Mark Cuban predicts 'net neutrality' will only help Comcast
Filed under: People, Media, Apple, Comcast
Cable companies like Comcast (CMCSA) have been among the most vigorous opponents of the so-called "net neutrality" plan the Federal Communications Commission unveiled this week. So who will be the big beneficiaries of the new rules, which prevent broadband carriers from favoring certain types of content over others? Why, cable companies like Comcast, of course.That's according to Mark Cuban, the Dallas Mavericks owner, HDNet founder and self-styled commentator on all things technological. I spoke to Cuban on Wednesday at the Times Center in New York, where he spoke on a panel about "the Future of Media" as part of Advertising Week. Cuban's prediction that Comcast will get a big boost from net neutrality struck me as counter intuitive, so I cornered him afterwards and asked him to elaborate.
Cuban told me to picture the internet data pipeline as Fifth Avenue: Take away the special lanes for bikes and buses, take away the cops directing traffic flow, and everything gets very, very slow. Even now, he says, watching relatively low-quality videos on YouTube often requires a pause for buffering. "So if it's already difficult to get the low bit-rate things without buffering, and the expectation is a true television experience, in an open-internet environment you can't deliver a true television experience," he says.
Moreover, Cuban believes that some internet users may compound the inevitable data-flow issues with intentional acts of sabotage.
"Let's say I hate the Giants and I'm a Jets fan, and I have a high-speed computer and a 100-megabit ethernet connection to my ISP," he says. "I can just set up a PC, hook it up, show my cat and stream it live and nobody in my neighborhood's going to get the game. Just wipe it out, just like that. And I have every right to do that as Comcast or CBS (CBS) does to distribute their live version of the game."
In this scenario, Cuban says, anyone who wants to have reliable access to high-quality, live video will have to subscribe to a television provider like Comcast. All those people now canceling their cable subscriptions in favor of watching all their TV via Hulu, Netflix and Apple's (AAPL) iTunes will soon change their minds. Speaking of which, Cuban predicts that the current abundance of free TV on the Web will be short-lived.
"Where content companies screwed up...they kind of shot themselves in the foot by creating an expectation of it for free," he says. "I think what'll end up happening is they'll yank most of it. The only content you'll see on Hulu is the junk they can't sell DVDs of or sell anywhere else, or the stuff that needs a lot of promotion."
Of course, it should be noted that as the chairman of a cable channel that derives much of its revenue from the carriage fees paid to it by cable providers like Comcast, Cuban will be a happy man if the scenario he outlines above comes to pass, and a less happy man if what he calls the "incredibly greedy people" who want to watch TV free over the internet get their way.
Why is Oprah going to cable? Hint: It's nothing to get teary about
Kisses from Hershey: Candymaker may court Cadbury with $17 billion bid
D-Day for Harry Reid: Can he wrangle 60 votes for Senate health reform bill?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
9-24-2009 @ 7:02AM
Ezilee Amused said...
It's going to be mighty hard to drive on the "Information Super Highway" when your in "Neutral".
Cuban's right. The Net Neutrality fiasco is a stupid as hell approach to "fairness" brought on by well-intended morons.
Imagine highways where there are no lane markers, speed limits, weight restrictions, and driving regulations.
Would you ever commute 30 miles to work if you knew there was a 20% chance every time you attempted it that you were going to be forced off the highway by convoys of Australian-style "road train" tractor trailers with strings of 5 overweight trailers going 90 miles and hour with no consequences for smashing your VW bug into a bridge abutment?
Its fair to consider, implement, and enforce policy for managing traffic on our roads (which are networks which also carry packets called cars and trucks) and the traffic on our data networks.
It is not fair to anyone except the mighty (which means it is not fair at all) to enforce the concept of no restrictions whatsoever.
In an effort to protect the weak, the Net Neutrality effort actually crushes them.
Write your congressman and senators and ask that they call for the replacement of the moron FCC chairman.
Reply
9-24-2009 @ 8:47AM
KELLI2L said...
Good points !!!
10-01-2009 @ 3:04AM
Gabe said...
the internet is neutral as is. A neutrality bill would preserve the present state of the internet against the plans of internet service providers to create a "fast lane" for high high paying web sites.
