P2P Part 3

I love the feedback on my position on P2P traffic. The well thought out "You Suck", " Or "the internet isnt that way", or "The ISP is selling me 10mbs, I can use it anyway I want."

Guess what, business models do evolve over time. You may want your ISP to be exactly how you want it to be. You may read into your experience with them anything you want. But it can and will change if the economics don't work for them. No amount of whining about "what the internet is supposed to be" will change any of that.

You can argue about how fiber should make it all the way to your bathroom if you want, that won't create the capital for ISPs or force them to spend it the way you want them to.

Maybe instead we should look at some realities and options.

So I've come up with a better way to get rid of P2P without calling for an outright disabling of the protocol. Maybe ISPs should just treat upstream bandwidth the way cellphone companies treat minutes. Give users an option on how many upstream bits they want to be able to use and during what times of day.

Charge more during prime usage times, less during off hours. For most internet users, like probably 99pct of us, it wouldn't make a bit of difference in our bills or consumption. In fact, many of us could opt for cheaper plans because beyond the family photos or videos we may upload every now and then, or the rare backup of our hard drives, most people don't consume much outbound bandwidth at all.

Of course that probably wouldn't be the case for users and abusers of the P2P protocol and applications. Imagine what would happen when WOW users or the rare bit torrent WAREZ or illegal music or video downloader got their bills and realized that they could either throttle their upstream bandwidth and wait forever for their goodies (if they could get them at all ), or open the throttle and watch free downloads start to cost a lot of money. Think that would be fun ?

How are they going to feel when they get a bill for upstream bandwidth for periods when they werent even downloading anything, but their PCs were busy acting as seeds for other P2P clients ? Think they will enjoy paying that bill ?

So I take it all back. DONT block P2P traffic. Just charge for upstream bandwidth usage like cellphone companies charge for minutes. That way if P2P really is more efficient, it will be a non issue. More people will use P2P and will never have to worry about their upstream bandwidth charges.

Or, if its less efficient, it will survive for applications where the owner of the application is willing to pay for the bandwidth the application consumes at both the host and destinations. It could also survive if off peak pricing for upstream bandwidth is cheap enough that its worth it to the user to pay for the bandwidth and take delivery of files during that low priced time period. A truly market solution. Imagine that.

Let the "you suck" comments begin.

[hammc]

Quick and easy isn't always that

The idea that you can make P2P go away isn't a worth while thing to proceed after. P2P or in the technical space known as point to point communication is used in different LEGITIMATE areas. Illegal File sharing isn't the only application of the popular p2p protocols (old style ftp could be considered a part of p2p file sharing just so you know).
Gaming apps use p2p as well as some companies like Amazon to distribute files. Why doesn't the RIAA go and figure out how they can help standardize digital rights management or get the heck out of the way? That s right they make WAY too much money on the confusion.

This smacks of anti-Net Neutrality and your fortune was made on the openness of the Internet. Don't byte the hand that feeds you Mr. Cuban, and go back to the drawing board.

[sn0wman108]

P2P does not stand for point to point. P2P is peer to peer and is completely different than point to point and FTP. I agree that there are legit uses of P2P technology but when you refer to it as point to point you make your argument worthless. I partially agree with Cubin in that charging people to upload might be the best way to stop illegal file sharing the only issue is for the legitimate uses. I worked in the IT department for a University that had no choice but to change its rules on P2P file sharing. They were able to implement a system that was able to distinguish the difference between illegal and legal P2P traffic with almost no false positives. The reality is if this problem isn't resolved then we will have very little music and video content produced in the future. I think the RIAA is a cartel and should be stopped but something does have to be done or else we won't have any music or movies made.

[BycBob]

Price of internet traffic

I think you need to look at what the price of internet traffic actually is. Not what you as a consumer think it is based on the price your ISP gives you, but the price the ISP actually pays to send and receive data to the internet backbone. Or just go to a co-location site and check the prices: It is cheap, so very cheap.

