Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship The Internet

Mark Cuban Calls on ISPs to Block P2P 463

Posted by CowboyNeal
from the point-and-laugh dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mark Cuban Calls on ISPs to Block P2P

Comments Filter:
  • by CRCulver (715279) <crculver@christopherculver.com> on Friday November 23, 2007 @02:59AM (#21451897) Homepage
    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.
    • by Enoxice (993945) on Friday November 23, 2007 @03:13AM (#21451979) Journal
      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.
      • I'd rather see universities do bandwidth priorization, where file sharing receives the lowest priority amongst all traffic.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          How do you prioritize among lots of anonymous encrypted bitstreams?
        • by PHPfanboy (841183) on Friday November 23, 2007 @04:30AM (#21452295)
          Like you I also work for an internet QoS hardware manufacturer and I think this is definitely the right way to go...
          • I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that.

            Here is the way I see it. College universities can set it up so filesharing, and other heavy bandwidth activities, get lower prioritization. I don't know how this is done, if some universities do it by port number.

            Of course, there isn't a catch-all sort of thing. Of course some will figure out a way around prioritizations. For the most part, if a university does have that kind of policy and filters set up, I would hope students respect their decision. Either that o
            • by untaken_name (660789) on Friday November 23, 2007 @08:50AM (#21453343) Homepage
              Either that or get their own Internet access and get off the school's network.

              They should not use the access they're paying for, but instead should go pay another internet provider also? That sounds fair. And by fair, I mean utterly stupid. It's not like you get to choose not to pay your inet fee - most schools either require it or bury it in other fees anyway, so even if you DO pay for your own inet access, you're just double or triple-paying. How about when you pay for internet access, you get to... I know this is crazy... access the internet? If it's too slow for Mark Cuban, he's welcome to run his own, faster network and put whatever policies he wants in to place to govern it. He has enough money. But he, you, and everyone else can stay the fuck out of my internet usage, thank you.
          • by Simple-Simmian (710342) on Friday November 23, 2007 @06:08AM (#21452673) Journal
            I use bandwidth for P2P and a lot of it. I also pay for the top tier plan that my ISP offers. If it's not enough to pay for the bandwidth I use they need to charge me more. This clown is out of his depth.
        • by SerpentMage (13390) <ChristianHGross AT yahoo DOT ca> on Friday November 23, 2007 @06:05AM (#21452667)
          Hmmm, do you really want this? Think hard about this... It's a slippery slope...

          What you are referring to is breaking of network neutrality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality).
          ******
          The principle of net neutrality and regulations designed to support the neutrality of the Internet have been subject to fierce debate in various forums. Since the early 2000s, advocates of net neutrality rules have warned of the danger that broadband providers will use their power over the "last mile" to block applications they oppose, and also to discriminate between content providers (e.g. websites, services, protocols), particularly competitors.
          ******

          So if universities do priorization, why not corporations, why not ISP's?

          A slippery slope....
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by ArcherB (796902) *
            So if universities do priorization, why not corporations, why not ISP's?

            Because a university is a private network. Same with a business. Your house is also a private network.
            So if I do priorization in my own home, why not corporations, why not ISP's?

            Do you want the government telling you that you can't prioritize you WOW session over you daughters MySpace traffic?
            When there is only one choice of ISP in a given area, that ISP becomes a public utility, not a private university, company or home. This is whe
    • by Kadin2048 (468275) *

