Welcome to p2pnet.net - The original daily p2p and digital news site. Always First!
REGISTER | LOGIN
Cool Stuff
MPAA News
Games / Consoles
News
Music
Movies
Reviews
Open Source
Mobiles
Advertising
Products
P2P
Off Topic
Freedom
Politics
Interviews
Security
DRM
Links
Kids and Kartels
Scroogle Search: 
Search
 
Web p2pnet   
Search: 
Search
Torrent Site Tracker
    Sponsored by
Frostwire
 
p2pnet
 


mp3rocket
 
Add real-time p2pnet headlines to YOUR site ! Click here to download our newsfeed code

Mark Cuban on net neutrality: ‘Flat out wrong’

p2pnet news view Freedom | P2P:- “The moment you hear someone warning about stark changes as a consequence of net neutrality, you know they’ve got it wrong,” says networking and protocol expert Robb Topolski.

He was talking about recent remarks from Mark Cuban who apparently believes the  net will slow to a pinful crawl if net neutrality becomes the accepted norm.

“Net neutrality is about preserving the Internet’s design for ISPs to forward packets toward their destination as fast as they can, without first inspecting the content for ‘management’ purposes,” Topolski told p2pnet.

“This is done in regulation by affirming the customer’s right to use the lawful sites, applications, protocols, and devices that they want to use, subject to reasonable network management.

“Mark Cuban is warning the Internet community that if the USA imposes net neutrality worlds, that the Internet will gridlock.  But his scenario not only ignores important facts about how the Internet works, it also ignores the fact that Net Neutrality has been the policy here in the USA since 2005 and has been the operating practice all along.”

Cuban predicts the net won’t grow fast enough to completely replace Cable TV for avid TV fans, “and I find reasons to agree with him,” says Topolski, adding, “But the reasons Cable TV is here for a while has to do with the limits and topology of our last-mile networks and unicast streaming and not Net Neutrality.”

Cuban recently had a few words on the subject with Daily Finance’s Jeff Bercovici and, “I’m a big fan of Mark Cuban, though I’ve never met him in person,” says Sam Gustin, also in DailyFinance.

“He’s a billionaire entrepreneur, he likes sports, and he’s not afraid to take some heat for standing up for his guys (the Dallas Mavericks pro hoops team),” states Gustin.

But, “reading the comments Cuban made about network neutrality to my colleague Jeff Bercovici earlier this week, I can only conclude that Cuban has either completely lost touch with reality or is just shilling for his own company HDNet, which offers all-high-definition TV fare via a slew of providers, including cable TV outfits,” Gustin says, going on  »»»

Of course, the idea that Cuban may be slightly “off” is hardly new: He’s racked up more fines for wacky behavior than any other NBA owner in league history. One of his own stars once said: “He’s got to learn how to control himself as well as the players do.” And some of his past pronouncements, such as declaring the death of YouTube in 2006, and the death of the internet in general in 2007, have proved to be way off the mark.

Cuban made his fortune at the height of the dot-com bubble by selling his company, Broadcast.com, to Yahoo! for $5.9 billion in Yahoo! stock. Since then, he has been an outspoken voice in American culture — with very mixed results. He once criticized the NBA’s manager of officials, Ed T. Rush, saying that Rush “wouldn’t be able to manage a Dairy Queen.” That earned Cuban a $500,000 fine and a day’s work serving ice cream at a Dallas Dairy Queen, after the company protested.

During the 2006 NBA playoffs, Cuban cursed out Spurs forward Bruce Bowen and was fined $200,000 by the NBA for rushing onto the court. After the 2006 finals, the league fined Cuban $250,000 for repeated bad behavior following the Mavericks’ loss to the Miami Heat in game five. More recently, the NBA fined the billionaire $25,000 for yelling at Denver Nuggets player J.R. Smith during a January game. In March, he apologized after telling the mother of Nuggets forward Kenyon Martin that her son was “a thug.”

