×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Mark Cuban Calls on ISPs to Block P2P

CowboyNeal posted more than 6 years ago | from the point-and-laugh dept.

Censorship 463

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."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

463 comments

One way to solve this (5, Interesting)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 6 years ago | (#21451897)

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 (5, Interesting)

Enoxice (993945) | more than 6 years ago | (#21451979)

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 (1)

Antony-Kyre (807195) | more than 6 years ago | (#21452185)

I'd rather see universities do bandwidth priorization, where file sharing receives the lowest priority amongst all traffic.

Re:One way to solve this (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21452203)

Luckily, nobody cares what you'd rather see.

Re:One way to solve this (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21452257)

How do you prioritize among lots of anonymous encrypted bitstreams?

Re:One way to solve this (4, Funny)

PHPfanboy (841183) | more than 6 years ago | (#21452295)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21452339)

when you say 'everyone wins', you mean the artists too right? who still get paid right?
or am I forgetting that its groupthink here to say "fuck the artists" still? despite the fact you can buy DRM free music from itunes, you guys still wont even pay a dollar.

Re:One way to solve this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21452129)

wowww... Mark Cuban is another IT guru :)

Re:One way to solve this (1)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 6 years ago | (#21452265)

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.
Yeah, that would never fly in the U.S., sadly, but I wonder if there are types of caching systems that would work, if they operated on the lower network levels and didn't care what type of traffic they were caching.

Maybe you could put together some system that was more general than HTTP caching proxies like Squid, that analyzed outgoing requests on all ports and protocols and the subsequent responses, and cached both. If you got multiple requests going out for the same piece of content, it could intercept and swap in the cached content. (I wonder what kind of stuff this might break...)

Just seems like perhaps there's some way to create a general "network cache" that would be protocol-agnostic, and would let a university or other organization reduce the bandwidth demands of P2P, porn, and other services that they can't be seen as supporting, while preserving their plausible deniability.

hold on a sec... (5, Insightful)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 6 years ago | (#21451911)

.. 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... (4, Insightful)

CoolVibe (11466) | more than 6 years ago | (#21451923)

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

Re:hold on a sec... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21452063)

He has the right to say anything he wants. But he is an ass.

Isn't Ironic....? (1)

TiggertheMad (556308) | more than 6 years ago | (#21452167)

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!

Just imagine how fast the internet would be... (5, Funny)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 6 years ago | (#21452189)

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... (5, Funny)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 6 years ago | (#21452229)

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.

Re:hold on a sec... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21452215)

So this tells me a lot about Marc Cuban -

1) He is an arrogant tool who likes to spout off about how he thinks the world should work.

2) He fundamentally does not understand how the internet works. The idea that somehow consumers are footing more of the bill for the internet than a company like google or another corporation that sinks gigabytes of traffic a second onto the net shows he doesn't understand the very basics of how bandwidth is paid for and the different way that consumers pay vs. content creators and traffic generating sites.

Re:hold on a sec... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21452247)

Kudos for whoever tagged this 'fucktard'. He had it coming.

Who wants to bet he likes getting a tax cut? (0, Troll)

damburger (981828) | more than 6 years ago | (#21451913)

Most people with 'CEO' before their name lean Republican. He probably thinks government should get off his back, and on to everyone elses.

P2P is only int its infancy (4, Insightful)

Basje (26968) | more than 6 years ago | (#21451919)

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.

Re:P2P is only int its infancy (1)

crowcroft (1193117) | more than 6 years ago | (#21452053)

there's LOADS of commercial pay-per-view p2ptvservices - this guy is a moron - not only is there money in this (ask zattoo) but also it reduces net load compared with server based content distribution - and p2p can be eevn more efficient than CDNs like akamai so ISPs should embrace them once people get this senior in a company, they lose touch with reality. many ISPs are looking to partner with p2p and own content value chain and cut out other folks from that market - i dunno, where do people get an education these days:)

Freeloaders? (5, Interesting)

melted (227442) | more than 6 years ago | (#21451925)

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? (-1, Flamebait)

Itninja (937614) | more than 6 years ago | (#21451983)

Just a bit of the devil's advocate here...

So, while you are downloading your 'gig of porn' (classy, BTW), what about your next-door neighbor whom you share a backbone switch with? He pays the same as you. Why should you get to hog unlimited bandwidth for perpetually downloaded greymarket material, why they spend hours on the phone with the ISP support wondering why their connection is so slow? Not that I don't agree with you, but that does happen...

