Slashdot Mirror
Mark Cuban Calls on ISPs to Block P2P
boaz112358 writes "Mark Cuban, Dallas Mavericks owner, HDNet CEO, and noted gadfly is publishing on his blog that Comcast and other ISPs should block all P2P traffic, because as he says, "As a consumer, I want my internet experience to be as fast as possible. The last thing I want slowing my internet service down are P2P freeloaders." He complains that commercial content distributors instead of paying for their own bandwidth, are leeching off consumers who are paying for the bandwidth. As an alternative distribution method (at least for audio and video), he suggests Google video."
A major ISP in the city I resided in in Romania help alleviate demands on bandwidth to and from the outside world by just setting up a DC++ server for their customers where they could share music and movies with other people in the same city. Seems easier to do than trying to ban all manner of P2P traffic. Too bad that sort of thing would never fly in the U.S.
Bite my shiny metal ass!
Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
.. so this assholes logic is his traffic is better then mine? I pay just the same as he does for the service and as long as i use it inside the terms of my agreement he has no right to say anything.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Most people with 'CEO' before their name lean Republican. He probably thinks government should get off his back, and on to everyone elses.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
The same argument can be applied to voip and more recently internet television. But it's a logic stance for an established player with enough capital: they have the means to provide enough bandwidth to things in a traditional client-server way.
P2P is only in its infancy. More and more applications are being found for it. Joost is one example, where p2p is used in a way to allow a relatively small player to operate. New uses even bring bandwidth use down, keeping it local.
It would be stupid to kill these opportunities for the benefit of a few big players.
the pun is mightier than the sword
Excuse me? $46 a month for my Comcast connection is not exactly "free". In fact as far as I'm concerned, that's about $20 too much. Now if I had a free (as in beer) connection, I might give up my torrent rights, but as long as I pay for it (and pay dearly, including through taxes) I insist that I should be able to use it in whatever way I deem necessary. Whether I want to download the latest Fedora DVD, or a gig of porn - I've paid for the privilege.
Ok... so now paying customers who buy a service as it is advertised are freeloaders?
This is getting silly..... ISPs should NOT be advertising services they can not actually provide and then blaming groups of their own customers for their lack of infrastructure.
Block HTTP, FTP, NNTP too, that way the tubes will be nice and clear so that you can have a better internet experience. I'd be happy to forgo internet altogether; use my share to build him his own private intarweb.
Requiem for the American Dream
Sure one can probably block BT, but then how does one block TOR? other P2P protocols to come that will cleverly hide behind innocuous-looking web servers and use port 80 or 22 for traffic ? What about all the legal content delivered via P2P ?
This is a battle that cannot be won, unless the whole Internet is shut down. Most people in the content business would like to regulate P2P like TV or shut it down like unregulated radio, but unlike these media, P2P doesn't require more equipment or knowledge than ordinary citizen already possess in order to be able to broadcast.
The cat is out of the bag, and the clever ones will take advantage of it. The others will fight to the bitter end and lose, as always.
As a consumer, I want my P2P experience to be as fast as possible. The last thing I want slowing my internet service down are regular downloading freeloaders, only getting content from one source, and clogging up the tubes, rather than downloading different parts of my final file from a whole bunch of different (and potentially local) sources. Seriously.
From what I gathered, he's basically saying that a commercial company shouldn't have to force their consumers to use up their own bandwidth to download that company's product. It's slowing down the consumer's connection so that the company can save a few bucks. I can't really gleam whether he's trying to include noncommercial or personal P2P use in there, as he only states commercial or business use, but I don't see him pushing it that far. It's a good idea, but blocking all P2P traffic isn't the right step.
These assholes don't deserve the Internet. They forget that if it was up to them, none of this would exist. Who really is the freeloader?
I pay for my internet connection just like this CEO does.
As a billionaire, he is always right.
May Peace Prevail On Earth
I had assumed that Mark Cuban had to have at least two brain cells to rub together to strike it rich like he did with a dot com, but I guess it really was a matter of luck.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
What effect, if any, would there be on Mark Cuban's internet speed after blocking all P2P traffic?
I sort of assume he gets whatever speeds he pays for, regardless of the load other people are putting on their connections.
He complains that commercial content distributors instead of paying for their own bandwidth, are leeching off consumers who are paying for the bandwidth. Last time I checked it was everyone's personal choice how to use their bandwidth and if you don't use P2P then your personal bandwidth won't be wasted for those "leeching commercial content distributors". Also last time I checked I wasn't sharing a DSL line with my neighbor so what he or she does does not concern me in terms of bandwidth.
He "might" be complaining that if he wants something from those "leeching commercial content distributors" he has to bite the bullet and share some of his precious traffic with others...well, tough shit for you I'd say. How about instead of crying about crippling everyone's internet just because you don't like a service you go about complaining with the company that "forces" you to use P2P...or even better just ignore them and get your stuff somewhere else.
Also I find it amusing that this guy complains about other people wasting his paid/for bandwidth and then suggests to upload videos to google video instead...essentially suggesting wasting THEIR bandwidth...
He's high I say...
Here in Australia most plans are for so many bits each month. They are my bits as I paid for them. If I choose to use the 480Gbits I have purchased from my ISP for running a P2P protocol that's my business, not Cuban's, my ISP's or anybody else's.
Moving to Google Video... yeah I guess that'd help a lot. Let's centralize everything and see how well that works out for everyone.
Or wait... why was it that this P2P concept was invented again? "Distribute load" or something... difficult concept.
Try again Mark.
let him pay for the next tier of service. So I paid for my 1.5 Mbit connection, and he's complaining because I'm fully utilizing the resource and not letting him take advantage of my unused bandwidth? Who's the freeloader?
Which of you p2p users don't pay your ISPs?
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
Typical liberal asshole, clueless and willing to enforce his cluelessness through fascism.
It's a shame that it has to come to this, but FUCK HIM....
Well personally I think the Dallas Mavericks need to improve their front line ball-running and trade players in and out of the game more often if they are to be in with a chance this season. Also, if the Captain Maverick was placed in the middle instead of the front during the offensive plays, they could ensure more runs on the board by getting more stoppages in their favor.
Who are the Dallas Mavericks?
Indeed - maybe he should stick to whatever the hell he's good at, and leave the ISP stuff up to those that actually know what they're talking about.
"And then I visited Wikipedia
Last time I checked I also establish a peer to peer connection when I view a webpage, send an email, play a online game, etc.
P2P isn't just distributed content distribution (like bittorrent). And in fact, things like bittorrent improve the over internet "speed". Image if everybody was downloading their content from only a select few locations. That would slow everything down.
Broadcast.com slowed down my internets back in '99. I wasn't a user, but whoever was downloading 128k audio streams was being subsidized by my dollars.
and that makes you the internet god? Yeah, okay. Hey, buddy, try winning a championship and then come talkin.... jerk.
Never monkey with another monkey's monkey.
I want my torrent downloading experience to be as fast as possible.
Can someone explain to me why anyone should care about what Mark Cuban says? The guy lucked out during the dot-com boom when Yahoo stupidly gave him billions for a now defunct website.
He took that money and bought a bunch of toys, a basketball team, and appeared in some crappy tv. How this makes him an expert in technology is beyond me.
A troll trolling is by definition not news.
Because mail is peer to peer as well. And somebody is clogging the pipes with spam and really bad jokes. But hey, he is billionaire, so he should be right. And they should block your tube as well, because it is is clogging the pipes as well.