      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

      • by darthflo (1095225)
        IANAL, but building such a proxy might be very illegal. Comcast recently injected TCP RST packets into their users' BitTorrent traffic which was, IIRC, illegal because those replies were, of course, forged. Again, I'm not familiar enough with the U.S. legislation to judge if this may or may not be grounds for a lawsuit, but several seemingly insightful people thought it was.
        Apart from those legal issues I doubt the possibility of implementing a protocol-agnostic proxy. Firstly, a huge amount of AI would ne
  • hold on a sec... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by timmarhy (659436) on Friday November 23, 2007 @03:01AM (#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.
    • by CoolVibe (11466) on Friday November 23, 2007 @03:03AM (#21451923) Journal
      Amen. This asshole isn't paying for my bandwidth, so he should shut the hell up. Arrrr.
      • by rhizome (115711)
        IN OTHER NEWS: "Liquor Store Owner Calls for Shutdown of Bars."
      • Re:hold on a sec... (Score:5, Informative)

        by Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) on Friday November 23, 2007 @05:41AM (#21452547)
        I think what he meant to say was that companies distributing products via the internet, using P2P are using the users bandwidth for free. That is not a choice of the user, but instead a dictated protocol by lets say a movie distribution company.

        I'm not quite sure he meant that it isn't a users right to use P2P if they chose... but instead he wishes to prevent companies from using your bandwidth for free, for their monetary gain.

        The attack on all P2P i think was a unintended target and just poor wording on his case.

        I might be wrong on this.

        My view is that P2P is a users right. They can do what they want with the bandwidth they pay for. But companies that charge you to download again lets say movies from them through a P2P system, should not expect to use my bandwidth for free, so that they can in return profit, and charge me for it.

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward
          No. Read his article. He wans ALL p2p traffic blocked, and he doesnt't mantion any exceptions.

          He clearly doesnt't specialise in clear thinking though. He seems to think that blocking p2p would improve his own internet experience (at the expense of many other perople's of course, but that doesn't bother him). He seems to think that his own improved experience will come about because blocking p2p will reduce the amount of traffic flowing through the internet. The fact that all that p2p traffic is people downl
      • by Tuoqui (1091447)
        Not withstanding this asshole probably has a direct SONET fiber optic line connected straight to his house and is connected close to the internet backbone with the amount of cash he probably has. I think this guy should STFU and RTFM.

        Clearly this is just him being a supporter of IP laws and wanting to join the MAFIAA party line.
    • 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!
    • by Chrisq (894406) on Friday November 23, 2007 @03:56AM (#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.
      • 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.
        • by darthflo (1095225)
          How long, do you think, would it take for people to use ICMP echo's payload as a means of communicating actual information (as oppossed to just "abcdefg" as it seems to be common now)?

          Actually, I kinda like that idea. If traffic shaping is in place, ICMP probably would be in the low-latency, low-throughput group; perfect for "tunneling" IRC, IM protocols and the like.
          • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

            by cyriustek (851451)
            Actually, it has already been done.

            From the ISS X-Force Database...

            LOKI is a client/server program published in the online publication Phrack. This program is a working proof-of-concept to demonstrate that data can be transmitted somewhat secretly across a network by hiding it in traffic that normally does not contain payloads. The example code can tunnel the equivalent of a Unix RCMD/RSH session in either ICMP echo request (ping) packets or UDP traffic to the DNS port. This is used as a back door into a Unix system after root access has been compromised. Presence of LOKI on a system is evidence that the system has been compromised in the past.

            http://xforce.iss.net/xforce/xfdb/1452 [iss.net]

    • Re:hold on a sec... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Seumas (6865) on Friday November 23, 2007 @05:10AM (#21452433)
      By his logic, we shouldn't be using the internet for VoIP, either. Or watching videos. Or listening to streaming radio stations. Or watching and listening to podcasts. After all, those all consume a lot of bandwidth, even if it's not over P2P. And of course, EVERYONE who uses P2P is a massive multinational corporation that can afford massive bills. Does he not realize that P2P allows a downloader to receive content in return for a small payment of bandwidth to help redistribute the same content to other users, instead of monetary compensation? P2P allows a significant number of small-time content producers to get their content out to a lot of people. Otherwise, they could never afford it and only the big guys would get to play the game.

      And really, if you are only using the internet for shell access and to get your email account and refresh drudgereport, then what the hell are you bitching and moaning about needing high speed for in the first place?!