Cuban’s latest pronouncement involves the new FCC broadband policy rules, announced Sept. 21. In a nutshell, he argues that a free and open internet will be “crippled by a glut of live and streaming video, which leaves disgruntled consumers with no other option but to get cable,” as MediaPost puts it. Thus, so-called “net neutrality” is a big win for Comcast, the nation’s largest cable company, as well as other cable providers.

In response to a question about his comments to Bercovici, Cuban calls his position “pretty straightforward stuff.”

“An open net is just that,” Cuban wrote in a Facebook message to DailyFinance. (He almost never does phone interviews.) “And if anyone has the expectation of TV over the internet, an open internet will kill that expectation.”

In his conversation with Bercovici, Cuban portrayed net neutrality by using the metaphor of Fifth Avenue, a major thoroughfare in New York. “Take away the special lanes for bikes and buses, take away the cops directing traffic flow, and everything gets very, very slow,” is how Bercovici paraphrased Cuban’s point.

Is that really so? Seth Johnson, an expert on broadband network management and coordinator of the Dynamic Platform Standards Project, says no. “All those vehicles on Fifth Avenue are already stuck there, and apparently they don’t even get an alternate route,” Johnson tells DailyFinance. “What he’s really describing is bad network management.”

“This is apparently the behavior Cuban expects,” Johnson says. “The network providers will put up this charade, forcing us to accept that we don’t get what we pay for, until we accept their traffic cops.”

Art Brodsky, the communications director of Public Knowledge, a D.C.-based group that’s pro net neutrality, also finds fault with Cuban’s comments. “Net neutrality does not eliminate network management nor does it take away the ability of network providers like Comcast to add capacity,” Brodsky says. “What it does do is prevent the people who can afford limos from getting that traffic lane of their own.” In other words, the FCC rules would prevent the broadband companies from favoring rich content providers at the expense of smaller startups and consumers.

Other critics say Cuban is just being grumpy because he opposes net neutrality. An open internet offering free, high-quality video content would surely compete with Cuban’s company, HDNet. Thus Cuban has been a big advocate of cable-based high-quality video, while disparaging web-based video.

“This is just sour grapes by Cuban,” says Robb Topolski, the network engineer who originally detected that Comcast was blocking consumer internet activity in May 2007 and now serves as chief technologist at the New America Foundation’s Open Technology Initiative, which supports net neutrality. Comcast has already voluntarily agreed to be “protocol agnostic,” meaning it won’t favor one type of content over another. That prompts Topolski to note that “the truth is, Comcast will have to change nothing to respond to the proposed FCC rules or the proposed NN legislation. It is already neutral.”

In the interview with Bercovici, Cuban goes on a slightly bizarre rant, theorizing that if someone in his neighborhood uploads a live streaming video of the family cat to the internet during a big sports event, “nobody in my neighborhood’s going to get the game. Just wipe it out, just like that.”

Flat out wrong, says Topolski.

“Streaming video protocols over residential broadband don’t work the way Cuban suggests,” Topolski says. “Residential broadband is rate-limited, so no one person can commandeer the whole neighborhood.” That is, because each consumer gets only a limited slice of bandwidth to use, taking over all the bandwidth on a given block, as Cuban suggests, simply wouldn’t happen.

A follow-up e-mail and Facebook message to Cuban seeking a response to these criticisms was not immediately returned.

This isn’t the first time Cuban has made grand pronouncements that turn out to be way off the mark. Back in September 2006, when I reported (correctly) that YouTube was for sale for at least $1.5 billion — contrary to the startup’s public statements — Cuban wrote a post entitled “The Coming Dramatic Decline of Youtube.” In it he concluded: “Youtube, we hardly knew you.”

Google bought the company two weeks later for $1.65 billion. Since, then YouTube has transcended the web to become a global cultural and political force.

And in an August 2007 blog post, Cuban declared that “The Internet is Dead and Boring.” He wrote: “The days of the Internet creating explosively exciting ideas are dead.”

Today, of course, Cuban has a frequently updated Twitter account.

Cuban was off-base those times. And he’s off-base now. It’s not that he’s ignorant, he’s actually a very smart guy. But in light of his present and past comments, one might conclude that he just doesn’t care about the internet. Or maybe he just really wants more cable carriage for his HDNet and simply views an open internet as some sort of competitive threat.

“I’ll leave the last word to my colleague Jeff Bercovici, who’s story noted that ‘as the chairman of a cable channel that derives much of its revenue from the carriage fees paid to it by cable providers like Comcast, Cuban will be a happy man if the scenario he outlines above comes to pass, and a less happy man if what he calls the “incredibly greedy people” who want to watch TV free over the internet get their way’,” Gustin concludes.

Follow p2pnet on Twitter.

1p Subscribe

DailyFinanceMark Cuban on net neutrality: Wacky, wrong, or both? September 26, 2009


Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It`s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php


Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.

HOME

11 Responses to “Mark Cuban on net neutrality: ‘Flat out wrong’”

  1. Irate Pirate Says:

    Cuban is clearly an opinionated ignoramus. I watched something on TV a while back regarding fiber optic cable. I can’t really remember many of the details other than being totally blown away by how much bandwidth one tiny single strand of the stuff can carry when multiplexed. As long as the businesses whose job it is to provide us with bandwidth are reinvesting some of their profits into network upgrades, my guess would be that the planet couldn’t possible come close to sustaining the number of humans it would take to eat up 100% of that bandwidth provided it came from fiber optic. I could be wrong, but I think it was somewhere around the order of fifty billion people (were currently at a world population of approximately six billion). Then you have to take the development of future technologies into consideration as well.

    I’m sorry but World War III will happen before a bandwidth shortage ever does. It’s pretty clear to the majority of us users, who pay good money for our bandwidth, that net neutrality is nothing but a good idea and one that needs to be implemented sooner rather than later. Without it there would be no incentive for businesses to innovate or reinvest, plus we’re already seeing some of the anti-competitive potential possible when bandwidth is artificially limited, quite possibly the real reason why some companies are against the idea. Without neutrality laws I fear these behaviors would become the norm.

    Imagine a world where your phone calls were not only time limited, but also limited by who you were allowed to talk to and what you were allowed to talk about. The only way a phone company could enforce that would be by listening to all of your conversations, the equivalent of DPI. Would you stand for that if they told you it was necessary because of some lame excuse, such as a lack of bandwidth? Of course not and so should it be with internet bandwidth usage.

    The internet has become an integral part of all our lives, quite possibly the very embodiment of freedom and liberty themselves. Net neutrality shouldn’t simply be law but a fundamental right enshrined under whatever bill of human rights your country uses. That is the way I see it anyways. I hope you all do too.

  2. Irate Pirate Says:

    I remembered something else about that show I mentioned. At one point they showed how much copper wire would be needed to match a single strand of fiber optic. That too blew me away. The diameter of the copper wire cable was as tall as a man!

    This got me thinking as to other reasons why some internet providers might be hesitant. The price of copper has been steadily rising and is quite expensive these days. The cost of replacing it all with fiber is also expensive, though fiber has steadily been decreasing in value which is probably why were seeing some ISP’s offer it straight to homes now. I can also see why the copyright industry hates it. Imagine downloading a high def movie in seconds instead of a day. The speed would make collecting IP addresses much more difficult, at least of those leeches who grab and run. Remember what it was like to go from dial-up to broadband? A similar jump from broadband to fiber would probably also make a lot more people inclined to do it. Still, if bandwidth congestion was really a truthful issue on the part of ISP’s, why would they rather artificially slow down current connections than create new ones that have higher capacity and speed? Again the cost of investing comes to mind. Personally I can’t see congestion being an issue if everyone could download a large file in seconds versus chugging away for a full day or two. Theoretically with real speed comes less time spent using that bandwidth, which in turn means having large quantities of it sitting idle for others to use. Sure downloading might become more rampant, copyright or no copyright, but hard drive space and a persons time are still limiting factors too, plus there is only so much to download. Most traffic should still end up being from the basics like surfing and e-mail. ISP’s claim that no matter how much bandwidth they provide, it will always see 100% usage. I ask how that is possible given they provide enough of it to match a given population size, which brings us to the fact that they’ve oversold what they currently have and again why they seem so unwilling to invest some of their profits to fix that problem.

    Sorry, my mind is very active today for some reason.

  3. mark cuban Says:

    Lets be clear. I have never said, nor do i believe the following.
    “Mark Cuban is warning the Internet community that if the USA imposes net neutrality worlds, that the Internet will gridlock. But his scenario not only ignores important facts about how the Internet works, it also ignores the fact that Net Neutrality has been the policy here in the USA since 2005 and has been the operating practice all along.””

    why make up something like this and assign it to me ? You cant make a better argument ?

    I did say that the last mile is the bottleneck. That the Cable companies stand to benefit the most from not being able to prioritize packets for specifics, like video because it prevents the last mile problem from being solved. Which is agreed with

    “Cuban predicts the net won’t grow fast enough to completely replace Cable TV for avid TV fans, “and I find reasons to agree with him,” says Topolski, adding, “But the reasons Cable TV is here for a while has to do with the limits and topology of our last-mile networks and unicast streaming and not Net Neutrality.””

    We can also talk about the the negative impact of P2P on the last mile has. Jitter anyone ? P2P is right up there with Net Neutrality in making life easier for cable companies.

  4. Dreddsnik Says:

    ” In the interview with Bercovici, Cuban goes on a slightly bizarre rant, theorizing that if someone in his neighborhood uploads a live streaming video of the family cat to the internet during a big sports event, “nobody in my neighborhood’s going to get the game. Just wipe it out, just like that.”

    Is this a correct attribution Mr. Cuban ?

  5. mark cuban Says:

    almost. It doesnt say it all.

    If I upload a 100mbs or higher bit rate file of my cat to a host local to my neighborhood node and get multiple people to watch it simultaneously, how bad do my neighbors buffer and get time outs at the same time ? Want to bet they cant watch the game and all those on the node suffer ?

    is that specific enough for you ?

  6. Dreddsnik Says:

    * sigh *

    Was just a question. You stated that some things in the interview attributed to you weren’t correct or
    clear.

    I found that statement interesting, and wished to be certain the attribution was correct before
    responding.

    No sarcasm was required.

    Considering the tone, I don’t feel that debating or responding to that point would be
    productive .. at all.

    It’s becoming increasingly clear why compromise is impossible.

  7. SteelWolf Says:

    It’s becoming increasingly clear why compromise is impossible.

    Right on, Dredd.

  8. mark cuban Says:

    my bad. happy to have a straight up exchange

  9. Dreddsnik Says:

    ” my bad. happy to have a straight up exchange ”

    Thank you Mr. Cuban, But I really don’t think that is possible anymore.

  10. Aaron Says:

    saying that Cuban has lost touch with reality presupposes that he was ever in touch with it in the first place, an assumption which I find highly questionable.

  11. Dreddsnik Says:

    In touch or not, It appears that he already walks in the door with a lot of assumptions about us,
    and a VERY large chip on his shoulder.

    There can be no ’straight up exchange’ with someone like that.
    The entire music and film industry carry themselves the same way.

    Thus, no compromise is possible, no reasonable exchanges can happen.

Leave a Reply

ONLY items referencing the post at hand, please. No links to personal sites, no personal attacks, trolling, freebie advertising, or off-topic posts. Thanks. And Cheers!

    Sponsored by
tek savvy