9-24-2009 @ 10:38AM
Tom said...
Would you people stop trying to compare networks to traffic jams. Data is nothing but 0's and 1's. There are no bikes, or trucks, or pedestrians, or sports cars, or HOV lanes. Just volume, nothing more, nothing less. The problem is when people have a 3Mbps DSL or cable connection, it gets congested. A few years from now, when we have 1Gbps internet connections, this won't be a problem. I'll be able to stream Multiple 1080p videos to my house, at the same time, from Netflix or Apple while video chatting in HD using iChat, all at the same time, and it'll only be using a small fraction of my Fiber to the Home connection (H.264 compressed HD at around 5Mbps, plenty of room with a network that fast).
Oh wait, cable networks aren't BUILT that way, they for some stupid reason share their connections (mark Cuban's Jets fan analogy), no wonder they want to charge for bandwith, it's pure greed on their part.
In other words, network congestion WILL NOT BE A PROBLEM if these companies actually decide to improve their networks. Just look at Japan or South Korea for proof of this. You can get 100mbps Fiber to the home for less than 50 bucks a month, and 1Gbps in a few years. Imagine how fast it will be by 2020.
http://gigaom.com/2009/02/01/by-2012-koreans-will-get-a-gigabit-per-second-broadband-connection/
Reply
9-24-2009 @ 12:25PM
Ezilee Amused said...
Tom,
I'm not really following your argument why networks with packets are different from networks with packets, er, cars/trucks.
Ever been to Silicon Valley? You might notice there are stoplights on the on-ramps to the highway. If you drove there you would notice that the timing on those lights is tuned to the traffic load on the network, er highway.
Traffic lights, stop and yeild signs, bike paths, commuter lanes, and load/lane restrictions are all real-life examples of traffic management that you should be familiar with. These things exist because transport carrying capacity of the roads is physically limited. Based on your post I'll guess you probably drive like you own the road, but in fact you share it.
Highways get congested, and data networks get congested. Ever heard of MPLS? How about TOS bytes and DSCP? These are real-life technologies in use today which (like Asynchronous Transfer Mode or ATM) have features designed to support or enhance traffic management because bandwidth is not unlimited, especially in 2G/3G/4G wireless and mobile data networks. It isn't stupid lazy greedy carriers that are the problem. It is ignorant, lazy policy makers (and the drooling masses which take what they say at face value and like it).
9-24-2009 @ 6:09PM
dusanmal said...
@Ezilee: That would be relevant if our network infrastructure was comparably up-to-date with available technology as our roads are and the sole problem was crowding.
Actual situation would be comparable with road authorities refusing to pave dirt tracks in Silicon Valley and blaming traffic congestion on those evil people who dare use cars instead of horse and carriage. Yet, those same road authorities wanting to make high-speed-maglev train from their home to their workplace with tolls on all of us on the dirt tracks.
Net Neutrality requirement will promote them to update technology for their own sake and have it available to anyone paying for Internet access. If networks were currently up-to-date (as in Japan, S.Korea, Sweden,...) congestion would not be an issue at all with traffic levels we presently have and there would be no need for manipulation-for-performance, situation would be equivalent to wide highways with few cars passing by at high speed.
9-24-2009 @ 2:20PM
davidrussellmoore said...
It's always good to keep such possibilities in mind, but on the face of it, this is only as true as saying that anti-trust laws help the largest corporations at the expense of small business startups. The best picture of why net neutrality is good in itself & will encourage best outcomes can be found on the well-recognized coalition ::
http://www.savetheinternet.com/index.php
Reply
9-24-2009 @ 2:18PM
Sonny said...
When any form of government controls any aspect of media content, it will use this control to further its own goals and to subdue that of its foes............Closer to Communism and Socialism!
Reply
9-25-2009 @ 12:52PM
Brian said...
Are you really this dumb? Do you even realize that what the FCC is trying to do is make sure there are NO controls over what you see, hear, and download on the net? Why don't you learn the definition of net neutrality before making uninformed idiotic statements.