Internet was so great before 1993.
fuck mark cuban
This Mark Cuban guy should really talk to the people down at Star Fleet headquarters about his inability to coincide with the rest of the human race. Maybe Counselor Troi should hook him up the same way she did Lt. Barkley
WWPD - What Would Picard Do?
If all ISP's essentially "NAT'ted" every residential subscriber with no port forwarding. Receiving data on a TCP stream would work just fine, since you would initiate that, as would receiving data via UDP when it's on a port that the host computer made a previous recent request on (and most likely also only from the same IP).
Subscribers that need "direct net" connections would have to pay commercial rates, which would probably radically cut into how much P2P sharing goes on.
It wouldn't totally stop it, of course, but it would probably take a big bite out of it, as long as all the broadband providers did it so that switching ISP's wouldn't change things.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Did anyone else read the title as meaning that in order to block P2P, ISPs would need to mark calls to Cuba?
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
Dear Mr. Cuban,
Sir, sorry to hear about your troubles. Apologies for slowing down your internet connection. Did not realize porn torrents were interfering with your browsing experience. Will be more considerate in the future and look for alternate sources of hot girl-on-girl action.
Sincerely,
The rest of internet
cuban has thought of the fact that these telecos have squander all of our money away and have yet updated internet service. I find it funny that America is suppose to be the biggest badass country in the world and we lack on just about everything technology wise (except for when it comes to military needs). Other countries have way better internet than we do and we are so lagging behind.
Americans just don't care. They don't see what we "could" have and suffice what we do have. Cable, DSL, FIOS are all better than dialup 56k so we must not complain. worthless I I tell you.
For once I would love somebody from a corporation do something for the public and not for their own self interest. when will companies figure out that helping your customers out only attracts more people to their company and because of that you gain more business. They always seem to want to screw over the consumer as much as possible.
I don't know but a lot of issues can be solved but no one wants to put the effort into solving it.
All ISPs offer a "shared bandwidth" plan where they tell you that you will be sharing the bandwidth at the last mile, with your neighbors. And if you want to have fast guaranteed unshared access, they offer a dedicated "bandwidth connection" for a premium fee, where only you get the full bandwidth and if it is any lower than promised average, you can actually complain to the ISP and get it fixed, or even possibly sue them for not providing service as promised.
Mr. cheapskate bigshot CEO opted for the shared bandwidth option, where he was aware that his neighbors would share the bandwidth and thus his connection quality was dependent on their usage. He chose not to go for the premium dedicated line in order to save a few dollars.
And now the Greedy Bastard is complaining about why he is not getting the features of the *premium* dedicated service on his cheap shared bandwidth connection. And then he calls *others* freeloaders!!!
In a related story: "TiggertheMad, snarky nobody, and noted gadfly h8er is publishing on his blog that Comcast and other ISPs should block all Dallas Mavericks owner traffic, because as he says, "As a consumer, I want my internet experience to be as fast as possible. The last thing I want slowing my internet service down are Dallas Mavericks owner freeloaders." ZING!
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Just imagine how fast the internet would be if there were no content to view. After P2Ps gone, get rid of all these freeloading websites, emails, etc. and it will be blisteringly fast.
I think that if he could afford owning a sports team, he could easly afford a good quality high speed connection.
Also, if the guy removed all trojans and stopped contributing to Storm botnet, his experience could be better.
(in english):
And it's dirt cheap too. 100mbit both directions, full duplex for 200SEK a month, or ~$15.
Why yes, I AM a bastard
Blog -
Yes, the complaint is valid. I do want to get the bandwidth I pay for. But guess what? So does everyone else too. Whether you're streaming porn from xtube or sharing P2P, everyone has the damn same right to use the bandwidth.
What's wrong here is that ISPs want to sell you some fat pipe (to somehow justify being quite expensive for often very little service), but don't want you to use it. They expect you to be a "burst" user. Download a page in 2 seconds, then look at the page for 5 minutes, then flip to the next... and so on. Yes, that's 10mbit you get. For two seconds. And you get it because everyone else is also expected to do that.
They don't expect you to use those 10mbit constantly, permanently, 24/7. But that's as what it is being sold. They promise you 10mbit, but they don't want you to use it.
They're overselling by magnitudes, and of course that doesn't work out in the long run when people actually (gasp!) use what they're being sold. How dare they!
So instead of telling people how to use their internet connection (what makes your traffic more important than mine, btw?), how about telling ISPs to sell only what they got?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
That makes no sense. One day, he is venting against Youtube, calling it "cockroach in the kitchen" and telling everybody knows it is a safe harbor for copyright infringement; and now, he is suggesting that people should be using Google Video (that is, Youtube sister site). IMHO, he should get the Dvorak trolling award for every now and then stirring up the hornets nest for whatever reason he does it. Lame.
I think he's learning from the master. Be someone on the net, then get forgotten, then make some outragous claims and presto, instant fame again.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Being a Dallasite, I've followed Cuban both on the Interwebs and on TV during his DWTS stint. I saw his posts about P2P a couple days ago, and wrote my own rebuttal. Read it here. It's a little too long to post here in comments.
Thats funny. Last time I checked its called the Internet. Not Mark Cubans Internet.
I've tried both 4od and the BBC iPlayer, to find that these apps silently start a P2P service (Kontiki) on my computer and will use that to distribute their content, eating as much bandwidth as it can take. Notably this service has no dialog, task tray icon or any other obvious control mechanisms, and always auto starts at boot, re-enabling itself when 4od is launched if it is disabled..
So, if this is what Cuban means by P2P content distributors, I think he's right. Channel 4 is funded through advertising, and forces me to watch ads before any programs I download, while I pay a license fee for the BBC. And I pay for my bandwidth, which is also capped at 20GB/month, so neither unlimited nor free.
Personally I think these video player apps are nothing more than Trojan horses, which undoubtedly are going to cause both consumers and ISPs problems as they wonder where all their bandwidth has gone, or how they managed to exceed their bandwidth cap.
-- Mike
The level of accuracy shown by tagging this article 'fucktard' truly indicates that it's now time to come out of beta!
customer signs up for lets say 5mb download & 1 mb upload plan.
as a customer that person purchases equivalent of MAX amount of data which can be transfered per month at those speeds.
there is no good, objective reason why isp should declare that customer should not use this service continuously to the most extent possible.
otherwise it would be like buying tv subscription with cable company telling you - yeah even though you purchased this plan our infrastructure would collapse if all our clients would be to use tv 24/7 so we ask you to watch it less...
phriking ridiculous isn't it - corps covering up for the lack in infrastructure and selling you a service they know from the beginning can not be utilized 100%...
"They're overselling by magnitudes, and of course that doesn't work out in the long run when people actually (gasp!) use what they're being sold. How dare they!"
This reminds me of the issue with the telcos in the mid 90s. They had oversold their networks because they expected someone to pick up the phone, maybe once or twice a day, for 5-30 minutes and then hang up. Possibly for the rest of the day. Then, this thing called the Internet took off and suddenly, large quantities of people were using the telephone line for several hours every day. If that wasn't bad enough, this new breed of phone user demanded that the signal be clean and good. The industry had gotten into the habit of associating maintenance fees with profit. They hadn't upgraded most of their lines in the last 40 or so years, so why start now?.