Re:Freeloaders? (5, Insightful)

Nicholas Evans (731773) | more than 6 years ago | (#21452075)

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

Re:Freeloaders? (1)

eiapoce (1049910) | more than 6 years ago | (#21452245)

Air Transportation Companies are already fined automatically if they overbook. Why shouldn't Telecom Providers be fined as well?

Can you imagine the staff at the check in of a airport complaining with the passengers because they are freeriding the plane? I can't. This Cuban guy is against the consumer and in any way he shouldn't be elected to any public position (and I am thinking about the rubbish collector industry)

Enrico

Re:Freeloaders? (4, Insightful)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 6 years ago | (#21452077)

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

Re:Freeloaders? (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 6 years ago | (#21452359)

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

Mmm.. though I agree, I think he has a point... although his approach didn't quite nail it. It all comes down to a matter of whether or not it's 'abuse'. I don't really see P2P downloading as abuse, but I could see how beancounters could interpret it that way. Their infrastructure wasn't built to support it. So, people are working outside of the bounds they set, and it's interferring with them. (Ermmm.. Alledgedly, I should say. My bad.) Suppose the next great bandwidth sharing really saturates the pipe, what then?

Anyway, I'm not saying I agree with his point, I'm just having a little fun entertaining it. This sort of system really cannot be built in such a way to prevent unintended usage. We can expect bs mumblings like this as new technologies become ubiquitous. It's sad, but I doubt it's preventable.

Re:Freeloaders? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21452079)

Next we should disable people's cars who drive more often than the grandma next door. And what about those people who use the city parks every day?! I mean clearly everyone should behave *exactly* the same as everyone else. Who do these leechers think they are?

Re:Freeloaders? (4, Insightful)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 6 years ago | (#21452085)

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? (1)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 6 years ago | (#21452251)

The problem with that is the new definitions, and clauses contract becomes like a dictionary, in fact very much like a dictionary as the redefine words in common use to their version of contract language. It is far better to come up with common definition that they have to adhere to and at random intervals and across random locations they are tested. Based upon actual deliverables versus marketed offerings they are then forced to credit every customer for the discrepancy for that month.

Deregulations for corporations is just an invitation to act in a fraudulent corrupt manner. The only truth you can find in modern corporate marketing is when you know their revised corporate marketing version of the English language and words like best, quality, traditional, fast, reliable, stable and secure, and based upon the way they keep using them, those words obviously no longer mean what we think they mean.

Re:Freeloaders? (5, Interesting)

jackharrer (972403) | more than 6 years ago | (#21452099)

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.

Re:Freeloaders? (-1, Offtopic)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 6 years ago | (#21451993)

Precisely.

Ironically, one of Shuttleworth's own companies use p2p to distribute content - the fastest way to download an Ubuntu image is to grab the torrents.

Re:Freeloaders? (2, Informative)

Enoxice (993945) | more than 6 years ago | (#21452005)

Ummm... Mark Cuban [wikipedia.org] != Mark Shuttleworth [wikipedia.org]

Just FYI.

Re:Freeloaders? (0, Redundant)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 6 years ago | (#21452035)

Hmmmmmmn, clearly I'm on crack - or it could have been the large number of beers I consumed earlier this evening preventing me from RTFS...

I mean its not like Mark's a common name or anything! At least I can go back to respecting Shuttleworth (for the most part) again.

Re:Freeloaders? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21452025)

Learn to read?

Re:Freeloaders? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21452065)

Ironically, one of Shuttleworth's own companies use p2p to distribute content - the fastest way to download an Ubuntu image is to grab the torrents.
What does Mark Shuttleworth have to do with this? The article is about Mark Cuban, the douche that funded Redatcted [imdb.com] and was on Dancing With the Stars.

Paying Customer? (5, Insightful)

jythie (914043) | more than 6 years ago | (#21451929)

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.

Re:Paying Customer? (2, Insightful)

shark72 (702619) | more than 6 years ago | (#21452013)

"Ok... so now paying customers who buy a service as it is advertised are freeloaders?"

He means this in the sense that while you might pay Comcast a monthly fee for bandwidth, you're using that bandwidth to get free movies, games and music that are otherwise being offered for sale. Yes, I'm aware that some people use BitTorrent only for legitimate purposes, but he's addressing the other 99%.

"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."

Agreed. Since Comcast is a virtual monopoly in many localities, they could simply drop the "unlimited" plan and start selling monthly bandwidth alotments in tiers. This wouldn't be a popular decision among BitTorrent fans, but it would be more equitable.