10-01-2009 @ 3:06AM
Gabe said...
The FCC doesn't really have a great track record of standing up for the little guy. I think what he's saying is that it's a slippery slope.
9-24-2009 @ 5:22PM
Troy Davis said...
The only reason high demand for video would bring servers to a crawl is because of the industry-wide refusal to adopt smarter strategies for data transmission, like Mbone, or more recently, Abilene Network. Mbone required support at the router level, and allowed a single outgoing stream to be sent to multiple clients, copying the data to different routes as needed. Abilene Network is quite a bit more than that, but it's part of Internet2, requiring a switch to IPv6 first. This isn't going to happen any time soon.
If your company make routers or hosts sites, this means less bandwidth consumed, less routers needed, and lower bandwidth charges for servers that stream video. Which is probably why it's not discussed at all in this article.
We need to stop pretending that there's a scarcity of bandwidth on the Internet and start using technologies which will optimize that bandwidth.
Mr. Cuban should stop whining about Net Neutrality and start doing something creative to take advantage of the bandwidth crush he claims is inevitable. Somebody is going to make money solving that problem...
Reply
9-24-2009 @ 6:08PM
S said...
He went easy on Cablevision because he's in New York and the Knicks are no threat to the Mavericks. 76ers on the other hand...
Reply
9-24-2009 @ 7:08PM
C said...
Well it's nice to see all the big company lobbyists whining about why they should be the ones calling the shots. The Internet is not supposed to be controlled by anyone, thats how it was created and that how it should remain. There is an abundance of technologies ( e.g. bittorrent) that can be used to ease the load on key servers. If only the big ISPs would embrace and expand on these key technologies rather than throttling and banning their use. We could already have had low latency HD streaming video by utilizing P2P.
Reply
9-24-2009 @ 8:30PM
awol said...
you don't get more water out of a water hose if there are things in the middle of the hose... or someone putting a kink in it
Reply
9-25-2009 @ 12:07PM
Jeff H said...
Ezilee - This whole thing started four years ago by Ed 'no free ride' Whitacre. Its since been spun ridiculously by lobbyists and paid 'consumer interest groups' distorting the issues in so many ways, ignoring the fact that content providers AND consumers actually pay for bandwidth- backing off the impending 'exaflood' line that one of their interest groups was peddling only recently.
The internet evolution is turning voice and video into just bits, and these companies are understandably scared of this new reality. So keep an open mind and realize the arguments only reflect company interests to hold onto what they can ($9 callerID anyone?), not reality. The only way to fight this evolution to data is by making bits as scarce a resource as they can get away with. But bits aren't scarce, and neither are the 'traffic lanes' if you buy the highway analogy. In fact, they continue to get cheaper.
Reply
9-25-2009 @ 12:08PM
Ezilee Amused said...
Friends who favor Net Neutrality,
Bandwidth is limited, congestion can and does happen, especially at "edges" in the network.
Upgrading network access is not free, and in some cases prohibitively expensive or unavailable for many consumers.
Profit margins on data transport are already non-existent or razor thin.
It is easy to build a nice fast network if you didn't have one before, but once you've built a large infrastructure, it is very expensive to replace it.
Significant access network upgrades usually mean partial or complete re-cabling of hundreds of thousands of miles of existing cable plant. This is not cheap or easy.
Carriers upgrade their data networks from the middle out. They build new core router infrastructure and them move the older core routers closer to the edge of their network as they upgrade. The process is sensible, but its painful and expensive because the features which make good edge routers make them poor edge routers, which means new, slow, expensive, and limited development on the older core routers being moved to the edge of the network.
What I've listed are facts. I've spent most of the last 20 years as a data network design engineer.
So if you can dispute these facts (which you can't) or you want to argue they are irrelevant (which I'd love to hear why), then we can have a meaninful discussion. Otherwise you are simply speaking from opinion and emotion.
Net Neutrality is not a TECHNICAL issue, it is a POLITICAL issue.
And, oh, lets see, what has changed in the last 9 years to suddenly bring this issue to the forefront??? I'm going to say there was a change in the POLITICAL agenda of the FCC. That's another fact jack.