Of course the customer won but, not until after telling stories of the doom of the telephone lines, accusations of "freeloading" sending threating letters to customers, excessive billing, canceling service and other fun stuff monopolies love to unleash on their users and the public before considering to change. It's nice to know some things never change.
Ah sweet nostalgia... Hey you, kid!... GET OFF MY LAWN!!!
"Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
About about No.
P2P is being used more and more, Blizzard uses bittorrent to distribute every wow patch and has done so for years now.
If anything, we need more real world legitimate reasons for P2P to prove its crazy to shut it down.
You can tell how powerful someone is by the magnitude of the crime they can commit and be able to get away with.
I'm near-certain I don't need to say this on this website BUT..... This poor fool has no idea does he? ALL p2p traffic? How about legitimate uses? Quakewars patches are available via bittorrent, the Anarchy Online client, all sorts of people who upload their own content that can't afford server bandwidth on their own service or through download websites. Sorry guy-I've-never-heard of, but who the hell are you and why does your malformed opinion mean something to me.
Yes, block all those nasty freeloaders who have paid a fortune to Verisign for the Kontiki P2P client.
If I was a Comcast customer, I would tell them, as I am now telling all the services I am a customer of:
BLOCK MARK CUBAN, PLEASE
As a consumer, I want my internet experience to be as fast as possible. The last thing I want slowing my internet service down are people like Mark Cuban who have no clue. Thats right, Mark Cuban is a clueless person who thinks he is able to tell us how we should use our paid for bandwidth.
Does anyone really think that ANYONE is online for free ? That all the bandwidth is consumed by a few people distributing illegal warez and content by P2P ? P2P is used by many individuals and organizations, not just pirates and waremongerers. Consumers have the right to use their Internet connection the way they see fit. P2P users are NOT subsidized by commercial entities (who pay no extra for hogging backbones and high capacity links and usually have gratuitous Flash animations on their websites).
Thats not to say there isnt a place for whiney dolts. There is. Comcast, Time Warner, etc should charge a premium to those users who want to act as gods and prattle on about taking away other peoples rights. After all, that is why P2P is used, right ? It reduces the load on content providers who already avoid significant bandwidth and hosting charges. The proven fact is those people who download MP3s buy more CDs than non-downloaders. Removing P2P will have a negative effect on the music industry.
Yes, getting rid of dolts is a good thing. That will speed up my internet connection.
So unless your service improves Comcast, I hope you file for bankruptcy.
Why doesn't anyone ever consider DSL in these cases? In most metros there are at least 2-3 ISPs. Unlike cable the last mile for DSL is a dedicated loop. Meaning that as long as you have enough bandwidth from the ATM termination area to the ISP's backbone you're fine. Even with AT&T in the bay area we don't have any problems. This means lower ping times, higher bandwidth, and more consistent bandwidth. If you guys don't want throttled move to DSL, you are less likely to experience this because the last-mile is yours, not shared between you and everybody else in the neighborhood.
As a matter of fact there are great differences on how we understand constitutional right and lack of freedom in the US and the EU. I dont really now if ppl in the US notice what the rest of the globe takes for granted, by thus meaning that there is a great lack of freedom in your country, Or you just used to it. In this topic, to be more exact there are no legal disclaimers that can prohibit a use of the internet and i do pretty much agree with anything said before. But the example of Sweden canot be easily adopted by other countries. The landscape and the demographics of a country play significant role in what kind of network can be established. In Greece for example where I live optical fibers would be out of the question except for 2 or 3 major cities.
This one is rich coming from a guy that invested in a BitTorrent wanna-be that was recently purchased by Akamai. I heard Cuban made most of his money back on that one.
Someone should call Mark and tell him what P2P is.
It is not a term for content, but a protocol for data transfer (aka mechanism)
Several games including the kiddie famous World of Warcraft uses P2P (more specific Bittorrent) for distributing patches to the players.
Why should providers take the load and traffic when 1000 or millions wants/needs an exact copy of the same data, when the load could be distributed worldwide.
Next Mark Cuban wants to ban Youtube for hogging the backbone of ISPs and say people should use Google Video instead?!?
What a surprise some rich prick is more or less against net neutrality.
If you're not leeching lots p2p related wares, why do you need a fast internet tube? Face it, broadband was invented for sharing files be they legal or not. :p
Mark Cuban is an idiot. You'd think that someone that made most of their money sending media over the Internet would at least understand how it works. TCP/IP itself is a "peer-to-peer" technology. Despite how many ISPs run their service, one of the overarching ideas of TCP/IP is that any machine can connect to any other machine, and if the other machine accepts the connection, can communicate. TCP/IP does not care which machine is the client or the server, and in some cases for some protocols, it is the server that connects to the client. So really, Mark Cuban is against the Internet as a whole, has shown that he is a crackpot, and can rightfully go back to obscurity where he belongs.
As everyone knows the Internet was set up for Business People and Sports Fans.
Once this is successful, the ISPs should go after the scientists using the Internet. What the hell are they doing? Computer Geeks should get the boot too. What do they know about 'puters.
Genesis 1:32 And God typed
"They're overselling by magnitudes, and of course that doesn't work out in the long run when people actually (gasp!) use what they're being sold. How dare they!"
Fair point. I've got an idea though. It's not original though, just a patch on another fraudulent system.
How about every ISP is required to join a national ISP. This ISP doesn't sell bandwidth to the public, just to individual ISPs. Let's call it the Federal Reserve Bandwidth ISP. But that doesn't mean it is owned by the government, it should be owned by Comcast, AOL and a few other member ISPs.
If there is a flood of p2p users on one ISP, the Federal Reserve Bandwidth ISP steps in and lends enough bandwidth to sate the users. In this way, we would prevent runs on ISPs from happening, shore up Fractional Reserve Internet Service Providing System, and all the sheeple would contendedly bleat away content with their constant 10mbit connections that they can use any time they wish.
If after a few years they start forcing you to use 28.8k modems with a mysterious all seeing eye logo... just shut up and download your porn, citizen, only terr'rists ask those sort of questions. You wouldn't want people to think you were un-American, would you?
If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
"As an alternative distribution method (at least for audio and video), he suggests Google video."
/. for quite some time - which honestly says a lot.
This is the most amazingly stupid statement I've seen on
So I'll look for my debian images etc on youtube... yessir.
Other than that, who is freeloading? As a consumer I pay for my bandwidth, I can do with it what I want. If I want to use P2P that is MY CHOICE, and this fucktard shouldn't be worrying about it. If he wants faster intarweb, pay more. Dumbass.
I have spoken'eth.
Mark Cuban is clearly a subscriber to the intertubes idea, as he don't understand anything about the internet.
Even if the ISPs could block all P2P traffic (good luck doing that on a global scale), it would just mean that the traffic would find other forms, encrypted trafic, ftp, IRC, usenet etc.
The only way to stop "illegal" data over the internet is to force everybody to use DRM, unencrypted data, have all date traffic monitored and verified to be "pure". Congratulation you just killed the internet (and made the data find other ways to spread that you can't control, radio, dark nets, snail mail etc.).
Carbon based humanoid in training.
censorship, internet, fucktard, clueless, trolling (tagging beta)
OK, I guess I get slashdot's opinion about this...
Hmmm, do you really want this? Think hard about this... It's a slippery slope...
What you are referring to is breaking of network neutrality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality).
