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."

Comments

One way to solve this

[CRCulver]

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.

Re:One way to solve this

[Enoxice]

Sounds like what happens at various US universities. Students set up DC hubs, the IT dept. looks the other way, everybody wins. The hub keeps file-sharing traffic internal to the school, meaning the heavy traffic is on the intranet (where the school's infrastructure can handle it better than saturating their external pipe) and since no students are using KaZaa, there are no lawsuits.

Re:One way to solve this

[PHPfanboy]

Like you I also work for an internet QoS hardware manufacturer and I think this is definitely the right way to go...

Re:One way to solve this

[Simple-Simmian]

I use bandwidth for P2P and a lot of it. I also pay for the top tier plan that my ISP offers. If it's not enough to pay for the bandwidth I use they need to charge me more. This clown is out of his depth.

Re:One way to solve this

[budgenator]

Mark Cuban owns a NBA basketball team and has a flashcraptic web site that distributes video clips. 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; he'd gladly sacrifice the ability of 100 starving artists to make a buck so his team could get an 8 cent advertising impression. A profession sports team owner is hardly an unbiassed opinion on P2P and network utilization.

Re:One way to solve this

[untaken_name]

Either that or get their own Internet access and get off the school's network.

They should not use the access they're paying for, but instead should go pay another internet provider also? That sounds fair. And by fair, I mean utterly stupid. It's not like you get to choose not to pay your inet fee - most schools either require it or bury it in other fees anyway, so even if you DO pay for your own inet access, you're just double or triple-paying. How about when you pay for internet access, you get to... I know this is crazy... access the internet? If it's too slow for Mark Cuban, he's welcome to run his own, faster network and put whatever policies he wants in to place to govern it. He has enough money. But he, you, and everyone else can stay the fuck out of my internet usage, thank you.

hold on a sec...

[timmarhy]

.. 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.

Re:hold on a sec...

[CoolVibe]

Amen. This asshole isn't paying for my bandwidth, so he should shut the hell up. Arrrr.

Re:hold on a sec...

[Seumas]

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. 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? 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 really, if you are only using the internet for shell access and to get your email account and refresh drudgereport, then what the hell are you bitching and moaning about needing high speed for in the first place?!

And really, if an internet provider wants to give HTTP, POP, IMAP and shell traffic top priority, that's fine with me. That way those packets will not be affected should a heavy load of other use throttle the connection -- and at the same time, a bunch of people just using HTTP and shell accounts isn't going to slow down your P2P or streaming activities by any noticeable amount.

I don't see why all of this is a big deal. And I don't see why my solution isn't good enough. It allows the content of the supposed majority of users to always get through unimpeded while allowing all other content to cross the wires as the remaining bandwidth (which is supposedly the other 90% of traffic) allows.

Cuban is a hot-headed little prick.

Re:hold on a sec...

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

I think what he meant to say was that companies distributing products via the internet, using P2P are using the users bandwidth for free. That is not a choice of the user, but instead a dictated protocol by lets say a movie distribution company.

I'm not quite sure he meant that it isn't a users right to use P2P if they chose... but instead he wishes to prevent companies from using your bandwidth for free, for their monetary gain.

The attack on all P2P i think was a unintended target and just poor wording on his case.

I might be wrong on this.

My view is that P2P is a users right. They can do what they want with the bandwidth they pay for. But companies that charge you to download again lets say movies from them through a P2P system, should not expect to use my bandwidth for free, so that they can in return profit, and charge me for it.

P2P is only int its infancy

[Basje]

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.

Freeloaders?

[melted]

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.

Re:Freeloaders?

[Nicholas Evans]

Then, is it the customer's fault that his ISP is grossly overselling their capacity?

Re:Freeloaders?

[aussie_a]

Perhaps the ISP shouldn't oversell their bandwidth? It would result in higher prices, but it would be more honest.

Re:Freeloaders?

[Kadin2048]

They should get their gig of porn, too. In fact, gigs of porn all around.

Or at least to whomever's ISPs promised them service. That's the real problem here, the overselling of backhaul capacity and quoting of mindless 'burst' speeds rather than average or continuous transfer. What everyone is doing with their connection is irrelevant. If I'm downloading porn or watching YouTube, the effect on my neighbors is going to be basically the same (witness most recent 'imminent death of the net' story, which IIRC blamed video).

We need a little more truth in advertising in internet access. Let's make them advertise two separate figures, one for speed and one for transfer, for starters. And if they're going to do QoS or prioritize traffic, that needs to be disclosed, too -- not just that they're going to do it, but on what basis they're going to do the QoS and a breakdown of what traffic is going to get what priority over what else.

Re:Freeloaders?

[jackharrer]

And that's the reason why instead of whining about p2p traffic they should finally invest in infrastructure.

Do you know how long it takes to download film in Sweden? 15-30min. Why? Because somebody invested in fiber to homes and fast switches. That's the reason they have ethernet straight to home. Yes, ethernet socket at home, 10/10Mb, upgradeable to 100/100.

And of course everybody knows that if your infrastructure is designed properly most of the traffic will stay local - p2p client usually prefer local fast nodes.

So you pay for your 'net connection - it gives you possibility to download whatever you want, everybody can. You can download newest Fedora, but your neighbour probably sits 12 hours a day watching youtube. Same IMHO.

Paying Customer?

[jythie]

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.

obligatory

[sam.thorogood]

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.

Depends on the country...

[femto]

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.

Google video requires no bandwidth

[beef3k]

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.

Nonsensical

[_Hellfire_]

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.

Just imagine how fast the internet would be...

[Chrisq]

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.

Re:Just imagine how fast the internet would be...

[Kadin2048]

Are we allowed ICMP ping, so we can tell how fast it is?

Nothing else, just ping.

There's part of me that would pay for that.

My ISP

[endemoniada]

My ISP (here in Sweden) has this to say about P2P:

P2P-nätverk
Vi har inga synpunkter på att du använder abonnemanget för fildelning via P2P-nätverk. Våra tjänster fungerar mycket bra för detta. Om du laddar från andra datorer som också finns i Bredband2:s nät får du maximal prestanda. Om du vill kan du använda förkortningen [BB2] för att visa att du sitter i Bredband2:s nät. Tänk på upphovsrättslagen när du tar del av andras filer och själv delar ut.

(in english):

P2P Networks
We have no objections to you using your connection to share files over P2P networks. Our services work very well for this. If you connect to other computers that are also in the Bredband2 network you will get maximum performance. If you like, you can use the prefix [BB2] to show others that you are using the Bredband2 network. Please respect copyright laws when you download and share your files.

And it's dirt cheap too. 100mbit both directions, full duplex for 200SEK a month, or ~$15.

Why yes, I AM a bastard :D

Interesting comment...

[SerpentMage]

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....

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion