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.

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

Right on, Dredd.

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.

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 ?

Is this a correct attribution Mr. Cuban ?

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.

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.

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.