Re:Paying Customer? (2, Interesting)

aussie_a (778472) | more than 6 years ago | (#21452091)

He complains that commercial content distributors instead of paying for their own bandwidth, are leeching off consumers who are paying for the bandwidth.
Sounds to me like he's complaining about that 1% actually.

Mr. Cheapskate asks for more. (2, Insightful)

thej1nx (763573) | more than 6 years ago | (#21452157)

Actually it is not the paying customers who are the freeloaders.



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!!!

Internet Experience (3, Funny)

easyTree (1042254) | more than 6 years ago | (#21451931)

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.

How exactly ? (2, Insightful)

HuguesT (84078) | more than 6 years ago | (#21451933)

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.

Re:How exactly ? (1)

Kpt Kill (649374) | more than 6 years ago | (#21452145)

I know how, and I also fear it will become implemented... Severely throttle all encrypted traffic.

Re:How exactly ? (2, Insightful)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 6 years ago | (#21452219)

Possible, but that's not trivial. In fact, it can be quite hard to tell an encrypted bitstream from a heavily compressed one of some unknown format (say, the Flash video codec-of-the-week). It wouldn't be hard to take encrypted data and encapsulate it in some other format, making it appear to casual inspection to be streaming video or VoIP or something else entirely.

They could make life on ports 22 and 443 and using conventional protocols like HTTPS and SSH really obnoxious, but you can't just ban all encrypted content, at least not easily and at very high speeds.

obligatory (5, Insightful)

sam.thorogood (979334) | more than 6 years ago | (#21451945)

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.

Good problem, bad solution. (1)

UberFlop (664133) | more than 6 years ago | (#21451947)

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.

Re:Good problem, bad solution. (1)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 6 years ago | (#21452161)

The problem with that side of his argument is that even if the companies do pay for the bandwidth then how does it get to the consumer's PC? You've still got to pay for an ISP (or struggle for hours/days on 'free' local rate dial-up) so you're still leaving the consumer to pay for it in part.

Also, even if they hosted it on websites rather than getting it redistributed for free by consumers then you're suddenly either going to get a load of extra content on You Tube/Google Videos and the like (which will require more servers to share the load) or they set up their own sites (which will need servers to run on). Either way it'd shrink the IPv4 pool faster than it already is.

Asshole (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21451957)

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?

Re:Asshole (1)

easyTree (1042254) | more than 6 years ago | (#21451971)

Now now, language plz. You forget that we only exist to consume his product. Anything which interferes with that is wrong and we should be ashamed.

Freeloaders? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21451961)

I pay for my internet connection just like this CEO does.

As a billionaire... (1)

SolitaryMan (538416) | more than 6 years ago | (#21451965)

As a billionaire, he is always right.

Re:As a billionaire... (1)

Vskye (9079) | more than 6 years ago | (#21452105)

As a billionaire, he is always right.
Have to mod this parent up. The guy is a "billionaire" ok? First off, I know that if I was worth that much I would have some serious bandwidth coming into my house, and wouldn't even bother with "cable" speeds. This guy is a jerk, cheap, getting payed to saying this for profit / attention, OR? (insert theory here)

Wow.. (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 6 years ago | (#21451967)

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

P2P vs speed? (1)

Kenoli (934612) | more than 6 years ago | (#21451969)

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.

Let me be the first to say... (1)

Loibisch (964797) | more than 6 years ago | (#21451973)

...wtf has this guy been smoking?

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...

Depends on the country... (4, Informative)

femto (459605) | more than 6 years ago | (#21451975)

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.

Re:Depends on the country... (2, Funny)

Boronx (228853) | more than 6 years ago | (#21452089)

It's the same in America, you just have to download 24 hours a day at the fastest speed in order to get all your bits.

Re:Depends on the country... (1)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 6 years ago | (#21452173)

Sadly here in America we like to play a Minesweeper-ish game with our bandwidth limits. It's out there somewhere, but you don't know quite where it is. So all you can do is download more and more, until eventually you hit it and get throttled or disconnected. Boom -- game over.

Even within a particular company there's no consistency; some people have been bumped or throttled by Comcast at 80GB/mo, but other people can do twice that forever and don't get into trouble. It's all based on factors that you as the consumer have no access or insight into, except perhaps indirectly (are you the only person in your neighborhood to have cable internet?).

Re:Depends on the country... (2, Funny)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 6 years ago | (#21452263)

We have a similar system in use. Called "fair use policy". Or, as we customers like to call it, "russian bandwidth roulette". You download and then suddenly you get angry letters and throttling. Next month, you do exactly the same, nothing. Then you are on vacation for a month, don't download anything, and you come home to be greeted by one of those letters in your inbox and your bandwidth slow enough to greet every bit and call it by name on arrival.

