norwegian provider, described
June 2009 statistics published by the FTTH Council Europe
found that FTTH adoption in Europe grew 18% during the
first two quarters of 2009.
17

its unique FTTH model — bring the fiber to the edge of
a customer’s lawn, and then provide the customer with
instructions on how to bury their own fiber cable to the
house.91
At the end of the month, in Ellettsville, Indiana,
local telecommunications company Smithville announced
the completion of the first segment of a $90 million FTTH
project to bring residential customers in the south-central
and southern part of the state connectivity at speeds up
to 100 Mbps.92
In Germany, in May, broadband provider HanseNet
completed the first phase of a fiber-to-the-building (FTTB)
network in Hamburg.93
UTOPIA (Utah Telecommunica-
tions Open Infrastructure Agency), Utah`s municipal fiber-
to-the-premise network, announced that it had connected
its first customer to a 100 Mbps broadband service.94
In
addition, in May, Spain’s telecom regulator, Comisión del
Mercado de las Telecomunicaciones (CMT), issued a report
noting that almost half of Spain’s 14 million households
could have FTTH connections by 2023.95
In June, the Electric Power Board of Chattanooga, Ten-
nessee announced that it would soon begin offering
FTTH connectivity to selected neighborhoods at speeds
of 10-50 Mbps, and would reach its entire service area in
2010.96
In the Philippines, telecommunications company
Globe Telecom announced plans to launch a FTTH service
in Makati’s Forbes Park village in mid-June, with coverage
expanding to three other villages in July.97
Cable companies also continued to upgrade their net-
works to support DOCSIS 3.0 during the second quarter.
In Europe, Swiss provider Cablecom announced that a
million households on its network had been upgraded to
DOCSIS 3.0, capable of offering download speeds of up
to 100 Mbps,98
UPC Austria launched DOCSIS 3.0 services
in Vienna,99
and Germany’s Kabel BW announced plans
to begin rolling out new DOCSIS 3.0 broadband services
in three regions this summer.100
In the United States,
cable provider Comcast launched DOCSIS 3.0 services in
Pennsylvania,101
West Virginia, Ohio, Maryland,102
the Bay
Area,103
and Washington, DC.104
Competitor Cox Com-
munications expanded its DOCSIS 3.0 service availability
to customers in Arizona105
and Northern Virginia.106
Interestingly, even with all of the deployment initiatives
surrounding FTTH, DOCSIS 3.0, WiMAX, satellite, and
other connectivity technologies, DSL is still the dominant
access technology, according to data for the second
quarter of 2009 published by The Broadband Forum.
As shown in Figure 9, DSL connections account for nearly
two-thirds of the market, with cable a distant second
at 21%, and fiber in third place at 13%. Wireless and
satellite each account for approximately 1%.107
DSL is still the dominant access technology, according
to The Broadband Forum.
Figure 9: Global access technology market share, Q2 2009
(Source: The Broadband Forum)
64% DSL
13% Fiber
21% Cable
1% Wireless 1% Satellite Other
18

3.7 IPv6
Reinforcing concern over the impending depletion of
available IPv4 addresses, in April, the American Registry
for Internet Numbers (ARIN) sent letters to owners of
blocks of IPv4 address space, encouraging them to adopt
IPv6, and outlining new requirements governing applica-
tions for additional IPv4 address space.108
Also in April, network monitoring site BGPmon.net
published an analysis of IPv6 adoption, as determined by
how many autonomous systems (ASNs) within a coun-
try were announcing an IPv6 prefix alongside their IPv4
prefixes. The results showed that Europe, East Asia, and
parts of Africa scored high, and that Japan, New Zealand,
the Czech Republic, and the Netherlands were among the
leaders. However, it also noted that the United States av-
erage of 2% (316 of 13280 ASNs) was below the global
average of 4%.109
April also saw the Canadian Federal Government present
a three-phase IPv6 transition plan during the Plenary meet-
ing of the ICT Standards Advisory Council of Canada.
Building on the pioneering work that Canada has done
with IPv6 since 1998, the full transition is targeted to
complete by the end of 2015.110
The United States Of-
fice of Management and Budget (OMB) announced the
release in May of the “Planning Guide/Roadmap toward
IPv6 Adoption within the US Government,” which defines
the Federal Government’s IPv6 direction.111
The purpose
of the document is to provide United States government
agency leaders with practical and actionable guidance on
how to successfully integrate IPv6 throughout the enter-
prise, including transition milestones, a discussion of the
impact on federal initiatives, and the need for support
within governance and procurement programs.
In June, Comcast announced that it would be making IPv6
transit services available to wholesale customers, offering
them at the same price as existing IPv4 services.112
In addi-
tion, a Comcast Senior Vice President noted that residen-
tial tests could start in late 2009 or in 2010, although a
full deployment would likely not occur for several years.113
Forward-looking planning by Verizon Wireless was also
uncovered in June, as several published articles in the
industry press noted that device requirements published
by Verizon earlier in 2009 stated that any device that
connects to the LTE network currently being built [by Veri-
zon Wireless] “shall support IPv6” and further states that
“the device shall be assigned an IPv6 address whenever
it attaches to the LTE network.”114
3.8 DNS
Over the last several years, so-called “wildcard” redirec-
tion of DNS queries for inactive or nonexistent domains
to Web pages operated by ISPs has created no small
amount of controversy, for a variety of reasons. At the
ICANN meeting that took place in Sydney in June, the
Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) issued
a report that recommended that ICANN should prohibit
such use when introducing new top level domains (TLDs)
and that existing TLD registries should also be stopped
from exercising this practice.115
As noted in the 1st
Quarter, 2009 State of the Internet
report, ICANN was developing plans to introduce ad-
ditional generic TLDs, and had solicited feedback on
the plans. Throughout the second quarter, additional
concerns were raised about the potential introduction of
these gTLDs and the processes through which they would
be allocated, including potential favoritism for incum-
bent registrars,116
trademark infringement issues,117
the
timetable for implementation,118
and the perceived lack
of need for additional gTLDs.119, 120
In addition, technical
concerns were raised relating to the introduction of new
The American Registry for Internet Numbers sent
letters to owners of blocks of IPv4 address space,
encouraging them to adopt IPv6.
19

