BitTorrent is DOOMED!
p2pnet.net news view:- The self-acclaimed guru of IPTV, Mark Cuban claims P2P and, more specifically, BitTorrent, is doomed. Apparently, conflicting clients, lack of knowledge, limited Internet plans, and bandwidth premiums are going to be jointly responsible.
Here`s Cuban`s argument: he believes from the business standpoint, BitTorrent and other peer-to-peer technologies are great. They save massive amounts of bandwidth and help efficiently distribute large media files, possibly even speeding up transfers. We agree with everything up `til here.
But now he goes on to say although content creators can profit from BitTorrent, users are getting screwed. Why? Here are his reasons.
# Conflicting Clients
# End Users don`t understand how P2P works
# The P2P model of seeding is a HUGE problem for those [ ] with bandwidth constraints or per bit or per minute costs
# There is a misconception that there is bandwidth savings for the end user
On conflicting clients he says, When multiple clients are installed on a PC, not only does that create confusion among users, its a `last installed, first in charge` approach. That approach and lack of respect for other clients will lead to user configuration problems.
Okay, Number One, if you`re referring to file associations, ie, the most recently installed app is associated with the file type, then this problem is not limited to BitTorrent clients. Everything from graphic editors (Photoshop, Gimp) to music management applications (iTunes, WinAmp) do this.
Secondly, if this causes confusion among users, then how do millions of people manage to get their music into iTunes and sync it to their iPods without accidentally having their mp3s added to the Windows Media Player library? This lack of respect isn`t so much about BitTorrent client developers trying to steal users from their competitors, as it is about how operating systems function today.
Onto Point Two. End Users dont understand how P2P works, and once they do, they get concerned about giving up bandwidth.
I hear BitTorrent transfers make up about one third of all traffic on the Internet these days. It seems likely that end users do, in fact, understand how P2P works. And unless their other online activities are hindered by BitTorrent or P2P, I don`t see users really having a problem with the uploads.
Most don`t even bother uploading once their file has been download, and since the majority of users download torrents from public trackers, they aren`t forced to either.
Cuban`s third point, The P2P model of seeding is a HUGE problem for those using wireless broadband with bandwidth constraints or per bit or per minute costs. People are going to wake up and find that they owe Verizon, Sprint, whoever a lot more than they ever thought possible because they installed a client on their Laptops. That could lead to these networks blocking the protocol.
This actually makes sense. The real problem here is miscommunication. In developing countries such as India, ISPs milk customers for money by charging them for every MB downloaded, and in some cases, for every minute spent online.
Some ISPs (Sify, for one) even lie about unlimited plans and have per-day limits (eg. 200 MB), which, if exceeded, cause the number of days the plan is valid for (usually a month) to be reduced every time the download limit is excedded. Someone I know actually ran up a bill of several hundred dollars because he thought he was on an unlimited plan, whereas in reality his ISP hadn`t processed his request to change plans. But as BitTorrent and P2P grow in popularity, users are quickly starting to demand `unlimited` plans.
If you look at the trend, ISPs are more likely to cash in on the P2P phenomenon and offer unlimited plans for a premium than start blocking protocols. And although per-bit and per-minute plans are widespread in developing countries, I don`t know how much of a problem they are to European, Australian and North American users.
Cuban`s last point is, There is a misconception that there is bandwidth savings for the end user. If you want to download a 1gb size file, 1gb of data will be delivered to your PC. There is no savings of bandwidth on the client side. In fact, the client is charged a bandwidth premium because after they have received the entire file, they are asked to particpate in the peering by delivering parts of the file to other users.
Guess what? The end user doesn`t care if he`s uploading bits while downloading. Unlike hosting providers, users incur no cost from constantly uploading data. It doesn`t matter, as long as they can go about their other activities. And unless they’re on a per-bit or per-minute plan, no bandwidth premiums are going to be charged. Also, no one is asking the user to participate in the peering (or simply, seed) once the download is complete. That is only a requirement of select private trackers.
When it comes to utilising BitTorrent in business, as part of a content store, I think Cuban`s looking at it the wrong way.
When the various BitTorrent stores (BitTorrent.com, Zudeo.com) are up and running, content creators are not going to be getting a free ride. Users are not going to pay the same price they do at conventional stores such as the iTunes Store and Amazon Unbox. Why should they? They`re acting as servers for content creators and are distributing content for no charge at all. But since money isn`t being deducted from their bank accounts, and seeding a torrent is not really affecting their web browsing, users are okay with uploading.
Keep in mind, this business model will only work if the rates at BitTorrent-powered content stores are significantly lower than conventional ones. In other words, users aren`t just going to let themselves be ripped off. If they feel they`re getting a raw deal, they`ll head straight to illegal torrent sites like The Pirate Bay and Isohunt. In fact, that`s what users are doing right now!
I`m open to the possibility that I`m dead wrong. I don`t know, maybe Cuban is right. Maybe BitTorrent is in fact doomed, and the video streaming technologies he pioneered with Broadcast.com in the 90s will make a major comeback.
I mean, who uses BitTorrent these days? Just a bunch of pirates, soon to be exiled to metal platform in the middle of the North Sea. Right? Right.
What do you think? Are the days of P2P over? Is the the balkanisation of BitTorrent imminent?
Torrentfreak – The Netherlands
Want to subscribe to p2pnet by email with Feedburner? Just click here.
rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php | | And use our own p2pnet newsfeeds for your site
If your Net access is blocked by government restrictions, try Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto’s Munk Centre for International Studies. Go here for the official download, here for the p2pnet download, and here for details. And if you’re Chinese and you’re looking for a way to access independent Internet news sources, try Freegate, the DIT program written to help Chinese citizens circumvent web site blocking outside of China. Download it here.
January 24th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
he has millions invested in redswoosh — a dodgy p2p company with ancient technology and NO revenue. he’s trying to save his investment from falling under. meanwhile bittorrent is blooming in the same way youtube is (which he also criticized). cuban, you suck and you’re wrong again.
January 25th, 2007 at 1:10 am
For example, there are still bandwidth limits at universities. Large universities have some of the best Internet connections, yet they insist that their users can’t use more than an unreasonable limit. My university’s bandwidth limit, for example, is 650MB per day. This means that, if I want to get the latest Ubuntu upgrade, I either have to download in daily shifts, or wait 6 weeks for the free CD to arrive (which quickly becomes useless as Ubuntu has a fast-paced 6 month release cycle). This is a serious problem for college students, who probably make up the bulk of P2P users in the developed world.
I also have no faith at all that these “BitTorrent stores” that you speak of will be any better than iTunes. That is, expensive prices and DRM’d content. Content industries are still stuck in trying to use their old money-making techniques that will never succeed, so long as there is someone willing to share the file in a way that bypasses the store. Look at PeerImpact and iMesh 6, for example. I still remain confident that the only way that the copyright holders are going to fix this is if they all register for a collective P2P “tax” that will be charged for every Internet account. Another “tax” can be made for all storage mediums and all data writers (basically fixing what the Audio Home Recording Act could not with its fees), and this would again be distributed to any copyright holder who wants to sign up.
February 22nd, 2007 at 1:07 am
Dear Cuban,
Would you please review new kind of p2p program called CUXLDEN For Lite Server.
I think this program is very simple and easy to use.
well I am not the computer expert, but this is something different.
cheers,
Carl