******
The principle of net neutrality and regulations designed to support the neutrality of the Internet have been subject to fierce debate in various forums. Since the early 2000s, advocates of net neutrality rules have warned of the danger that broadband providers will use their power over the "last mile" to block applications they oppose, and also to discriminate between content providers (e.g. websites, services, protocols), particularly competitors.
******
So if universities do priorization, why not corporations, why not ISP's?
A slippery slope....
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
And not just software - p2p is critical to the ability of independent musicians to distribute downloads of their music. For example, Jamendo offers Creative Commons music from thousands of artists via BitTorrent and eMule.
I'm such a musician - I offer BitTorrent downloads of my music. If (Heaven forbid!) I got slashdotted, the torrents would keep me from being bankrupted by bandwidth bills, as would be the case if I only offered HTTP downloads.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
You're exactly right. Comcast should either not bother to filter any specific traffic or charge for all. Maybe a charge of $0.01 per MB either uploaded or downloaded would be more fair? Or you could adjust a price structure that affects p2p more -- All the download you want, and 0.05/mb uploaded. Of course up includes requests for web pages, filling out forms, etc.
:)
The thing is, if this were lucrative, Comcast would have done it by now. The market can take care of itself on things like this. I can guarantee that if Comcast went to "less than unlimited" access to the internet, Verizon DSL and FIOS would see an ENORMOUS jump in traffic.
If you're going to attack traffic on the internet, be prepared to attack VOIP, gaming and video conferencing, because they too are significantly impacting your bandwidth, and becoming more and more prevalent.
Fortunately for you Mark Cuban, you are in a position to test your theory. Open up an ISP in Dallas that specifically blocks P2P. See how it does. If it's as good a business model as you suggest, I suspect, you quickly be a wealthy man.
Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm
Mark Cuban = Part owner/founder of HD Net*
He isn't gunning for P2P because he actually thinks it's a bad thing, but because it has the potential to bring high definition programming to anyone with a net connection... which would directly compete with his HD cable network offerings.
It's be vastly cheaper to offern HD content over a 'secure' P2P application instead of building up the infrastructure or business relations in order to offer it through traditional channels.
*"The first all-high definition national television network"
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Anarchy Online, by providing their client download via bittorrent is freeloading on their users bandwidth to distribute their commercial product, rather than paying for their own bandwidth.
Blizzard does the same thing with their World of Warcraft patches, the patch downloader is based on Bittorrent, and it's solely to save Blizzard money by using their customers bandwidth instead of their own.
If more proof were needed that being rich doesn't make you intelligent, ethical or even more aware of your surroundings than your average flatworm, here it is. The best thing to do about a jackass like this is simply ignore him.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
fuck you, go crawl in a hole and die
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I pay for 24 GB per month. The form that 24 GB takes is my business.
Niether intensionalism, not consequentialism are enough to form a complete moral judgement.
Didn't Richard Stallman's outfit have something to do with it as well?
Wikileaks, no DNS
...but this should only be the blocking of commercial P2P like Joost, WoW etc.
Let's block all the http freeloaders also! Wasting my bandwidth!
As with most things it's the users fault. In an ideal world users wouldn't be able to use anything, therefore they couldn't break anything. Lets ban people from using the internet, that will make it faster and more reliable. P.S. That's a joke.
Just make bigger tubes!
p2p is a legitimate technology, but it is used in the wrong way by some people and this makes it look as a liability from the ISP's standpoint. The solution to end the discrimination against P2P is only one: To make P2P mandatory. For example, we could use a P2P overlay over HTTP rather than the normal HTTP/1.1 to make the Web P2P as well. This would shut off the mouth of everyone criticising P2P. I don't just say to camouflage P2P as HTTP - I suggest to make every Internet technology P2P-based. If you think a bit about it, it's really stupid to host anything on a central server and not use the power of the crowds to disseminate your Web site files or your new GNU/Linux distro. We really don't use the Internet at its full potential without P2P. In fact if everyone used P2P for disseminating webpages and ordinary Internet traffic, the Internet would feel much more speedy than it is now.
I'd note, he is not "sharing" his bandwidth with anyone else. P2P does not "magically" appear on his system. If his bandwidth is beig utilized, it is because he chose to opt-in.
So this guy is against any form of p2p promotions, such as downloadable (if you pay for it) movies (I purchased 300 in just this manner from the distributor, best $5 I've ever spent) music (indie bands rock my world) and even games (WARCRAFT! I want my Night Elf Mowhawk!) so this guy, with as much money as he has, hasn't a clue of how big P2P is. It is the future.
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
In other news,
P2P users call on ISP2 to block Mark Cuban.
Seriously, this guy reminds me of an opposition party. Whatever the majority says, he contradicts for the sole reason of getting attention. The dumber his statements, the more we flame over it.
Wasn't this asshat pushing P2P not so long ago with yet another stupid browser plugin called "Red Swoosh" ?
-Billco, Fnarg.com
It's not expensive. The quality is good (256kbit vbr mp3's). And they have everything from my favorite band: the relative unknown The Flower Kings.
But it's not for me, because I don't live in the USA, but in the Netherlands. So I am not allowed to download anything from them.
Mark Cuban, Dallas Mavericks owner, HDNet CEO Okay, do not support his team, do not support his firms, do not give him a single dollar of your money. This child also claims to be libertarian (he is NOT). Amazing to me how many poor and ignorant people equate acquistion of wealth with intelligence.
"As a consumer, I want my internet experience to be as fast as possible. The last thing I want slowing my internet service down are P2P freeloaders."
Mr. Cuban,
As a consumer, and I bet, an user of the Internet for a lot longer time than you (since 1988, like many on Slashdot), I would like to see people like you regulated from using your name and cash flow to ruin every piece of innovative and useful technology to ever be developed for the benefit of mankind.
While we're at it, since you are able to voice my opinions for me and get heard by a greater audience of people than I ever will, I'd also like to see the RIAA disbanded, the wait time on movie releases to DVDs drop to nothing (my home theater equipment is better than any damn multiplex), USENET to return to its place of glory as in the past, the Undernet to actually scale their service even more so I can chat even easier nowdays, and of course, the ability to actually work with an understanding set of sys admins at my local ISP who actually know how a DNS server works, how to set up sendmail with appropriate spam filters, and to work at a company where it isn't located across the street from a state university in Ohio where all the comp sci graduates think that Micro$erf products are all that have ever been in the wonderland of computers.
Finally, I want everyone to stop fighting over religion - Listen - everyone is wrong, okay? I want intelligent politicians (if there is such a concept) who are doing something more to help mankind than employ another illegal servant because they voted themselves a pay raise last week. I want the RIAA and the MPAA to let me watch whatever the hell I want whenever I want. I don't want to watch 'a Movie on Demand' and have to sit through three minutes of commercials before it starts. I want decent frozen pizza available again which has real pepperoni on it, not this 'I think it's made of chicken with pork flavorings injected'. I want decent healthcare, cheap; cheap petrol, the ability to do everything that Dennis Learhy spouts off about not being able to do in Demolition Man without everyone on the planet raising a fuss, and I'd actually like to go into work today and not have to listen to everyone there go on about the big crowds at the early bird sales.
So, Mr. Cuban, if you can make all this stuff happen with little fuss, I suspect that someone out there will agree with you and maybe some of us can curb our use of bandwidth for P2P traffic on the Internet.