gTLDs and their impact on existing software tools that may operate from a hard-coded
list of TLDs, that do not support TLDs with 4 or more characters, or that cannot handle
double-byte strings for internationalized domain names.121
Since its founding in 1998, ICANN has operated under a “Joint Partnership Agreement”
with the United States Department of Commerce. The current extension of this agreement
is set to expire on September 30 of this year. In light of this impending expiration, the sec-
ond quarter saw a call for ICANN’s independence from the United States by Viviane Red-
ing, European Union Commissioner for Information Society and Media.122
Reding called for
“a fully private and accountable ICANN, accompanied by an independent judicial body, as
well as a ‘G12 for Internet Governance’ — a multilateral forum for governments to discuss
general Internet governance policy and security issues.” Along these lines, the United
States Department of Commerce published a Notice of Inquiry123
in April, seeking com-
ments on how it should proceed. As expected, these moves generated debate on whether
leaving “control of the Internet” with the United States124
or providing ICANN with “inde-
pendence”125
were good things. The 3rd
Quarter, 2009 State of the Internet report will
include information on the resolution of this issue, whatever it may be.
3.9 International Broadband Funding
In early April, the Australian government announced that it had rejected the bids of all of the
parties that had been involved in the tender process for the country’s National Broadband
Network (NBN), and that it would instead create a new public-private company to oversee and
build the network.126
The cost of the network could reportedly be as much as USD$31 billion,
and it is expected to bring connectivity at speeds up to 100 Mbps to 90% of homes through
FTTH services, with the remaining homes seeing speeds of up to 12 Mbps through a combina-
tion of ADSL broadband, wireless, and satellite connectivity. It is estimated that building the
network would take 7-8 years.
Also in April, Estonia’s government and the telecommunications companies operating there
announced a €283 million (USD$374 million) project to provide access to broadband Internet
for all by 2015. Known as the EstWin project, it calls for the development of a 100 Mbps net-
work with access for all households and businesses across Estonia by 2015, in an effort to aid
the development of the country, especially its rural areas.127
The United Kingdom government
also announced in April that it would back the creation of a “broadband-for-all” program
in the country with initial funding of £250 million (USD $367.5 million). This funding pledge
Broadband initiatives
are being funded
by national govern-
ments in Australia,
Estonia, the United
Kingdom, Scotland,
and New Zeland.
20

followed Lord Carter’s Digital Britain report, which recom-
mended the creation of a universal service obligation de-
livering a 2 Mbps broadband connection to every home in
the country by 2012.128
However, in June it was announced
that the government would be levying a £0.50 tax on every
fixed line voice and/or broadband connection, in order to
help fund the rollout of services in rural regions.129
The tax
will be paid into a Next Generation Fund (NGF), and it is
estimated that this extra fee will raise between £150-175
million per year.
In May, it was noted that in addition to the £250 million
spent by the Scottish government to bring affordable 0.5
Mbps connectivity to virtually 100% of the populace, they
would be spending another £102 million to bring broad-
band connectivity to more than 1,250 public buildings in
remote areas.130
Late in the month, the government of New
Zealand announced that it would invest NZD $290 million
(USD $180 million) in their national broadband network in
2009. This funding represents the first stage of a larger NZD
$1.5 billion plan.131
3.10 United States National Broadband Plan
On April 8, the United States Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) adopted a Notice of Inquiry,132
formally
beginning the proceedings to create the national broad-
band plan that Congress charged the Commission with
developing in the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act of 2009. According to the Notice of Inquiry, the Recov-
ery Act requires the plan to explore several key elements of
broadband deployment and use, and the FCC now seeks
comment on these elements, including:
• The most effective and efficient ways to ensure
broadband access for all Americans
• Strategies for achieving affordability and maximum
utilization of broadband infrastructure and services
• Evaluation of the status of broadband deployment,
including the progress of related grant programs
• How to use broadband to advance consumer welfare,
civic participation, public safety and homeland security,
community development, health care delivery, energy
independence and efficiency, education, worker
training, private sector investment, entrepreneurial
activity, job creation, and economic growth, and other
national purposes.
Throughout the second quarter, much of the online
coverage of the FCC’s efforts to gather input on key
elements of the national broadband plan focused on the
need to not leave rural areas behind — $2.5 billion of the
broadband stimulus funds are being administered by the
Rural Utilities Service, intended to expand broadband access
in so-called unserved and underserved areas. In May, act-
ing FCC Chairman Michael Copps issued a report on
broadband strategy for rural America.133
Within the report,
Copps identified a number of issues that must be over-
come in order to deploy broadband in rural areas, including
technological challenges, lack of data about where broad-
band is available and who is accessing it, and high network
costs. In addition, net neutrality provisions associated with
broadband stimulus funding were the subject of significant
debate, and the FCC’s Bringing Broadband to Rural America
report noted that net neutrality rules are particularly impor-
tant for rural broadband subscribers who may only have a
single provider.134
21

SECTION 4: Internet Penetration
Figure 10: Unique IP Addresses Seen By Akamai
Country Q2 09 Q1–Q2 YoY
Unique IPs Change Change
- Global 424,808,918 +1.2% +22.7%
1 United States 115,323,620 -0.7% +13.1%
2 China 46,132,899 +3.5% +35.7%
3 Japan 30,453,662 +3.5% +19.6%
4 Germany 29,501,565 +3.3% +23.8%
5 France 20,071,871 +2.5% +18.7%
6 United Kingdom 18,549,665 -1.3% +12.1%
7 South Korea 14,573,291 +1.2% +10.0%
8 Canada 10,717,995 -4.2% +5.70%
9 Spain 10,111,614 +2.0% +19.3%
10 Brazil 10,077,917 +8.7% +46.0%
1
8 4
10
6
3
9 7
5
2
4.1 Unique IP Addresses Seen By Akamai
Through a globally-deployed server network, and by virtue of the billions of requests for
Web content that it services on a daily basis, Akamai has unique visibility into the levels of
Internet penetration around the world. In the second quarter of 2009, nearly 425 million
unique IP addresses connected to the Akamai network — one and a quarter percent more
than in the first quarter of 2009, and nearly 23 percent more than the same quarter a year
ago. For the fifth consecutive quarter, the United States and China continued to account
for nearly 40% of the observed IP addresses. The top 10 countries continued to remain
the same quarter-over-quarter.
As shown in Figure 10, the quarterly growth in the number of unique IP addresses
seen by Akamai was relatively muted, with Brazil showing the greatest gain, at 8.7%
growth, among the top 10 countries. Interestingly, the United States, the United
Kingdom, and Canada all had a lower number of unique IP addresses connecting to
Akamai in the second quarter. Globally, more than 90 countries saw unique IP counts
decline in the second quarter.
Looking at the “long tail,” there were 183 countries with fewer than one million unique
IP addresses connecting to Akamai in the second quarter of 2009, 143 with fewer than
100,000 unique IP addresses, and 35 with fewer than 1,000 unique IP addresses. All
three counts remained fairly consistent with the prior quarter.
In the second quarter
of 2009, nearly 425
million unique IP
addresses connected
to the Akamai network.
22

4.2 Global Internet Penetration
How does the number of unique IP addresses seen by Akamai compare to the population
of each of those countries? Asked another way, what is the level of Internet penetration
in each of those countries? Using the most recent global population data from the United
States Census Web site135
as a baseline, levels of Internet penetration for each country
around the world were calculated based on Akamai’s view into Internet traffic. These per
capita figures should be considered as an approximation, as the population figures used to
calculate them are static estimates — obviously, they will change over time, and it would
be nearly impossible to obtain exact numbers on a quarterly basis. In addition, individual
users can have multiple IP addresses (handheld, personal/home system, business laptop,
etc.). Furthermore, in some cases, multiple individuals may be represented by a single IP
address (or small number of IP addresses), as they access the World Wide Web through a
firewall proxy server. Akamai believes that it sees approximately one billion users per day,
though we see only approximately 425 million unique IP addresses.
In comparing the unique IP per capita figures for the second quarter of 2009, as shown
in Figure 11, to those from the first quarter of 2009, we see some movement within the
list, with the Falkland Islands and Monaco moving up higher among the top ten, while
the United States and Iceland moved lower. Four countries (Falkland Islands, Monaco, Cay-
man Islands, and British Virgin Islands) experienced gains, four countries (Norway, Sweden,
Finland, and Iceland) experienced losses, and the levels in the remaining two countries
(Netherlands and the United States) in the top 10 remained static.
Country Unique IPs
Per Capita
- Global 0.08
1 Norway 0.46
2 Sweden 0.42
3 Netherlands 0.40
4 Finland 0.39
5 Falkland Islands 0.39
6 Monaco 0.38
7 Cayman Islands 0.36
8 United States 0.36
9 Iceland 0.35
10 British Virgin Islands 0.34
Figure 11: Global Internet Penetration
8
9
2
3
4
5
7 10
1
6
Akamai believes that
it sees approximately
one billion users per day.
23

SECTION 4: Internet Penetration (cont’d)
4.3 United States Internet Penetration
Using state population estimates available from the United States Census Web site,136
and
the number of unique IP addresses from each state that Akamai saw in the second quarter
of 2009, we calculated the levels of Internet penetration on a state-by-state basis — the
top 10 states are shown in Figure 12. The same caveats noted above in Section 4.2, regard-
ing per capita figures as an approximation, apply here as well.
Georgia saw the greatest quarter-over quarter increase, jumping from 0.62 to 0.70. Four
other states (Missouri, New Jersey, Colorado, and Arizona) also saw increases, while Wash-
ington and Illinois saw no change quarter-over-quarter, and four states (Massachusetts,
Maryland, Rhode Island, and Utah) saw declines, with Maryland dropping out of the top
10 list entirely (replaced by Arizona). In general, the levels of increase/decrease were fairly
minor, and in line with the range of changes seen in previous quarters.
6
9
State Unique IPs
Per Capita
1 Georgia 0.62
2 Washington 0.62
3 Missouri 0.57
4 Illinois 0.54
5 New Jersey 0.53
6 Massachusetts 0.51
7 Colorado 0.48
8 Utah 0.47
9 Rhode Island 0.46
10 Arizona 0.43
Figure 12: Internet Penetration in the United States
7
3
5
1
2
10
4
8
Internet penetration
levels were mixed
quarter-over-quarter.
24

SECTION 5: Geography
Through its globally deployed server network and by virtue of the
billions of requests for Web content that it services on a daily basis,
Akamai has a unique level of visibility into the connection speeds of the
systems issu-ing the requests, and as such, of broadband adoption around
the globe. Because Akamai has implemented a distributed network model,
deploying servers within edge networks, it can deliver content more
reliably and more consistently at those speeds, in contrast to centralized
competitors that rely on fewer deployments in large data centers. For more
information on why this is possible, please see Akamai’s How Will The
Internet Scale? White Paper.137
The data presented below was collected during the second quarter of
2009 through Akamai’s globally-deployed server network and includes
all countries and U.S. states that had more than 1,000 average monthly
unique IP addresses make requests to Akamai’s network during the sec-
ond quarter. For purposes of classification in this report, the “broadband”
data included below is for connections greater than 2 Mbps, and “high
broadband” is for connections of 5 Mbps or greater. In contrast, the
“narrowband” data included below is for connections slower than 256
Kbps. Note that the percentage changes reflected below are not additive
— they are relative to the prior quarter(s). (That is, a Q1 value of 50% and
a Q2 value of 51% would be reflected here as a +2% change.) A quarter-
over-quarter change is shown within the tables in several sections below in
an effort to highlight general trends. A year-over-year change is also shown
in some tables in an effort to highlight longer-term trends.
As the quantity of HD-quality media increases over time, and the
consumption of that media increases, end users are likely to require ever-
increasing amounts of bandwidth. A connection speed of 2 Mbps is
arguably sufficient for standard-definition TV-quality video content, and
5 Mbps for standard-definition DVD-quality video content, while Blu-Ray
(1080p) video content has a maximum video bit rate of 40 Mbps, according
to the Blu-Ray FAQ.138
As we did in the first quarter, in order to provide
additional insight into where users have connection speeds that would
allow them to be able to effectively consume this higher quality media,
we will continue to examine how the “high broadband” connections are
distributed across speed groupings ranging from 5 to 25 Mbps.
Akamai’s distributed
network model, with
servers deployed in 70
countries, can deliver
content more reliably
at broadband speeds.
25

SECTION 5: Geography (continued)
5.1 Global Average Connection Speeds
Examining the data for the third consecutive quarter, the overall trend in the second quarter
of 2009 was not towards generally higher average connection speeds, as had been seen in
prior quarters. Current highlights and historical trends for average connection speeds on a
global basis can be found in Akamai’s “Broadband Adoption Trends” data visualization tool,
available at http://www.akamai.com/dv5.
As highlighted in Figure 13, a number of countries within the top 10 saw average connec-
tion speeds decline on a quarter-over-quarter basis. Globally, the average connection speed
declined 11%, dropping back down to 1.5 Mbps — the same level as in the fourth quarter
of 2008. Among the top 10 countries, seven of them saw lower average connection speeds
in the second quarter, with Switzerland seeing the largest decline, at 13%. South Korea
began to reverse the loss seen in the first quarter, increasing 3.2% to 11.3 Mbps.
During the second quarter, 125 countries had average connection speeds below 1 Mbps,
up slightly from 120 countries in the prior quarter. The lowest average speed was seen
in Eritrea, at 42 Kbps. Surprisingly, 14 countries globally had average connection speeds
below 100 Kbps. In both cases, it is worth noting that many of these are small countries
that have comparatively few connections to Akamai, and that many of them saw signifi-
cant speed declines quarter-over-quarter.
On a global basis, the
average connection
speed declined by
approximately 11%,
and 125 countries had
average connection
speeds under 1 Mbps.
Figure 13: Average Internet Connection Speed by Country
Country Q2 09 Mbps Q1–Q2 YoY
Change Change
- Global 1.7 -11% +8%
1 South Korea 11 +3.2% -19%
2 Japan 8.0 -8.4% -1.6%
3 Hong Kong 7.6 -8.8% +4.0%
4 Romania 6.9 +5.8% +49%
5 Sweden 5.8 -12% +19%
6 Netherlands 5.7 -4.4% +19%
7 Latvia 5.4 +8.5% +33%
8 Switzerland 5.1 -13% +5.4%
9 Czech Republic 5.0 -1.8% +25%
10 Denmark 4.9 -7.4% +19%
...
18 United States 4.2 -8.4% +1.6%
26