Reply
9-25-2009 @ 12:08PM
Ezilee Amused said...
Correction to last post.
In the sentence, "The process is sensible, but its painful and expensive because the features which make good edge routers make them poor edge routers, which means new, slow, expensive, and limited development on the older core routers being moved to the edge of the network."
The phrase, "the features which make good edge routers make them poor edge routers" was incorrect.
The phrase should have been, "the features which make good core routers make them poor edge routers".
Reply
9-25-2009 @ 12:08PM
Brian said...
Marck Cuban has no idea what the hell he is talking about. He is supporting allowing cable companies to determine which kind of traffic you can and cannot pass and at whats peed it happens.
He has no idea what he is talking about there are NO 100Mbps "Ethernet" Internet connections available anywhere in the USA to the consumer that are affordable.
The idea that an ISP who sells voice service and television should be able to determine at what speed your streaming video runs at whatspeed your VoIP runs is ridiculous. Do you really think they are not going to promote their own services by throttling their competitors traffic?
Normally I like Mark Cuban but in this case it is painfully obvious he has no idea what he is talking about.
Net neutrality is good, what people do not understand is that this is really a fight by the major ISP's to try and make sure they do not have to expand their infrastructure without charging the common consumer a fortune.
Also,
I am not sure what kind of S**tty connection he has but I am using cheap AT&T 6Mbps DSL and my wife and I can play our MMORPG's, download, and watch LIVE streaming video all at the same time and there is no BUFFERING. The reason for this is that live video does not buffer.
Sure youtube videos buffer, but that is due to the fact that they are NOT streaming.
The onyl people who fight net neutrality are the morons who have no vlue what they are talking about.
Reply
9-25-2009 @ 11:55PM
ezilee amused said...
Brian says,
"...this is really a fight by the major ISP's to try and make sure they do not have to expand their infrastructure without charging the common consumer a fortune."
Brian,
Are you suggesting the ISPs should expand their infrastructure for free?
How about if you pay more for your existing service without any additional benefit? Does that sound fair to you? Probably not. People seem to object to parting with their money if they're getting nothing in return. But that would be OK if that happened to the major ISPs, right?
You are correct about one point though. You either allow traffic management, or you pay more for the same performance you enjoy now. And unfortunately for those who can't or won't pay, or couldn't even if they wanted to because they're using a 2G/3G/4G wireless data network, or in a rural location, they'll just suffer regardless of the pricing issue.
What is extraordinarily sad about Net Neutrality is that it is based, I think, on fear. The only people I know who've been restriced, or asked to pay more for their usage, were people who were abusing the network.
Somewhere along the way some hippie freak fools got the idea that the Internet should be unrestricted and free. Where the hell do ideas like this come from? What in life besides air and death are free? Do we expect to drive cars for free? Do we expect to watch cable TV for free? Do we expect to use phone service for free? Do we expect electricity, gas, water, sewage, trash removal, food, clothing, and shelter for free? Maybe if we're prison inmates or children under 18. The rest of us have to pay for these things.
I know, what if the government paid for the Internet? It would be free then wouldn't it?? Well, it would be as free as highways, schools, hospitals, and the Department of Defense. Come to think of it, approximately 35% of my income is removed from every one of my paychecks to pay for those things the government provides. So I guess those aren't free either.
And I've noticed that when the government wants to do more, they don't expect to do it for free either. They want more money. Its as if nobody wants to do anything unless they are compensated. Geez, where's the love?
Come to think of it, when Al Gore "invented" the Internet, he actually may not have actually created the technology per se, because he's a lawyer and lawyers only know how to make lawyers wealthy, but he did sponsor a bill which took the Internet away from the National Science Foundation (who inherited it from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) and asked the carriers to operate the Internet as a commercial network in the private sector. So in a way, it was paid for the government, and then the government decided customers should pay for it. Now of course that same fine government (the executive branch this time) thinks that there should be no restrictions or additional charges for usage. What I don't understand is why they think that. I can't think of another example where people or the govenment think they should get something for nothing. Its just bizarre. Am I overthinking this? Or is it really truly that there are just a lot of dimwitted morons?
Reply