"P2P allows a significant number of small-time content producers to get their content out to a lot of people. Otherwise, they could never afford it and only the big guys would get to play the game."
And this would make the big guys very happy. I wonder if our Mr. Cuban is a big guy or a small guy these days...
all the best,
drew
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
I think that's about what T1 costs. If you want honest, unlimited, 1.5mbs, then isn't that what you should pay?
In light of that perhaps we should conclude that all free thinking people should boycott his wonderful Dallas Mavericks and any of his other businesses.
It is a wonder he can't afford his own T3 or at least T1.
The big boys don't like it too much when the little boys get to play the game at all. They don't want the advantage their wealth brings them, they want the game all to themselves. No thanks.
all the best,
drew
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
You know what I really hate, is all these roads filled up with people who can drive from anywhere to anywhere else!
If we restrict people to only driving out of major cities, then we can transform every highway to both sides coming out of the city! Imagine how fast we could go, and how under-capacity all the roads would be!
Celebrate Excellence!
Turn it around. If he wants a dedicated online expirience why doesn't he pay extra? Why penalize P2P users for using what they've already paid for: Unlimited access. Why not make all these complainers pay extra for dedicated preferential connections?
You earned your initial spot on my shitlist by financing Redacted. You've bumped up a rung by this stunt.
"The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
1. Define P2P that is clear. So far nobody (that I've seen) has been able to do it in a way that everybody can agree.
2. As long as ISP's use the word "Unlimited" in their sales pitches I'll continue to bitch about caps transferred bytes.
I hate to go against the grain here, but ISPs also sell 10Mbit dedicated feeds -- read the fine print -- a regular high speed link is rated in peak throughput, not average or minimum. The ISP doesn't have to guarantee you any level of service, but you can pay for an SLA if you want. If you need or want to pay for a dedicated high speed link, call your ISP and tell them, and they'll give you an appropriate pricing scheme.
Honestly, I don't care if you want to saturate your $40/mo home bandwidth every second of the day, I do too, but when it doesn't work out that way, I consider how much money I'm saving by having a regular link instead of paying for dedicated.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
"As a consumer, I want my internet experience to be as fast as possible. The last thing I want slowing my internet service down are P2P freeloaders.",
This has been a point of contention between me and Comcast this last year. When people say P2P is bad and impairs the other customers experience. What exactly does that include then? Are we at the point where we have to state what services are available over the Internet and all other's are "bad"?
Do we need a "Internet Bill of Rights"? I thought the FCC already had made a statement on what customers are entitled to from ISP's. Which means Comcast (and other's filtering P2P) are in violation of the FCC's declaration.
Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
He said he didn't want P2P "slowing my internet service down". How would it do this? In fact couldn't the opposite be true depending on how its implemented. My point is that from the posts I've scanned no one has questioned whether it in fact is the case. I don't know. I tend to doubt it really. I mean on the net in general rather than the local network it would have a small effect on the users experience.
That guy's just got what was the issue with the Internet nowadays. Because legitimate websites like YouTube or Google Video don't weight down on the network's bandwidth use, it's illegitimate uses that do so! It's so simple, it makes me wonder why people don't understand that, it's not legitimate uses of the Internet that clogs it, it's only the illegitimate ones.
Or, to put more simply, P2P = piracy = illegal = bad = the root of all issues! Ever heard of Occam's Razor? It's the simplest explanation that always wins! Why can't you people just accept that?
You just got troll'd!
Definitely a Maroon Loon.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
And this is why why we need Internet connections that are more symmetrical, networks that are more open and a much more community centered, as opposed to a corporation centered approach to the next generation Internet. We have only scratched the surface of the possibilities.
The obvious solution is to have a low monthly connection fee, and then charge (a reasonable and small amount) per GB above a certain level. This is basic Economics - if you have an "all you can eat" price structure, there will be some people that will eat all that they can.
Furthermore what the hell can this dumbass possibly know about networks? I mean come on, he can probably barely manage to turn a computer on much less understand the complexity of networks and systems to a point where he would even be qualified to say "OOH BLOCK P2P EVERYTHING WILL BE BETTER!". I wish some major company would realize the potential of P2P as a money saving alternative to dedicated servers and start endorsing it so these crumby ISP's looking to save a few dollars will start hurting like they should be.
Theres my ranting for the month.
This is precisely what I expect from a commie pinko jackoff 9/11 conspiracy moron. Rot in hell you cockbreath!!!
"This clown is out of his depth."
Nonono. It is pronounced "ass clown".
But I agree. Heaven forbid there are people out here actually, y'know, PAYING for their own bandwidth.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
I use P2P to download Linux ISOs and a bunch of other FOSS software.
So unless he is willing to host every ISO and a SUPER fast server for free he can take a flying leap at a rolling doughnut.
Oh and Comcast must stop advertising Internet Access. Internet Access is more than just going to websites.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Mark Cuban = DICK He leaves out the fact we pay for a certain amount of bandwidth from out ISP's, and we should get what we pay for, and not be told what we can do with our bandwidth. Buy a new car, Oh sorry, you can only drive it on Tuesdays, and cannot exceed 35mph, because we have to make way for all the rich bastards that want to control us "little people" Really, Who gives a fuck what Cuban thinks.
Mark is a sales guy, and as such his comments are taken with the grain of salt that it deserves.
Yes indeed. We need little guy technology. We need equality technology. If your extra money is not enough of an advantage for you...
all the best,
drew
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
Why does Mark Cuban said on internet traffic even matter? Esp. when all he cares is how to make more $ for himself, he'd probabaly want to charge you $ just to watch NBA video online.
Dear Mark, Please STFU and go back to counting your money, so we don't have to put up with your ignorant, biased blathering about your perceived state of the Internet. If you can't at least shut your piehole when you're over your head, then you can just FOAD. Sincerly, talon_262
Ad astra per aspera (A rough road leads to the stars)
(perceived) problem: P2P content distributors are freeloaders.
Successful business person says: Find a way to profit by distributing content this way.
One-hit wonder Internet billionaire (Mark Cuban) says: Whine about it on my blog.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Mark Cuban used to call me at home, and I'd have to go to the office to reset his stupid Windows NT machines that did the sports radio broadcast encoding. I told him he should let us use unix machines for this. He had the influence over my boss to prevail with NT, and I really didn't appreciate Mark Cuban getting my home phone number and permission to call me at any hour. I was going to quit, but just in time, we got bought out by a company with stuff like written policies, documented equipment budgets, and the management did not accompany us, and neither did the sports/talk radio business, and neither did Mark Cuban.
He's a billionaire today, partly because of my willingness to jump at his command, and he never even thanked me.
I totally agree with Mark. All those freeloaders with their downloads, and their webpages and their email--get rid of them. Why should the bandwidth that I pay for be used to serve up ads and services that I DON'T EVEN USE TO SOMEONE ELSE! I noticed the other day that my neighbour was checking out trailers at Lion's Gate Entertainment. Downloading huge videos then tossing them like kleenex. How dare he! And don't get me started on the rest of Mr. Cuban's portfolio: leeches, the lot of them. Unlike P2P, they're not even giving me a reacharound: they seem to think that by just paying their connection fee they can send whatever the heck they like using Rogers' bandwidth on the pathetic excuse that Rogers' paying customers are asking for it. Forget that! I'm not asking for it so why the heck is it impinging on MY bandwidth. With greedy pigs like that it is no wonder that poor Rogers is completely unable to deliver the 1 mbps that I am paying for on their vastly oversold network.