Figure 14: Average Measured
Connection Speed by State
State Q2 09 Mbps
1 New Hampshire 6.4
2 Delaware 6.3
3 New York 5.6
4 Vermont 5.4
5 Rhode Island 5.4
6 Connecticut 5.2
7 Maine 5.2
8 Nevada 5.2
9 Indiana 5.1
10 Oklahoma 4.9
5.2 United States Average Connection Speeds
Similar to trends seen in the global data for the second quarter of 2009, many U.S. states
saw lower average connection speeds as well. While all states maintained average speeds
above 2 Mbps, New Hampshire’s average speed of 6.4 Mbps moved them into the top
spot as the fastest state, as shown in Figure 14. Delaware fell to second place at 6.3 Mbps,
down from 7.2 Mbps in the first quarter.
Overall, 40 states plus the District of Columbia saw average connection speeds decline in
the second quarter — Arizona shed 27%, while Vermont dropped just 0.2% The increases
seen by the remaining 10 states were relatively modest, with Florida gaining 1.2%, and
Maryland increasing 16%. Comparing average connection speeds year-over year, ten
states saw speeds decline, from Georgia’s 21% loss to Wyoming’s 0.7% drop, while seven
states (Maine, Vermont, New Mexico, Iowa, New Hampshire, Virginia, Hawaii) saw average
speeds increase in excess of 25%.
While all states
maintained average
speeds above 2 Mbps,
New Hampshire’s
average speed of 6.4
Mbps moved them
into the top spot as the
fastest state.
27

SECTION 5: Geography(continued)
5.3 Global High Broadband Connectivity
In the second quarter of 2009, 19% of the Internet connections around the world
were at speeds greater than 5 Mbps. This represents a 5% decline from the prior
quarter (bringing it back to the level seen in the fourth quarter of 2008), and only
a 0.2% year-over-year increase.
South Korea reversed the decline seen in the first quarter of 2009, and is once again
the country with the largest percentage of connections to Akamai at speeds over 5 Mbps,
gaining 33% quarter-over-quarter to 69%. As shown in Figure 15, six countries in the
top 10 saw lower levels of high broadband penetration in the second quarter, as did the
United States. However, all countries in the top 10 saw yearly growth; in contrast, the
United States declined year-over-year.
Nearly one-fifth of the
Internet connections
around the world were
at speeds greater than
5 Mbps.
Country % above Q1–Q2 YoY
5 Mbps Change Change
- Global 19% -4.8% +0.2%
1 South Korea 69% +33% +7.8%
2 Japan 56% -1.6% +6.7%
3 Romania 44% +10% +99%
4 Sweden 43% -13% +35%
5 Hong Kong 39% -0.7% +3.6%
6 Netherlands 34% -4.6% +55%
7 Czech Republic 33% +0.9% +126%
8 Denmark 32% -11% +77%
9 Belgium 31% -8.8% +17%
10 Canada 27% +19% +50%
...
12 United States 24% -7.1% -8.0%
Figure 15: High Broadband Connectivity, Fastest Countries
2
1
7
9
12
3
8
5
4
6
10
7
With the exception of the Czech Republic, it appears that all of the other countries
(Sweden, Netherlands, Denmark, and Switzerland) called out in the 1st
Quarter, 2009
State of the Internet report for having FTTH efforts that were bearing fruit saw quar-
terly declines in high broadband connectivity percentages — perhaps it was too early to
declare those initiatives a success. Overall, however, 44 countries around the world saw
increased quarterly levels of high broadband connectivity, and 74 countries saw yearly
growth. In contrast, slightly more than 10 countries saw yearly declines, while just over
40 saw quarterly declines.
28

Country % above 5-10 10-15 15-20 20-25 25
5 Mbps Mbps Mbps Mbps Mbps Mbps
1 South Korea 69% 35% 14% 6.7% 3.9% 9.2%
2 Japan 56% 36% 13% 4.1% 1.6% 1.9%
3 Romania 44% 31% 7.3% 2.3% 1.1% 1.9%
4 Sweden 43% 31% 6.5% 2.5% 1.2% 2.2%
5 Hong Kong 39% 31% 6.4% 3.5% 2.1% 3.6%
6 Netherlands 34% 23% 2.8% 0.7% 0.4% 1.6%
7 Czech Republic 33% 29% 3.7% 0.9% 0.5% 1.3%
8 Denmark 32% 27% 2.8% 0.6% 0.3% 0.5%
9 Belgium 31% 28% 2.0% 0.2% 0.1% 0.4%
10 Canada 27% 23% 2.6% 0.7% 0.3% 0.7%
...
12 United States 24% 20% 2.5% 0.7% 0.4% 1.0%
Figure 17: High Broadband Connectivity, Distribution of Speeds
Given the quarterly growth in the level of high broadband connectivity seen in South
Korea in the second quarter, it is not surprising to see the rate of high broadband
penetration in the country, as shown in Figure 16, return to the level seen in the fourth
quarter of 2008, after dropping to 0.15 in the first quarter of 2009. The global level of
high broadband penetration remains consistent, and low, at 0.01 — that is, one high
broadband IP per 100 people. Overall, only 30 countries globally had high broadband
penetration rates higher than the global level.
5.4 Global High Broadband Connectivity: Speed Distribution
As we examined the levels of high broadband connectivity around the world, questions
frequently came up about the distribution of connections at speeds above 5 Mbps.
In an effort to answer these questions, Akamai has done more detailed analysis on con-
nections above 5 Mbps in order to publish more detailed data on the distribution of
connection speeds, aggregated into 5 Mbps ‘buckets.’
Nearly a tenth of South
Korea’s connections to
Akamai are at speeds
greater than 25 Mbps.
Figure 16: Global High Broad-
band Penetration
Country High Broadband IPs
Per Capita
- Global 0.01
1 South Korea 0.21
2 Sweden 0.17
3 Netherlands 0.13
4 Japan 0.13
5 Denmark 0.11
6 Hong Kong 0.11
7 Norway 0.09
9 Belgium 0.09
10 Finland 0.06
29

