Mobile/PDA About Us Advertise here


		User name	Password

		Not registered yet? Register here. Lost your password? Click here.

Browse by topic

News

Mark Cuban upset with P2P freeloaders

21 November 2007 13:32 by Rich "vurbal" Fiscus | 12 comments

In a blog titled "An Open Letter to Comcast and Every cable/Telco on P2P" Mark Cuban urges broadband Internet providers to "BLOCK P2P TRAFFIC , PLEASE."

Calling P2P users "freeloaders" he urged internet service providers to charge commercial rates to users Seeding or relaying P2P traffic. He said "The last thing I want slowing my internet service down are P2P freeloaders. Thats right, P2P content distributors are nothing more than freeloaders. The only person/organization that benefits from P2P usage are those that are trying to distribute content and want to distribute it on someone else's Bandwidth dime."

The outspoken billionaire arguably has an interest in freeing up bandwidth currently being used for P2P traffic. His 2929 Entertainment venture is working to implement a distribution plan that includes simultaneously releasing movies theatrically at the same time they're available in home video formats. No doubt he'd benefit from reduced P2P traffic as it would free up bandwidth that could be used to deliver quality hi-def content. However, rival content providers are testing P2P technology, most notably BitTorrent, for their own content delivery. Even the music industry is looking at the potential of a P2P distribution model. No doubt they're less than thrilled with his proposal.

That doesn't mean his arguments are without merit though. He points out that "P2P is probably the least efficient means of distributing content in the last mile." While this is certainly true, it may simply be a sign that P2P technology is in need of efficiency improvements. It's even possible that the impressive growth in the U.S. of internet providers like Verizon, whose networks are built from the ground up around broadband data transfer, and have bandwidth several times that offered by either cable or DSL internet connections.

Cuban is certainly correct in asserting that service providers need to assess their infrastructure, determine who's using it and for what kind of traffic, and divide costs fairly. However, it's not as simple to say P2P users should be penalized. Like any traffic, if transmitted at the right time it can make use of otherwise unutilized bandwith, and if shut down during peak usage hours don't have to be a problem for other users. If it becomes a widely adopted method for entertainment companies to distribute content it could arguably affect the majority of broadband internet subscribers.

Permalink to this article

FCC chairman ready to take on ISPs over net neutrality (25 February 2008)

FCC hearing Monday on ISPs' network management practices open to public (25 February 2008)

FCC to consider net neutrality and ISP network management (12 February 2008)

EFF details evidence of Comcast traffic management (29 November 2007)

Internet study shows P2P traffic reigns supreme in Internet (29 November 2007)

Comcast in more hot water over blocked content (16 November 2007)

Comcast gets sued for blocking BitTorrent traffic (15 November 2007)

Canadian ISP admits limiting P2P traffic (5 November 2007)

FCC complaint filed against Comcast regarding "network management" (3 November 2007)

Comcast employees put in the middle of traffic shaping debate (29 October 2007)

Comcast P2P filtering energizes Net Neutrality debate (26 October 2007)

Comcast P2P traffic filtering confirmed (19 October 2007)

Cuban predicts YouTube's demise (23 July 2007)

Mark Cuban sues YouTube (7 March 2007)

Billionaire backs P2P firms (28 March 2005)

« Previous news article
Copyright lobbyists push Presidential candidates for commitment

Next news article »
MPAA lawyer defends COAA anti-P2P provision

Post your comment

Discuss this article!
Pop_Smith (Senior Member) 23 November 2007 3:55
Well this is interesting, what about all the legit P2P activity such as Linux distribution, Skype and others? If you block all that stuff you are going to be in for a world of hurt. With how crazy people are I could see a class-action lawsuit coming against companies who block all P2P traffic. Sure, some of it is illegal content being passed around but not all of it. *Quote:* His 2929 Entertainment venture is working to implement a distribution plan that includes simultaneously releasing movies theatrically at the same time they're available in home video formats. Wait.... how could Mark reduce his bandwidth bill, which would obviously be huge if he is distributing movies? By using other peoples bandwidth via BitTorrent or another P2P application of course! Even if you make billions of dollars reducing the amount of money your company spends ends up making you more money in the long (and probably short) run and who wouldn't like with that? Peace [ + quote]
WierdName (Senior Member) 23 November 2007 4:45
I thought to be a "freeloader," you had to not pay anything hence the "free." [ + quote]
duke8888 (Junior Member) 23 November 2007 10:27
He has the nerve Mark is a Pittsburgh boy and he is money crazy so what does it matter to him. Mark go get a life since you got kicked off Dancing with the stars... [ + quote]
georgeluv (Member) 23 November 2007 16:45
man this dude comes out with a new argument like very month against p2p. give it up and work on making HDnet suck less, please. [ + quote]
armorthis (Inactive) 24 November 2007 0:37
I remember about 2 months ago I read on this site that he said he didn't really care about P2P sharing. In the news article it said that he said when he sees his company's movies on P2P sites he doesn't even do anything, "because they weren't going to buy the movie anyway". [ + quote]
edsrouter (Newbie) 24 November 2007 15:14
*Originally posted by armorthis:* I remember about 2 months ago I read on this site that he said he didn't really care about P2P sharing. In the news article it said that he said when he sees his company's movies on P2P sites he doesn't even do anything, "because they weren't going to buy the movie anyway". Yeah, I thought he was the one that gave financial support to Grokster during the infamous Supreme Court case. I thought he was totally for P2P. [ + quote]
pryme_H (Senior Member) 25 November 2007 14:52
First and foremost, I'm a die-hard Mavs fan. I don't understand why this would even be news-worthy to him. He would've probably never even cared until he ventured into movies business. This is a lame scheme. [ + quote]
YOBUZZB (Member) 25 November 2007 21:47
Mark, you really need to concentrate on getting players that are going to win a championship instead of taking a dump in the first round of the playoffs! This is what happens to people when they have more money than the sense that got them there! [ + quote]
jimmer (Newbie) 25 November 2007 23:33
he so rich, he can do whatever he wants... but yeah it would be nice if his Mavs and the so-called MVP can get out of the 1st rd of the playoffs [ + quote]
emugamer (Member) 26 November 2007 12:23
A billionaire? And he still wants to work? Man, take the money and go away. You've made your billions. Go build a nice house somwhere, start a family and help out some charitable organizations. How many families can you feed off interest alone? Get a hobby, save the environment, etc, etc.... Sick greedy individual. [ + quote]
xSModder (Junior Member) 26 November 2007 13:16
Go cry a ***king river. If you don't want to have slow internet (god forbid) go use your billions of dollars and buy your own private server. Leave the pirates alone. They're honest people, unlike yourself. XBOX: MS>Evox>MXM>Avalaunch>MXM>Evox PS2: BASE>Fliptop+Swap Magic 2.0>Swap Magic 3.3>Swap Magic 3.6>Memory Card Exploit+FF8>Cogswap+Slide Card>HD Advance XBOX360: BASE PS3: BASE WII: [SOLD] [ + quote]
borhan9 (AfterDawn Addict) 19 December 2007 19:10
For me this is all about some one getting the knickers in a twist. [ + quote]