My guess is that this happens totally at random.

Google video requires no bandwidth (4, Insightful)

beef3k (551086) | more than 6 years ago | (#21451987)

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.

If he wants a faster connection... (1)

fugu (99277) | more than 6 years ago | (#21452003)

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?

Surprise, surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21452017)

Typical liberal asshole, clueless and willing to enforce his cluelessness through fascism.

Nonsensical (4, Funny)

_Hellfire_ (170113) | more than 6 years ago | (#21452021)

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.

Wtf is P2P? (1)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 6 years ago | (#21452027)

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.

Re:Wtf is P2P? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21452241)

P2P does not equal Client-Server Connection

The irony... (1)

cioxx (456323) | more than 6 years ago | (#21452029)

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.

So your team is on a 5 game winning streak (1)

XNine (1009883) | more than 6 years ago | (#21452033)

and that makes you the internet god? Yeah, okay. Hey, buddy, try winning a championship and then come talkin.... jerk.

Who cares? (1)

EjectButton (618561) | more than 6 years ago | (#21452057)

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.

Internet fame, the Dvorak way (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 6 years ago | (#21452275)

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.

Re:Who cares? (2, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | more than 6 years ago | (#21452301)

Can someone explain to me why anyone should care about what Mark Cuban says?

Sorry, I'm still trying to figure out why anyone should care what Bill Gates says...

-jcr

Somebody block that guys mail. (1)

leuk_he (194174) | more than 6 years ago | (#21452071)

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 [wikipedia.org] .

fuck mark cuban (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21452103)

fuck mark cuban

The Star Fleet View (1)

jflo (1151079) | more than 6 years ago | (#21452117)

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

What he suggests is theoretically possible... (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 6 years ago | (#21452125)

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.

Re:What he suggests is theoretically possible... (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 6 years ago | (#21452217)

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).
Doesn't stop hole punching and any decent NAT system these days has something similar to uPnP.

Subscribers that need "direct net" connections would have to pay commercial rates, which would probably radically cut into how much P2P sharing goes on.
Not that you would need "direct net" connections for peer to peer connections.

It wouldn't totally stop it, of course, but it would probably take a big bite out of it,
I guess it would take a month for all the bittorent software to all implement hole punching...

Re:What he suggests is theoretically possible... (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 6 years ago | (#21452287)

Then say good bye to things like IMs, internet telephony, a wide variety of online games and other neat toys that we got used to and like so much and that require you to not only initiate connections but also to receive.

Of course you could place a server in between where both have to sign in to be present, but first of all this would definitly increase traffic (and if I got that person correctly, that's his main concern, because it would cut into his precious traffic) and, well, servers cost money.

Apology (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21452147)

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

meanwhile (2, Interesting)

lordvalrole (886029) | more than 6 years ago | (#21452151)

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.

"I want my internet experience ...." (1)

Kvasio (127200) | more than 6 years ago | (#21452191)

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.

My ISP (4, Informative)

endemoniada (744727) | more than 6 years ago | (#21452211)

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

He's right in his complaint, but wrong conclusion (3, Informative)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 6 years ago | (#21452225)

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?

Re:He's right in his complaint, but ... (1)

TheReaperD (937405) | more than 6 years ago | (#21452347)

"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!!!

Will the real Mark Cuban, please stand up? (2, Insightful)

vivaoporto (1064484) | more than 6 years ago | (#21452233)

That makes no sense. One day, he is venting against Youtube, calling it "cockroach in the kitchen" [slashdot.org] 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.

My Thoughts on P2P (1)

punxit (1176281) | more than 6 years ago | (#21452303)

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 [punxit.com] . It's a little too long to post here in comments.

Hmm. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21452311)

Thats funny. Last time I checked its called the Internet. Not Mark Cubans Internet.

Maybe not all wrong (1)

Mike McTernan (260224) | more than 6 years ago | (#21452323)

Thats right, P2P content distributors are nothing more than freeloaders.

I've tried both 4od [channel4.com] and the BBC iPlayer, to find that these apps silently start a P2P service (Kontiki [wikipedia.org] ) 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.

the tagging system (1)

Bootle (816136) | more than 6 years ago | (#21452335)

The level of accuracy shown by tagging this article 'fucktard' truly indicates that it's now time to come out of beta!

amaizing way to escape obligations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21452343)

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%...

No, (1)

DiSKiLLeR (17651) | more than 6 years ago | (#21452349)

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.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...