As noted previously in Section 5.3, South Korea once again has the largest percentage of
connections to Akamai (69%) at speeds above 5 Mbps. In looking at the distribution of
these speeds in Figure 17, we find that while the percentage of connections in the 5-10
Mbps and 10-15 Mbps buckets map rather closely to second-place Japan, South Korea has
significantly higher percentages of their connections in the higher speed buckets — most
notably, for connections at speeds greater than 25 Mbps. Both South Korea and Japan
saw the percentage of 5-10 Mbps connections grow quarter-over-quarter. In general, the
highest percentages of connection speeds were once again in the 5-10 Mbps range, tail-
ing off across the higher speed buckets.
We expect that, on a global basis, as the adoption and rollout of DOCSIS 3.0 technology
by cable Internet providers, as well as other FTTH initiatives by telecom providers, become
more widespread that the percentage of connections in the higher speed ‘bucket’ will
grow over time. (Of course, this assumes that these providers are pricing the highest speed
tiers of service at a level that subscribers find affordable.)
5.5 United States High Broadband Connectivity
The East Coast continues to be firmly established in leading the country with the greatest
levels of high broadband connectivity, with nine of the top 10 slots as a result of Maryland
displacing Oklahoma in the list. With a 20% quarterly increase, as shown in Figure 18,
Maryland moved into the top 10, and was the only state within the top 10 to record a
quarterly increase in the percentage of connections to Akamai at speeds over 5 Mbps.
State %above Q1–Q2 YoY
1 New Hampshire 56% -4.5% +75%
2 Delaware 46% -26% -30%
3 New York 46% -6.1% +14%
4 Vermont 43% -1.6% +83%
5 Connecticut 39% -5.2% +12%
6 Nevada 37% -19% +11%
7 Maine 36% -5.4% +151%
8 Rhode Island 36% -14% -16%
9 Massachusetts 36% -4.5% +16%
10 Maryland 34% +20% +21%
Figure 18: High Broadband Connectivity, Fastest U.S. States
1
2
6
5
10
4
8
3
9
7
30

For the second quarter, 14 states saw quarter-over-quarter increases, with Hawaii jumping
an impressive 65%. Hawaii also turned in the largest year-over-year increase, growing
773%, leading 38 other states and the District of Columbia that improved year-over-year.
However, the District of Columbia and 36 additional states saw quarterly decreases, from
South Dakota’s 0.9% loss, to Arizona’s significant 40% decline. Year-over-year, 12 states
saw percentages decline, from Oklahoma’s 0.4% loss to Delaware’s 30% drop.
Figure 19: High Broadband Pen-
etration in the United States
State High Broadband
IPs Per Capita
2 New York 0.17
3 New Jersey 0.16
4 Rhode Island 0.16
5 Washington 0.15
6 Maryland 0.14
7 New Hampshire 0.14
8 Oregon 0.12
9 Nevada 0.11
10 Connecticut 0.11
Looking at the levels of high broadband penetration across the United States as
calculated for the second quarter, shown in Figure 19, we see that the penetration rates
declined across the board, as compared to the first quarter. This decrease is likely due to
the fact that many states had fewer unique IP addresses connecting to Akamai in the
second quarter, and subsequently, fewer IPs connecting at speeds above 5 Mbps. While
it doesn’t account directly for the decline, published data from Leichtman Research
Group indicated that net broadband subscriber additions in the second quarter across
the nineteen largest cable and telephone providers in the United States, which represent
93% of the market, according to Leichtman, were the lowest in the eight years that they
have been tracking the industry.139
Published data from Leichtman Research Group indicated that net broadband subscriber
additions in the second quarter across the nineteen largest cable and telephone providers in
the United States were the lowest in eight years.
For the second
quarter, 14 states saw
quarter-over-quarter
increases in levels
of high broadband
connectivity, with
Hawaii jumping an
impressive 65%
31

5.6 United States High Broadband Connectivity: Speed Distribution
In looking at the ten states with the highest levels of high broadband connectivity, we find
that the distribution of connection speeds above 5 Mbps generally follows a similar pattern.
Unsurprisingly, the majority of the high broadband connections measure between 5-10
Mbps, with the next largest grouping between 10-15 Mbps. After that, the faster ‘buckets’
struggle to achieve even 2% of connections, as shown in Figure 20. This distribution of
speeds is largely expected, as most residential broadband options offer connections in the
5-15 Mbps downstream range, with higher speed options available only in limited areas
or at significantly higher prices. We expect that as the adoption and rollout of DOCSIS 3.0
technology by cable Internet providers, as well as other FTTH initiatives by telecom provid-
ers, become more widespread that the percentage of connections in the highest ‘bucket’
will grow over time, and that competitive market pressures will drive providers to price
the highest speed tiers of service at a level that subscribers find affordable. In addition, as
broadband stimulus funding is awarded and put to use, we expect that these numbers will
likely grow commensurately in 2010 and beyond.
State % above 5-10 10-15 15-20 20-25 25
5 Mbps Mbps Mbps Mbps Mbps Mbps
1 New Hampshire 56% 47% 6.3% 1.3% 0.7% 1.4%
2 Delaware 46% 38% 4.2% 1.5% 0.9% 1.7%
3 New York 46% 37% 5.6% 1.2% 0.5% 1.2%
4 Vermont 43% 35% 5.1% 1.6% 0.6% 0.9%
5 Connecticut 39% 32% 4.7% 1.0% 0.6% 1.0%
6 Nevada 37% 28% 5.7% 1.1% 0.4% 0.9%
7 Maine 36% 32% 2.0% 0.8% 0.4% 1.4%
8 Rhode Island 36% 30% 2.9% 0.8% 0.4% 1.5%
9 Massachusetts 36% 28% 4.9% 1.1% 0.5% 1.3%
10 Maryland 34% 28% 3.8% 0.9% 0.4% 1.1%
Figure 20: High Broadband Connectivity, Distribution of Speeds
The majority of the high
broadband connections
measure between
5-10 Mbps, with the
next largest grouping
between 10-15 Mbps.
32

5.7 Global Broadband Connectivity
As shown in Figure 21, a nearly six percent decline in broadband-level connections was
seen globally in the second quarter, although more than half of all connections to Akamai
are still at speeds above 2 Mbps. However, similar to the quarterly changes observed for
global high broadband connectivity, quarterly changes for the top 10 countries with the
highest levels of broadband connectivity were mixed as well for the second quarter of
2009. Six countries saw nominal increases; four countries saw slight declines as did the
United States, dropping it to 34th
place globally.
South Korea, Switzerland, and Hong Kong were among the fastest countries in the world,
with 90% or more of their connections to Akamai at broadband levels. In addition, all
three countries saw modest levels of yearly growth as well. In total, more than 80 coun-
tries increased their levels of broadband connectivity year-over-year, while 50 did so from
the first quarter.
Three countries had
90% or more of their
connections to Akamai
at speeds over 2 Mbps.
Country %above Q1–Q2 YoY
– Global 53% -5.8% -9.5%
1 South Korea 93% +13% +3.7%
2 Switzerland 91% -0.7% +6.5%
3 Hong Kong 90% +3.0% +4.3%
4 Japan 89% -0.6% +2.0%
5 Belgium 89% -1.5% -1.1%
6 Monaco 88% +2.9% +50%
7 Romania 86% +1.7% +19%
8 Slovakia 84% +2.0% +1.8%
9 Macau 84% +24% +27%
10 Denmark 83% -2.9% +4.3%
…
34 United States 57% -10% -20%
Figure 21: Broadband Connectivity, Fast Countries
34
2
7
1
3
4
5
6
2
8
10
9
Looking at the levels of broadband penetration around the world, shown in Figure 22,
we see that while the global average remained constant from the first quarter, levels in
individual countries generally declined quarter-over-quarter, in some cases as much as
25-30%. While the United States saw a 12% decline, it climbed 12 places to #14 glob-
ally, up from #26 in the prior quarter. It isn’t clear what drove the generally declining levels
of broadband penetration in so many countries during the second quarter — seasonality,
impact of the global economic recession on Internet usage, or some other reason.
33