"These Pro sports owners think if you pay $50 bucks to sit in the stadium and take a picture of the game you infringing on their copyrights"
And that's different than going into a movie theater with a camera how? Copyright or not, it's still a private facility. Not a hard concept to grasp.
Maybe music should be handled as advertising to get people to go to concerts, novel concept don't you think.
"By his logic, we shouldn't be using the internet for VoIP, either. Or watching videos. Or listening to streaming radio stations. Or watching and listening to podcasts. After all, those all consume a lot of bandwidth, even if it's not over P2P."
Amazing how a "news for nerds" forum understands protocols with the same level of understanding as it does economics and the law. Most P2P is set up with the "greedy" settings. It's not consume the bandwidth, but consume ALL the bandwidth. A bad thing on a SHARED network.
"And of course, EVERYONE who uses P2P is a massive multinational corporation that can afford massive bills. Does he not realize that P2P allows a downloader to receive content in return for a small payment of bandwidth to help redistribute the same content to other users, instead of monetary compensation?"
And back in the day this was called Usenet. With out the "small payment". Especially important when one has dial up.
"P2P allows a significant number of small-time content producers to get their content out to a lot of people. Otherwise, they could never afford it and only the big guys would get to play the game."
So before there was this miracle protocol, small time content providers weren't to be seen on the internet?
Well, as a consumer, I want my internet experience to be as enjoyable as possible. The last thing I want degrading my internet experience are whining bitches like Mark Cuban. Thats right, people who can't cope with society evolving are nothing more than whining bitches. The only person/organization that benefits from whining bitches are those that are trying to generate advertising revenues on forums and blogs and want to distribute the advertisments on someone else's bandwidth dime.
Seriously, I for one would be overjoyed if the ISPs would take their responsibilities and get their thumbs out of th<disconnected from internet>
ISP's have a real issue, in that p2p changes usage patterns dramatically. In particular, most ISP's assumed that people would use much more downlink than uplink, which is true for web browsing, email, usenet, etc., and built an infrastructure with 10x more downlink capacity than uplink. And they assumed that people would only be online occasionally, so they build enough capacity to allow people to have a great web browsing experience, but not all at once. But p2p users not only use much more bandwidth than others, they use it continuously, and they use as much uplink as downlink, so they're a terrible fit to the ISP's networks.
The ISP's should get beat up about being "cheap" - they all sell business grade service, with 100% available, symmetrical bandwidth, but it costs much more than consumer service.
The challenge for ISP's is to figure out how to sell internet service at prices that people will pay (cheap, flat-rate) but prevent the p2p usage from crushing their networks.
Some ISP's are building out more capacity, and provisioning symmetrical instead of asymetrical infrastructure. Verizon FIOS' 20/20 plan is a good example of this.
Deploying p2p caching servers. These servers listen to the p2p traffic, and when they have the data someone wants, they return it, taking load off of the internet connection, and giving users a better experience. This saves the ISP bandwidth, and gives users great p2p downloads, but caching servers are expensive (they have to have tons of fast disks to cache a reasonable percentage of p2p data).
Deploying traffic shapers. These servers listen to the p2p traffic and interfere with it in various ways, keeping p2p traffic below a set threshold. So p2p traffic can't overwhelm the ISP's capacity, preserving capacity for VOIP, web browsing, etc. There are lawsuits over this.
Making p2p smarter. The P4P Working Group (http://www.dcia.info/documents/P4PWG_Mission_Statement.pdf) is a forum for ISP's and P2P companies to work together to figure out a strategy for everyone to cooperate to make p2p more efficient. The early research shows that if the p2p network takes advantage of a "map" of the ISP's infrastructure it provides 2x the download performance with a 50% reduction in internet bandwidth consumption, which is an elegant "win-win" scenario. There's a technical writeup at http://www.dcia.info/documents/P4P_Overview.pdf. My hope (I'm the co-chair of the P4P WG) is that smarter p2p networks, supporting P4P, combined with caching servers, can lead to p2p being the most efficient way to deliver data to end users, not only for the content publishers but also for the CDN's and ISP's. If you'd like more information about the P4P WG, email marty@dcia.indo.
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
Linux is free software available in most cases over p2p to speed up dl and to prevent the main server from being over consumed. Fedora uses torrents, and its perfectly legal. if p2p was cut off, fedora would have to come off the main server, that would slow the site down and the downloads majorly. I think Debian also does this.
various other freeware travels on p2p.
P2P is currently the best technology we have for disseminating large files (like Linux distros) quickly to a large number of people. Centralized servers simply don't scale up like P2P does.
Cuban: Thats right, P2P content distributors are nothing more than freeloaders.What, does he think that ISPs aren't making profits because they're being bled dry by the P2Pers? P2P is a godsend to the ISPs -- it means an ever-increasing demand for their product. And it drives the ISPs to create faster and faster pipes for all of us. It's a win/win/win situation for everybody (including the RIAA, which gets billions of dollars worth of free advertising for their products).
Cuban: I think the position that "you pay for the bandwidth, so you can use it any way you want" isn't reality and very flawed when it comes to P2P. . . Bottom line, you are re-selling bandwidth.Let me get this straight: He says that it's "flawed" to buy something and then re-sell it? "Flawed" how? He has presented no argument to explain why bandwidth should be treated differently from every other commodity. At this point, he has descended into incoherence.
In the very beginning when Cox first had cable modem available, my neighborhood was one of the very few who got the service. Back then, you could setup your network to see all the machines that cox had on their network (all of the peers on your subnet). It was very cool. Though many of these machines people probably had no idea others could see them ( we are talking circa windows 1995) it was cool to be able to troll through everyones shared folders they had on the network. About a year later when cable modem relly started getting popular and expanding they stopped this 'feature/hack' and from then on no more viewing shared folders..
Image if they had kept that same policy in place, allowing you to see people on your subnet to share stuff? That would rock.
If you think about what he's saying, he's really saying he wants everyone else to pay for him to have a better internet connection. If you're on DSL, that means that your speed is limited only by what you download. Since he's complaining about other people taking up speeds, he probably has Cable. And if he has cable, everyone, even before massive P2P, has had the problem that once everyone gets on, the speed slows down dramatically. But he's rich so he can strut his stuff. Which basically comes down to, he wants a faster connection, doesn't feel he should pay for it. Instead of asking his ISP or a larger pipe or buying a larger pipe, he wants everyone to stop using bandwidth that he could be using... He wants us to pay for his internet...
please... let me sleep... a little more... yay, no longer annonmyous coward.
Um, excuse me i PAID for my bandwidth, i have a right to use it however i feel, as long as its legal.
Mr Cuban, you can simply goto hell.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
P2P can be a net benefit to the ISP by minimizing traffic outside of the ISP's network, but that's assuming the ISP has a rational network topology.
The fools at Yahoo, in between lighting cigars with $100 bills during the dotcom bubble, paid this useless blabbermouth for broadcast.com... then promptly tossed its technology and content in the memory hole.
The guy became a billionaire and contributed absolutely zip to anything. Every time his name shows up on this site I throw up a little in my mouth.
So he thinks I should get my ISO fix via google video? Does that work? I don't seem to find any of the latest linux releases there.
...