      And really, if an internet provider wants to give HTTP, POP, IMAP and shell traffic top priority, that's fine with me. That way those packets will not be affected should a heavy load of other use throttle the connection -- and at the same time, a bunch of people just using HTTP and shell accounts isn't going to slow down your P2P or streaming activities by any noticeable amount.

      I don't see why all of this is a big deal. And I don't see why my solution isn't good enough. It allows the content of the supposed majority of users to always get through unimpeded while allowing all other content to cross the wires as the remaining bandwidth (which is supposedly the other 90% of traffic) allows.

      Cuban is a hot-headed little prick.
  • by Basje (26968) <bas@bloemsaat.org> on Friday November 23, 2007 @03:02AM (#21451919) Homepage
    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.
    • by Sique (173459)
      The problem goes deeper:

      The amount of traffic to send remains nearly same, for a centralized model or for a P2P-model. P2P just has some additional traffic for organisation, but it is not so much that you could call P2P administrative traffic the bandwidth hog to end all Internet.

      So if Mark Cuban gets his way, and all traffic is only mail and http, then still his Internet Tubes[tm] are clogged by people downloading... just this time it's from YouPorn or AllOfMP3's granddaughter.

      When my university had only a
  • Freeloaders? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by melted (227442) on Friday November 23, 2007 @03:03AM (#21451925) Homepage
    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.
  • Paying Customer? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jythie (914043) on Friday November 23, 2007 @03:05AM (#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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by shark72 (702619)

      "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 blami

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by aussie_a (778472)

        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.
    • 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 ser

  • by easyTree (1042254) on Friday November 23, 2007 @03:05AM (#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 ? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by HuguesT (84078) on Friday November 23, 2007 @03:06AM (#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.
    • by Cheesey (70139)
      Because P2P can be disguised as other protocols, the only way to wipe it out completely is to centrally control the applications on every Internet-connected computer. The technology could be implemented incrementally over many years [slashdot.org]. Widespread use of free software is a good way to fight this, but widespread piracy just helps to motivate the political case for the "trusted Internet"
  • obligatory (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sam.thorogood (979334) on Friday November 23, 2007 @03:08AM (#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.
  • As a billionaire, he is always right.
    • by Vskye (9079)

      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)
  • by jcr (53032)
    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
  • by femto (459605) on Friday November 23, 2007 @03:12AM (#21451975) Homepage
    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: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Boronx (228853)
      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.
      • by Kadin2048 (468275) *
        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
        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by Opportunist (166417)
          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.
  • by beef3k (551086) on Friday November 23, 2007 @03:14AM (#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.
  • Which of you p2p users don't pay your ISPs?
    • Bet he thinks we downloaded our internet connection for free, too.
    • You're exactly right. Comcast should either not bother to filter any specific traffic or charge for all. Maybe a charge of $0.01 per MB either uploaded or downloaded would be more fair? Or you could adjust a price structure that affects p2p more -- All the download you want, and 0.05/mb uploaded. Of course up includes requests for web pages, filling out forms, etc.

      The thing is, if this were lucrative, Comcast would have done it by now. The market can take care of itself on things like this. I can guara
  • Nonsensical (Score:5, Funny)

    by _Hellfire_ (170113) on Friday November 23, 2007 @03:21AM (#21452021) Homepage
    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.
  • 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.

  • I want my torrent downloading experience to be as fast as possible.
  • 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.
    • 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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jcr (53032)
      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
  • 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].
  • 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

    • by Ash-Fox (726320)

      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 wo

    • 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.
  • meanwhile (Score:2, Interesting)

    by lordvalrole (886029)
    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 be
  • My ISP (Score:5, Informative)

    by endemoniada (744727) <nathaniel AT endemoniada DOT org> on Friday November 23, 2007 @04:04AM (#21452211) Homepage
    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
    • by delt0r (999393)
      I'm green with envy.

      Here in Austria we have similar prices to the USA. However by all accounts the bit torrent traffic is not throttled.