The reason it is cheap is that the internet is far from overloaded, even though you seem to think that p2p brings it down (pretty sure the backbone has grown more than the p2p traffic has increased its consumption of traffic the last couple of years). So how much of the price you pay to your ISP is actually the price of internet traffic (even if you are a hardcore P2P:er)? Probably not even a small fraction of what they pay. An immeadiate migration to 1gb fiber or free wireless will not happen due to the implementation costs - not a saturated backbone (some of us already have 1gb lines, though...). The implementation costs have not dropped as fast as the price of internet traffic, but will follow eventually.

[pdennison3]

maybe its time our companies increase the capabilities of our internet. our country has about the slowest internet speeds possible.in france they recently did a 3 way deal that movie compnaies have to provide more internet based media and people can have their ip disabled for illegal downloads.i think this issue needs cooperation from everyone not just people doin the p2p but the companies who hold copyright information as well.

[FO-FI_FO_454]

YO Mark - got in just under the wire - considered watching you on a rerun of DWTS, but was here, had some business to attend to, saw your name, read your post, and I'm sorry to say this is NOT a "U-SUCK" reply (though i am capable of much worse). Instead, Mark, I agree with you, I'm a former musician, retired, with an extensive library and 3 home made desktops, state of the art. I don't upload anything - why? DREAMS, DREAMS are shattered, kids waiting to be popular, A-List, Red Carpet material, gifted with Nature's Talent to sing, play an instrument, compose, arrange.......and conduct.

NO, I won't upload or download any music, it's too cheap especially when a user visits the most popular new CD website on the 'net. Tracks can be purchased at a net of about US$.40 each when the "deal" is closed, including ahipping and handling. HOW? Rip the music, store the music, done is less than 5 minutes, then sell the CD as used at a popular auction webiste. Simple. No, I won't go along with uploading or downloading or file sharing anymore, and besides, I never want to hear the "man" say to me "GOTCHA."

I agree with your post, though, you are much more adept technology-wise than I am...like Tevya, I'm just a simple man, and also an honest man. My biggest argument is portable storage devices that hold 10,000 .MP3 tunes - surely, no one can listen to more than 15 tracks per hour average, which works out to no more than 120 continuous tracks in 8 hours of non-stop listening - itsn't that DUMB?

The format should have been agreed upon universally to no more than 1 GB of storage for a portable music deivce, about 250 tunes - instead, there's portable coffins out there of music, new, old, which most of us (those who dig coffins) will never listen to, especially when YOU are DANCING, Mark. I'd rather ditch the player, listen to the background music and watch you dance - that's entertainment.

Don't know how you did it with the hip replacement surgery - I myself have been a candidate since 1982, have the insurance, but I'm chicken - don't trust surgeries unless I can hold a pistol to the chief surgeon's head as he operates on me. Now, with the new flick "AWAKE" well, I guess "Dem Bones, Dem Bones, Dem Aching Bones" will follow me to the grave.

YO - Mark, come back to DWTS - the greatest absolutely most sensational on-air network family oriented program I've ever seen - you made it even better, because, I know you - I'm 73.

Happy Chanukah Mark to you and your family - and perhaps this year, the MAVERICKS will succeed through the playoffs and be CHAMPS - if anything, after watching your feverish involvement with the "game" - you deserve it - later, you DO NOT SUCK.

[PunkCityKid2]

Limiting the amount of space on an mp3 player because you can't listen to all the music in one sitting? Fo_Fi_Fo you must live in a communist country because that is ridiculous. I have an 80 gb ipod and it is full. I love it.

Mark, I used to have great respect for you until I read this money sucking blog. The American public is already being raped by internet costs. If they ask for an absurd monthly fee, I should be able to use it as I please. As David Byrne put it, "Why should someone have to pay for music when they can go to a library and read a book for free."

There will always be ways around the system because the guys creating these p2p and other systems will always be a step ahead of the slow bureaucratic suits. Good luck in finding ways to suck more of the average consumers disposable income. I hope you get the cubs, so you can feel pain and suffering through 162 games.

[PunkCityKid2]

When I first saw this blog, I was wondering why there were only 6 comments. Now that I know mine has been censored, I understand why only 6 have been allowed. Six love messages for Mark. 10,000 censored. Let the public speak their mind against the suit.