I can see google caching the ISOs and setting up a torrent to deliver them. But so far, I don't think they do that. Anyone know different? Where in google.com would I go to find out about it? Googling for it doesn't seem to get any hits
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Mark Cuban is the same asshole who financed the movie Redacted. In it, U.S. soldiers are portrayed as raping a young Iraqi girl then successfully covering up their actions (hence the title). It is a work of fiction. The closest thing in reality is that some U.S. soldiers are now in military prison for life for dong something similar.
Brian DePalma, the film's director, knows that the film does not reflect reality. His stated goal is to make the U.S. military look worse than it is by writing fiction that seems close enough to reality to be plausible to some people. U.S. ticket sales are essentially nonexistent and so far Cuban has grossed only tens of thousands of dollars from his distribution of this film. That is, Cuban has completely lost his ass on this film so far.
That said, the film will inevitably be used by terrorist groups as the propaganda piece that it is. What better way to recruit young muslims who are perhaps on the fence about the U.S. occupation of Iraq than to show a film where U.S. soldiers rape an Iraqi girl and get away with it. This will only serve to prolong the war that many people are already unhappy with to say the least.
Regardless of your opinion about the war, and even if you think it was the worst idea in history, and even if you are not a U.S. citizen, I urge you to think for yourself about what Cuban and DePalma have done here. Their actions put the U.S. and the world in more danger by fomenting anti-U.S. sentiment, particularly among Muslims.
After you've given it some thought I'd like to suggest one simple way you can let Cuban know that you don't like what he's done. If you attend a Mavericks game please bring a simple sign saying only "Support Our Troops." Do not go protesting in front of Cuban's office or other businesses. Do not do it to get your own 15 minutes of fame. Simply display a sign showing your support for our troops. If you want you can even write on it "I don't support the war but I do support our troops."
Guys like Cuban exemplify the elitism that often goes along with having more money than one knows what to do with. That's not to say that making a lot of money is bad. It's a reward for doing what the market wants and Cuban has been rewarded well for this. But unless one reminds himself to maintain his own humility one will quickly turn into an elitist asshole. Perhaps Cuban's huge financial loss on this movie will change his tune, but then again, it probably won't.
Quite some time ago, Blizzard changed over to a P2P system for the downloading of their patches for the game(most of the patches are in the 100-300MB range).
My first assumption was that they were simply trying to expedite the downloads to their customers. In hindsight, I wonder if they were simply passing the buck on the overhead associated with bandwidth consumption for those patches for MILLIONS of customers.
Am I now paying for those patches in the form of increased ISP fees?
As a consumer, I want my internet experience to be as fast as possible. The last thing I want slowing my internet service down are millionaire sports franchise owners selling craptastic trash and trinkets to people willing to shill for their team for free. That's right, millionaire sports franchise owners selling craptastic trash are nothing more than soulless, blood-sucking gunsel shysters.
So Mark Cuban has *another* opinion [and is clueless about contractions]. Who gives a shit?
[17] Leary, T., White, C., Wood, P. R., Bhabha, W. D., and Wirth, N. Lambda calculus considered harmful. In Proceedings
I nominate Mark "Mac'n'Cheese" Cuban and the Mavericks for supporting roles in the even more idiotic remake of "Idiocracy". They're perfect for the production and require zero prep or rehearsal time.
The AUP included by reference (and a copy enclosed with) in the contract I signed with Comcast states that I am not allowed to host any services with my (residential) internet service. Since P2P is both a client and server, technically, it isn't allowed. I don't use P2P, so I don't care.
Presumably, other customers of Comcast don't use P2P, either.
Therefore, if Mr Cuban is a Comcast customer, it is not P2P traffic that is slowing his internet experience. Perhaps it is all those Good-NonP2P-Customers(TM) downloading directly from his service that are tying up his bandwidth.
Don't try to out wierd me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you, free with my breakfast cereal. --Zaphod Beeblebr
So what you want is a worldwide circuit-switched network? No problem with 300 million lines (for only the people in the US, mind you) coming into your house to ensure that everybody is permitted to use what they pay for? No problemo. We're just going to need an initial investment of, eh, I don't know, let's be cheap and call it two million dollars from you and your tens of millions of neighbors. After that this service can be yours for the low, low price of $50,000 a month. This is the only way to guarantee that everybody can use their full bandwidth to any end point at any time.
Not attractive? Welcome to packet-switched networks, we're happy to have you. The entire point of them is that multiple people can use the same lines at basically the same time. Whether you like it or not, Internet traffic WAS exactly what you describe; short bursts of information. I suspect that in terms of time usage, it probably still is today--though that dynamic is certainly changing and will continue to change.
As another poster said, you're perfectly free to pay $300 a month right now for your very own dedicated bandwidth; it's called a T1 line, and they will be ecstatic to sell it to you. You'll note that a T1 is only 1.544 Mbps, though; somewhere in the vicinity of five times slower than your Comcast service is now for around five times the price. Or go for the best of both worlds and get a Frame Relay connection with a CIR. You'll probably get an even lower amount of guaranteed bandwidth, but the price will be less and they'll let you burst up to the full line speed depending on usage.
If your ability to use your full, dedicated bandwidth is so important to you, why aren't you paying for some T1s for yourself?
Yeah, it's rhetorical. It's because they're too damn expensive. There is a reason for that: The infrastructure can simply not handle everybody using their full line capacities at the same time. And it shouldn't. All that does is end up with an economically unsound and probably unsustainable system that is a cheaper version of circuit-switching everything; you've just cut out the infrastructure expense of laying more endpoints.
If that's what you want, well, okay... just be prepared to pay for it. More likely, though, you're the person who thinks $50 a month should buy you a dedicated 6Mbps line and ISPs are teh suxx0rs if they can't provide that.
Incidentally, I've been glossing over the fact that your statement was, itself, based on a fallacy: You are not paying for a dedicated connection if you're using Cable or DSL or similar services, as most people are. The fact that the advertisements say "6 megabit connections, faster than DSL!" doesn't mean that's what you're being sold. You want to know what you're being sold? Read your contract. I guarantee they will specifically disclaim any idea that 6mbps is your committed information rate, and probably even the idea that you have a CIR at all. There will be some language about terminations for high usage (though they probably won't do a good job defining what that is). Etc etc.
They are providing what they sold you. If you think you've been sold more than you have been, that's your fault. Caveat emptor.
That seems like a strange reversal.
It's quite clear that no one should care what Mark Cuban says about anything other than basketball.
In TFA, he makes the ludicrous statement that "I think the position that "you pay for the bandwidth, so you can use it any way you want" isn't reality and very flawed when it comes to P2."
No, it's not flawed. I use P2P to get most of my ISO images, and every bit of the bandwidth involved was paid for.
I paid for my download bandwidth. I pay for my upload bandwidth. Do did everyone else hosting any given ISO. All the bandwidth is bought and paid for, so no matter what Cuban says, I can do anything I want with the bandwidth that's not prevented by the AUP. I am fortunate to be able to choose from among several local ISPs, none of whom restrict P22. If one of them did, I'd switch to a competitor in a heartbeat and let them know why.
MC, this bird's for you.
as a paying internet p2p user i want MY experience to be as fast as possible without some millionaire isp owning freeloaders selling what they dont actually have. UNLIMITED DOWNLOADS at ADVERTISED SPEED.
hope nobody here caves into the hype coming from idiots like this
hehe - yeah let's turn the internet into another tv-like medium filled with marketing driven drivel so I can ignore it as well.