5.8 United States Broadband Connectivity
The decline in the percentage of connections at high broadband speeds carried through
to connections at broadband speeds as well. As shown in Figure 23, in the second quarter
of 2009, all of the top 10 states saw a quarterly decline in their percentage of connections
to Akamai at speeds over 2 Mbps. Delaware remained the top state, with 96% of their
connections at broadband levels, though it was down approximately one percent from the
prior quarter. While quarterly changes have been mixed in the past, it is somewhat surpris-
ing that all of the top 10 states saw percentages decline in the second quarter. However,
they were not alone, as across the country, 46 states and the District of Columbia saw
quarterly losses, from Alaska’s miniscule 0.1% loss to Arizona’s significant 31% loss. Only
Maryland, Virginia, South Dakota, and New Jersey saw percentages increase from the first
to second quarters. Yearly changes were more evenly split, with 25 states seeing yearly
increases, including six of the top 10.
State %above Q1–Q2 YoY
1 Delaware 96% -0.9% +2.6%
2 New Hampshire 88% -1.3% +18%
3 Rhode Island 85% -0.9% +0.0%
4 Connecticut 82% -3.3% +3.3%
5 Maine 82% -4.4% +11%
6 Vermont 81% -1.6% +33%
7 Hawaii 79% -5.3% +12%
8 Nevada 78% -8.5% -5.8%
9 New York 78% -3.4% -0.3%
10 Oklahoma 74% -7.4% -4.4%
Figure 23: Broadband Connectivity, Fast U.S. States
1
4
8
9
6
10
2
3
5
7
Figure 22: Global Broadband Penetration
Country Broadband
IPs Per Capita
- Global 0.02
1 Monaco 0.34
2 Norway 0.32
3 Sweden 0.30
4 Denmark 0.30
5 Netherlands 0.30
6 Switzerland 0.29
7 South Korea 0.28
8 Germany 0.28
9 Iceland 0.27
10 Belgium 0.26
...
14
3
9
4
8
2
5
1 710
6
34

Looking at the levels of broadband penetration across the United States as calculated for
the second quarter, shown in Figure 24, we note that the penetration rates declined across
the board, as compared to the first quarter, similar to what was seen globally, as well as
within the United States for high broadband penetration. This decrease is likely due to the
fact that many states had fewer unique IP addresses connecting to Akamai in the second
quarter, and subsequently, fewer IPs connecting at speeds above 2 Mbps. In addition, as
noted above in Section 5.5, the slow growth in new United States broadband subscriber
counts during the second quarter, as highlighted in published data from Leichtman Re-
search Group, may have contributed to this, though it is likely not the sole root cause. In
contrast, however, a report published in June by market intelligence firm Strategy Analyt-
ics predicted that United States broadband service providers would add five million new
subscribers during the course of 2009, and that broadband adoption levels in the United
States should reach 80% in the next five years.140
A report published in June by market intelligence firm Strategy Analytics predicted that
United States broadband service providers would add five million new subscribers during
the course of 2009, and that broadband adoption levels in the United States should reach
80% in the next five years.
Figure 24: United States Broadband Penetration
State Broadband
IPs Per Capita
1 Rhode Island 0.37
3 New York 0.28
4 Washington 0.27
5 Colorado 0.26
6 South Dakota 0.26
7 New Jersey 0.26
8 Georgia 0.25
9 Nebraska 0.24
10 Illinois 0.24
7
2
4
3
8
5
9
1
10
6
35

5.9 Global Narrowband Connectivity
In looking at narrowband connectivity, in contrast to the high broadband and broadband
rankings, quarterly and yearly declines are considered to be a positive trend, as it likely
indicates that higher speed connectivity is becoming more generally available, and more
widely adopted. However, while broadband adoption continues to increase in many
countries across the world, many other countries are still stuck with low-speed Internet
connections, with large percentages of their connections to Akamai occurring at speeds
below 256 Kbps.
Interestingly, in the second quarter of 2009, many countries actually saw significant
quarterly increases in their percentages of narrowband connections to Akamai. While
this is not entirely unexpected, given the quarterly trends in broadband and high broad-
band connections described above, the size of the changes is somewhat surprising, with
increases of 20% or more seen among the countries in the top 10, as shown in Figure
25. Even the global figure saw a significant quarterly increase, as did the United States,
although both percentages continue to trend downward on a year-over-year basis. On
a more positive note, 14 countries did see declining quarterly levels of broadband
connectivity, and 85 saw declining levels year-over-year.
Consistent with prior quarters, many of the countries with the largest percentages of con-
nections to Akamai at speeds below 256 Kbps were either island nations or on the African
continent. In addition, Akamai sees comparatively few unique IP addresses from these
countries, so their high percentage of narrowband connections is not entirely unexpected.
14 countries saw
declining quarterly
levels of broadband
connectivity, and
85 saw declining
levels year-over-year.
Figure 25: Narrowband Connectivity, Slowest Countries
Country %below Q1–Q2 YoY
256 Kbps Change Change
– Global 5.6% +19% -24%
1 Wallis And Futana 99.6% +40% +14%
2 Mayotte 99% +21% +10%
3 Solomon Islands 98% +25% +4.9%
4 Equatorial Guinea 98% +32% +12%
5 Malawi 97% +25% +23%
6 Zimbabwe 96% +20% +26%
7 Vanatu 96% +28% +9.5%
8 Uganda 95% +22% +11%
9 Cuba 95% +30% +8.5%
10 Rwanda 94% +26% +0.2%
…
116 United States 4.9% +27% -41%
1116
9
2
8
5
4
10
6
3
7
36

5.10 United States Narrowband Connectivity
The District of Columbia once again had the highest percentage of narrowband
connections in the second quarter as observed by Akamai. It saw a significant quarterly
increase in the level of narrowband connections, as did all of the states in the top 10, as
shown in Figure 26. Only seven states saw the expected quarterly decrease in narrowband
connection levels, from Nebraska’s 31% loss to Illinois’ 0.8% loss.
Figure 26: Narrowband Connectivity, Slowest U.S. States
State %below Q1–Q2 YoY
256 Kbps Change Change
1 District of Columbia 10% +28% -39%
2 Alaska 10% +35% +3.9%
3 Georgia 8.7% +39% -45%
4 Missouri 8.6% +33% +16%
5 Iowa 7.3% +25% -22%
6 Ohio 6.5% +30% +3.4%
7 Mississippi 6.2% +25% -11%
8 Michigan 6.0% +25% +10%
9 Texas 5.9% +32% -54%
10 North Dakota 5.8% +57% -10%
1
8
3
7
6
5 410
2
9
Across the whole United States, forty states and the District of Columbia had lower
percentages of connections to Akamai at speeds below 256 Kbps than they did a year ago.
While year-over-year changes among the top 10 states were mixed (six declined, four
increased), across the whole United States, forty states and the District of Columbia had
lower percentages of connections to Akamai at speeds below 256 Kbps than they did a
year ago. Virginia and Washington State have made the greatest strides there, dropping
88% and 80% to 1.5% and 4.3% respectively.
37