      Unfortunately I cannot get connected because the previous tenant at my flat did not pay his bill. So they say they will connect us up once we pay the 500EU outstanding, but don't worry you get 300EU back when you return the modem and router! So wanky ISP is not just a USA thing.
      • Yeah, there are more than enough wanky ISPs in Sweden as well. I'm just fortunate not to have to deal with any of them.

        Since I'm renting my apartment second hand, I got whatever internet connection was there previously. Thankfully, this is a "city network" that covers just the area I live in, but runs mostly through fiber and cat5 LANs. The fact that my entire building is on the same subnet means that I can't share folders or printers between my computers though. I get 5 IP addresses through DHCP, so a rout
  • by Opportunist (166417) on Friday November 23, 2007 @04:09AM (#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?
    • "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!"

      Fair point. I've got an idea though. It's not original though, just a patch on another fraudulent system.

      How about every ISP is required to join a national ISP. This ISP doesn't sell bandwidth to the public, just to individual ISPs. Let's call it the Federal Reserve Bandwidth ISP. But that doesn't mean it is owned by the government, it should be own
    • I think that's about what T1 costs. If you want honest, unlimited, 1.5mbs, then isn't that what you should pay?
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Opportunist (166417)
        Fine with me.

        The point is not that I want 500mbit for 5 bucks a month and if you can't do that go to hell because we want it. What I want is honesty. I want ISPs to sell what they can sell.

        Our ISPs currently outbid each other with promises of bandwidth. 2m, 4m, 8m... but what you really get is less and less every time. I had 2mbit, and I could use 2mbit. Then I was promised 4mbit, and I got 1.5mbit actually. Now we're at 8mbit and on a good day, I get 1mbit. I fear when they promise 16mbit, I can't get a c
  • by vivaoporto (1064484) on Friday November 23, 2007 @04:11AM (#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.
  • by DiSKiLLeR (17651)
    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.
  • by burris (122191) on Friday November 23, 2007 @05:06AM (#21452411)
    This one is rich coming from a guy that invested in a BitTorrent wanna-be that was recently purchased by Akamai. I heard Cuban made most of his money back on that one.
  • So no TCP/IP then? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MasterOfMagic (151058) on Friday November 23, 2007 @05:36AM (#21452529) Journal
    Mark Cuban is an idiot. You'd think that someone that made most of their money sending media over the Internet would at least understand how it works. TCP/IP itself is a "peer-to-peer" technology. Despite how many ISPs run their service, one of the overarching ideas of TCP/IP is that any machine can connect to any other machine, and if the other machine accepts the connection, can communicate. TCP/IP does not care which machine is the client or the server, and in some cases for some protocols, it is the server that connects to the client. So really, Mark Cuban is against the Internet as a whole, has shown that he is a crackpot, and can rightfully go back to obscurity where he belongs.
  • by MichaelCrawford (610140) on Friday November 23, 2007 @06:15AM (#21452695) Homepage Journal
    I'm not talking warez and pr0n - what about all the Free and Open Source software projects that distribute their installers via BitTorrent?

    And not just software - p2p is critical to the ability of independent musicians to distribute downloads of their music. For example, Jamendo [jamendo.com] offers Creative Commons music from thousands of artists via BitTorrent and eMule.

    I'm such a musician - I offer BitTorrent downloads of my music [geometricvisions.com]. If (Heaven forbid!) I got slashdotted, the torrents would keep me from being bankrupted by bandwidth bills, as would be the case if I only offered HTTP downloads.

  • by zotz (3951) on Friday November 23, 2007 @09:00AM (#21453405) Homepage Journal

    "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,


    In light of that perhaps we should conclude that all free thinking people should boycott his wonderful Dallas Mavericks and any of his other businesses.

    It is a wonder he can't afford his own T3 or at least T1.

    The big boys don't like it too much when the little boys get to play the game at all. They don't want the advantage their wealth brings them, they want the game all to themselves. No thanks.

    all the best,

    drew

Line Printer paper is strongest at the perforations.

Working...