I REALLY do use P2P to download my Ubuntu .ISO's. You want to cut me out too?
Poor fans won't pay for music whether it is easily available or not.
So poor fans aren't real fans?
FalconShould there be a Law?
What I think will happen in the long term, if self-publishing or microlabels really take off, is that the price will slowly drop to a more reasonable level. Although music isn't a fungible good (it's not like people really shop for new artists based on price; ten tracks of artist X's music aren't worth the same to everyone as ten tracks of artist Y's), consumers are somewhat price sensitive. Success is going to be met by the artists who understand their fans, and deliver to them the music they want at a price they're willing to pay.
Artist can do what the Grateful Dead did. Deadheads were allowed, even encouraged, to record Grateful Dead concerts.
FalconShould there be a Law?
It provides a service to the artist, in that it helps to raise their work above the noise threshold of unsigned bands, and provide infrastructure and existing relationships to distribute product. It's not directly a service to you, but it has to be paid from somewhere (if that service is desired). If not from the buyer directly, then the artist would just be paying from their increased revenue.
But the net makes it relatively easy AND cheap to market music for musicians. A band could create an online profile on MySpace, Facebook, and or any number of other social networking websites. There they can offer clips of selected songs if not a compleat catalogue of all songs. Then lower bitrate versions can be downloaded while higher bitrate versions can be paid for then downloaded. If this isn't enough then there are more steps that can be taken to heighten net advertising. About the only thing a middleman may be able to that's worth it is setting up concerts, which is where many musicians make their money, not off of tape, cd, or download sales.
Buying from a label guarantees some level of quality control
Brittany Spears anyone? I don't really know about her music or singing but seeing as how I've seen quite a few negative comments about her on /. I used her as an example.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Concert tickets often go for $500 or more per seat
Boy, I don't know where those concerts are. Though it's been years since I though of going to a concert the last tyme I checked the price of tickets, to a Norah Jones concert in 2000 or 2001, tickets were less than $100. Inflation must of been really high since.
FalconShould there be a Law?
By his own logic, Cuban should be paying basketball fans for having to view ads at his game. They are slowing down the viewing experience and he wants everything to be as fast as possible.
A lot of these rich guys just want to have their cake and eat it too. As many of these stories that have been coming up recently, it would be good to know who they are trying to influence. What big decision is coming up soon?
.. so this assholes logic is his traffic is better then mine? I pay just the same as he does for the service and as long as i use it inside the terms of my agreement he has no right to say anything.
He has every right to say whatever, what he doesn't have the right to is to make demands of others and have them enforced.
FalconShould there be a Law?
That's exactly what happens in the real world.
Tuneless Joe's garage tape, anyone?
I have no idea what this means.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Just a while back came through a story in NYT about a new pact between the French govt, ISPs and the music industry to terminate internet access to users downloading stuffs illegally (I blogged about it too). The music industry just may take a cue from the development and may push for similar pact in other countries.
All ISPs offer a "shared bandwidth" plan where they tell you that you will be sharing the bandwidth at the last mile, with your neighbors.
Cable access is shared but DSL isn't.
FalconShould there be a Law?
As a consumer, I want my P2P experience to be as fast as possible. The last thing I want slowing my internet service down are regular downloading freeloaders, only getting content from one source, and clogging up the tubes, rather than downloading different parts of my final file from a whole bunch of different (and potentially local) sources. Seriously.
More than likely they pay for their connection just as you do.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Falcon Wolf? Did you just pick a few things you thought sounded cool and mashed them together?
No, I love both falcons and wolves.
FalconShould there be a Law?
More people can get cable than can get DSL.
In most metros there are at least 2-3 ISPs.
Though I have cable access, I get my service through a different ISP than the cable company.
If you guys don't want throttled move to DSL, you are less likely to experience this because the last-mile is yours, not shared between you and everybody else in the neighborhood.
Originally DSL was a dedicated connection but now it may be shared"
"Digital subscriber line History and science
FalconDSL service was first provided over a dedicated "dry loop", but when the FCC required the incumbent local exchange carriers ILECs to lease their lines to competing providers such as Earthlink, shared-line DSL became common."
Should there be a Law?
This one is rich coming from a guy that invested in a BitTorrent wanna-be that was recently purchased by Akamai. I heard Cuban made most of his money back on that one.
No, Mark Cuban made his money by selling Broadcast.com to Yahoo! Yahoo! paid $5.9 billion for it, in stocks.
FalconShould there be a Law?
If it's for a class any competent university could set up a local server for the professors to host files on.
One professor I had maintained his own server while I was taking his classes. He had the syllabus, class notes and assignments, and course schedule for each class along with a message board the students could use to chat.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I don't need shit from comcast. There are plenty of ISPs who want my business.
How many ISPs can you get broadband from though?
FalconShould there be a Law?
The challenge for ISP's is to figure out how to sell internet service at prices that people will pay (cheap, flat-rate) but prevent the p2p usage from crushing their networks.
Some ISP's are building out more capacity, and provisioning symmetrical instead of asymetrical infrastructure. Verizon FIOS' 20/20 plan is a good example of this.
A better example is Broadband Utopia. According to DSL Reports, Comcast Versus Broadband Utopia, Comcast was "forced to offer $90 bundle in fiber-fed region".
"Utopia is one of the nation's largest wholesale muni-fiber deployments - via which users can get 8-15Mbps symmetrical fiber for $35-$45 dollars through AT&T or providers like MStar. The project has put Comcast in the unfamiliar position of having to truly compete, resulting in rare price reductions. According to this local ad, Comcast is now offering broadband, digital cable, and VoIP service for $90 a month in all of Utopia's footprint."
FalconShould there be a Law?
If you're on DSL, that means that your speed is limited only by what you download. Since he's complaining about other people taking up speeds, he probably has Cable.
DSL has joined cable as a shared connection:
"Digital subscriber line"
...
Falcon"History and science"
"DSL service was first provided over a dedicated "dry loop", but when the FCC required the incumbent local exchange carriers ILECs to lease their lines to competing providers such as Earthlink, shared-line DSL became common."
Should there be a Law?
How inefficient is the P2P? . If the P2P overhead is low I'd have thought that P2P would cause fewer whole-network problems [when used to distribute movies] than Google Video because some of the P2P traffic would be confined to local parts of the network whereas the Google Video would be centralised. So Mr Cuban's point is invalid. . However, if the P2P overhead is high then switching to centralised distribution would decrease total network load. I think. . I have no idea how you'd determine the break-even point, but I'd love to see the problems that get thrown up by trying to force companies to stop using P2P for distribution.
What should happen is the cable modem should step back the
bandwidth as the demands of the line are used up. That is
how shared networks should work.
P2P is just another name for Internet usage.
If its not P2P its just TV. And I don't use the Internet
for TV. You do not have a Web sight on your Internet
service? Oh, I guess you are just watching TV.
Me I play Games online. As an example World Of WarCraft
uses P2P to down load patches. Some People could have
web servers on there Connection. Its is P2P that make
the Internet the Modern version of the printing press. When Google
is your pear, You discover that all of the Internet is
actually P2P. P2P is still client / server as is all
of the Internet. It just that some of use do not have
anything to post that others want, and your complaining
about the rest of us.
I get confused too much myself.
FalconShould there be a Law?