SECTION 7: Appendix

REGION
Europe
Austria
Belgium
Czech Republic
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Norway
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom
Asia/Pacific
Australia
China
Hong Kong
India
Japan
Malaysia
New Zealand
Singapore
South Korea
Taiwan
Middle East
Egypt
Israel
Kuwait
SaudiArabia
Sudan
Syria
UnitedArab Emirates (UAE)
Latin South America
Argentina
Brazil
Chile
Colombia
Mexico
Peru
Venezuela
North America
Canada
United States
UNIQUE IP
ADDRESSES
1,830,259
2,992,197
1,465,727
1,980,139
2,039,628
20,071,871
29,501,565
1,710,771
112,922
987,178
9,104,612
153,817
6,515,239
2,092,867
1,803,445
10,111,614
3,565,044
2,375,230
18,549,665

7,208,137
46,132,899
1,960,164
3,317,873
30,453,662
1,006,697
1,161,504
1,359,585
14,573,291
5,435,345

789,210
1,720,396
185,265
1,029,935
23,412
27,147
390,676
3,170,536
10,077,917
1,693,502
1,852,672
6,631,706
580,050
1,608,511
10,717,995
115,323,620
UNIQUE IPs
PER CAPITA
0.22
0.29
0.14
0.36
0.39
0.31
0.36
0.16
0.37
0.24
0.16
0.32
0.39
0.45
0.17
0.25
0.39
0.31
0.30

0.34
0.03
0.28
0.00
0.24
0.04
0.28
0.30
0.30
0.24

0.01
0.24
0.07
0.04
0.01
0.01
0.08

0.08
0.05
0.10
0.04
0.06
0.02
0.06

0.32
0.38
AVG SPEED
(KBPS)
3650
4582
4909
4688
3313
3202
3677
2973
3878
4210
2733
2420
5126
4172
3597
2654
6037
4955
3362

2698
813
6915
895
7321
803
2542
3161
11305
4128

507
2720
1929
2089
354
339
2182

1095
1098
1940
1429
991
850
762

3983
3814
% ABOVE
5 MBPS
18%
31%
51%
32%
17%
8.4%
15%
8.2%
15%
9.0%
4.1%
4.0%
34%
20%
18%
4.3%
43%
20%
10%

18%
0.5%
39%
1.1%
56%
0.8%
5.3%
19%
69%
20%

0.2%
3.9%
5.8%
4.1%
–
–
12%

0.9%
1.2%
1.4%
0.8%
0.6%
0.4%
0.3%
27%
24%
HIGH BB IPs
PER CAPITA
0.04
0.09
0.05
0.05
0.06
0.03
0.05
0.01
0.06
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.13
0.09
0.03
0.01
0.17
0.06
0.03
0.04
0.01
0.11
0.01
0.13
0.01
0.01
0.06
0.21
0.05

0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01

0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.07
0.09
% ABOVE
2 MBPS
65%
89%
76%
83%
45%
70%
78%
60%
74%
48%
68%
49%
76%
70%
77%
60%
77%
91%
72%

46%
4.0%
90%
5.0%
89%
3.0%
54%
55%
93%
56%
1.0%
51%
31%
36%
–
–
21%

6.0%
11%
39%
18%
5.0%
3.0%
1.0%
75%
57%
BB IPs
PER CAPITA
0.14
0.26
0.11
0.30
0.17
0.22
0.28
0.10
0.27
0.11
0.11
0.15
0.30
0.32
0.13
0.15
0.30
0.29
0.22
0.16
0.01
0.25
0.01
0.21
0.01
0.15
0.16
0.28
0.13
0.01
0.12
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02

0.01
0.01
0.04
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.24
0.21
% BELOW
256 KBPS
2.1%
0.6%
2.2%
1.1%
1.6%
0.7%
1.6%
3.0%
–
3.7%
2.6%
2.4%
1.9%
2.1%
1.1%
1.7%
2.2%
0.9%
1.4%
7.4%
12%
0.7%
27%
1.7%
15%
7.8%
8.4%
0.2%
2.0%
25%
0.6%
12%
1.2%
43%
66%
16%
11%
21%
6.8%
4.9%
3.5%
8.1%
12%
2.9%
4.9%
% ATTACK
TRAFFIC
0.1%
0.2%
1.2%
0.2%
0.1%
1.8%
1.9%
1.8%
0.1%
0.1%
1.2%
0.4%
2.1%
0.1%
0.1%
1.3%
1.5%
0.4%
1.0%

0.3%
31%
1.0%
3.9%
2.0%
0.2%
0.1%
0.2%
6.8%
2.3%

0.3%
1.3%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%

0.8%
2.3%
1.4%
1.0%
2.0%
0.1%
0.4%
1.8%
15%
38

1
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/ms09-apr.mspx
2
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/ms09-may.mspx
3
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9134156/Microsoft_sets_record_with_monster_Windows_IE_Office_update
4
http://i.gizmodo.com/5197148/how-the-conficker-problem-just-got-much-worse
5
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-10215678-83.html?part=rsssubj=newstag=2547-1009_3-0-20
6
http://news.cnet.com/conficker-also-installs-fake-antivirus-software/?part=rsssubj=newstag=2547-1_3-0-20
7
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9131139/Conficker_copycat_prowls_for_victims_says_Microsoft
8
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2009/04/web_sites_disrupted_by_attack.html
9
http://blogs.gartner.com/lydia_leong/2009/04/13/ddos-season/
10
http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=3157
11
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/165319/dns_attack_downs_internet_in_parts_of_china.html
12
13
http://asert.arbornetworks.com/2009/05/60-days-of-attack-scale-duration/
14
http://www.darkreading.com/security/app-security/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=217500479
15
http://status.twitter.com/post/95332007/update-on-stalkdaily-com-worm
16
17
18
http://blog.twitter.com/2009/04/wily-weekend-worms.html
19
20
http://securitylabs.websense.com/content/Alerts/3403.aspx
21
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS137513+06-Jul-2009+MW20090706
22
http://www.xssed.com/archive
23
24
25
http://www.siliconrepublic.com/news/article/13025/cio/new-worm-to-rival-conficker
26
27
http://securitylabs.websense.com/content/Alerts/3421.aspx
28
29
http://www.infoworld.com/print/75722
30
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/dnssec_060309.html
31
http://icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-03jun09-en.htm
32
http://assets.pir.org/PDFs/DNSSECSymposium_June11-12.pdf
33
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090602_org_first_open_top_level_domain_dnssec/
34
http://www.internetnews.com/security/article.php/3823286
35
http://www.enisa.europa.eu/doc/pdf/resilience_tech_report.pdf
36
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/opinion/07crocker.html
37
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/040909-att-outage-vandalism.html
38
http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=16106
39
http://asert.arbornetworks.com/2009/06/iranian-traffic-engineering/
40
http://asert.arbornetworks.com/2009/06/a-deeper-look-at-the-iranian-firewall/
41
http://www.renesys.com/blog/2009/05/byte-me.shtml
43
44
http://royal.pingdom.com/2009/05/08/crowdsourced-error-detection-and-the-gmail-outage/
45
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/051409-google-blames-outage-on-system.html
46
http://asert.arbornetworks.com/2009/05/the-great-googlelapse/
47
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/051909-google-news-stutters-for-second.html
48
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/060309-youtube-hit-with-service.html
49
http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2009/05/05/another-lengthy-outage-for-media-temple/
SECTION 8: Endnotes
39

50
http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2009/05/07/media-temple-issues-1-year-outage-credit/
51
http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2009/05/13/ripples-felt-from-outage-at-the-planet/
52
http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2009/06/09/web-host-hacked-via-virtualization-tool/
53
54
http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2009/06/29/outage-for-rackspace-customers/
55
http://www.telegeography.com/cu/article.php?article_id=28286
56
57
58
59
60
http://www.seacomblog.com/team-seacom/2009/06/pirates-delay-seacom-launch
61
62
63
http://www.globalcrossing.com/news/2009/june/03.aspx
64
http://www.eutelsat.com/news/compress/en/2009/pdf/CP2309UK-Tooway.pdf
65
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS77267+08-Jun-2009+PRN20090608
66
http://gigaom.com/2009/04/29/wildblue-launches-bid-for-stimulus-funds/
67
http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?section_id=694doc_id=178131
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Clearwire-Network-Officially-Live-In-Atlanta-102974
83
84
85
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-12261_7-10209933-51.html
86
87
http://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/2009/09/08/european-fibre-optic-ftth-broadband-grows-fast-but-not-in-the-uk.html
88
http://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/2009/04/01/i3-group-preps-100mbps-fibre-optic-broadband-for-south-ayrshire.html
89
http://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/2009/04/23/i3-group-uk-government-must-commit-to-100mbps-ftth-broadband.html
90
91
http://telephonyonline.com/residential_services/news/lyse-tele-burying-fiber-cable-0421/
92
http://www.smithville.net/press
93
94
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS258167+06-May-2009+BW20090506
95
http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=177079f_src=lightreading_sitedefault
96
http://www.newschannel9.com/news/epb-978994-fiber-network.html
97
SECTION 8: Endnotes (continued)
40

98
99
100
101
http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/102375
102
http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/102474
103
104
105
106
http://gigaom.com/2009/05/05/cox-offers-50-mbps-broadband-it-aint-cheap/
107
http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/4048-global-broadband-connections-reach-445-million.html
108
https://www.arin.net/knowledge/about_resources/ceo_letter.pdf
109
http://bgpmon.net/blog/?p=166
110
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090430_ipv6_canada_about_to_score/
111
http://www.circleid.com/pdf/planning_guide_roadmap_toward_ipv6_adoption_in_usg_may2009_final.pdf
112
http://www.internetnews.com/infra/article.php/3825696
113
http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=178275site=cdnprint=yes
114
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/061009-verizon-lte-ipv6.html
115
http://www.h-online.com/security/ICANN-security-experts-criticise-DNS-redirections--/news/113584
116
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090402_comments_icann_studies_new_proposed_tlds/
117
http://www.internetevolution.com/author.asp?section_id=544doc_id=175392
118
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090508_icanns_new_gtld_timetable_good_bad_ugly/
119
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090701_who_needs_more_tlds/
120
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090703_what_are_tlds_good_for/
121
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090625_new_top_level_domains_software_implications/
122
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/09/696
123
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/E9-9409.htm
124
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/515zoozk.asp
125
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090622_careful_what_you_wish_icann_independence_bad_idea/
126
127
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hIQGJsq0bYNb7c1f6An929x1LFXw
128
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/broadband/251718/universal-broadband-pledge-gets-budget-boost
129
130
http://www.ispreview.co.uk/story/2009/05/19/overview-scotlands-25m-gbp-universal-broadband-coverage.html
131
132
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-289900A1.pdf
133
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-291012A1.pdf
134
http://www.pcworld.com/printable/article/id,165601/printable.html
135
http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/tables.html, http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/popclockworld.html (12/15/08 estimate)
136
Ibid.
137
http://www.akamai.com/dl/whitepapers/How_will_the_internet_scale.pdf
138
http://www.blu-ray.com/faq/
139
http://www.leichtmanresearch.com/press/081709release.html
140
http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/?ndmViewId=news_viewnewsId=20090602006376newsLang=en
41

Akamai®
provides market-leading managed services for powering rich media, dynamic
transactions, and enterprise applications online. Having pioneered the content delivery market
one decade ago, Akamai’s services have been adopted by the world’s most recognized brands
across diverse industries. The alternative to centralized Web infrastructure, Akamai’s global
network of tens of thousands of distributed servers provides the scale, reliability, insight and
performance for businesses to succeed online. An SP 500 and NASDAQ 100 company,
Akamai has transformed the Internet into a more viable place to inform, entertain, interact,
and collaborate.
Akamai | Powering A Better Internet™
For more information, visit www.akamai.com
The Akamai Difference
EDITOR: David Belson
CONTRIBUTOR: Jon Thompson
CONTRIBUTOR: Patrick Gilmore
CONTRIBUTOR: Alloysius Gideon
EXECUTIVE EDITOR: Brad Rinklin
EXECUTIVE EDITOR: Tom Leighton
Please send comments, questions, and corrections to stateoftheinternet@akamai.com
Follow @akamai_soti on .
Acknowledgements
©2009 Akamai Technologies, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Reproduction
in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written
permission is prohibited. Akamai and the Akamai wave logo
are registered trademarks of Akamai Technologies, Inc. Other
trademarks used herein may be owned by other companies and
are used for descriptive purposes only. Akamai believes that the
information in this publication is accurate as of its publication date;
such information is subject to change without notice.
International Offices
Unterfoehring, Germany
Paris, France
Milan, Italy
London, England
Madrid, Spain
Stockholm, Sweden
Bangalore, India
Sydney, Australia
Beijing, China
Tokyo, Japan
Seoul, Korea
Singapore
Akamai Technologies, Inc.
U.S. Headquarters
8 Cambridge Center
Cambridge, MA 02142
Tel 617.444.3000
Fax 617.444.3001
U.S. toll-free 877.4AKAMAI
(877.425.2624)
www.akamai.com

Akamai State Internet Q2 2009

More Related Content

What's hot (9)

Similar to Akamai State Internet Q2 2009 (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Akamai State Internet Q2 2009