Mark Cuban on net neutrality: Wacky, wrong, or both?
Filed under: Company News, Technology, People, Media
I'm a big fan of Mark Cuban, though I've never met him in person. He's a billionaire entrepreneur, he likes sports, and he's not afraid to take some heat for standing up for his guys (the Dallas Mavericks pro hoops team). I'm pretty sure we would have a fun night out on the town.However, reading the comments Cuban made about network neutrality to my colleague Jeff Bercovici earlier this week, I can only conclude that Cuban has either completely lost touch with reality or is just shilling for his own company HDNet, which offers all-high-definition TV fare via a slew of providers, including cable TV outfits.
Of course, the idea that Cuban may be slightly "off" is hardly new: He's racked up more fines for wacky behavior than any other NBA owner in league history. One of his own stars once said: "He's got to learn how to control himself as well as the players do." And some of his past pronouncements, such as declaring the death of YouTube in 2006, and the death of the internet in general in 2007, have proved to be way off the mark.
Cuban made his fortune at the height of the dot-com bubble by selling his company, Broadcast.com, to Yahoo! for $5.9 billion in Yahoo! stock. Since then, he has been an outspoken voice in American culture -- with very mixed results. He once criticized the NBA's manager of officials, Ed T. Rush, saying that Rush "wouldn't be able to manage a Dairy Queen." That earned Cuban a $500,000 fine and a day's work serving ice cream at a Dallas Dairy Queen, after the company protested.
During the 2006 NBA playoffs, Cuban cursed out Spurs forward Bruce Bowen and was fined $200,000 by the NBA for rushing onto the court. After the 2006 finals, the league fined Cuban $250,000 for repeated bad behavior following the Mavericks' loss to the Miami Heat in game five. More recently, the NBA fined the billionaire $25,000 for yelling at Denver Nuggets player J.R. Smith during a January game. In March, he apologized after telling the mother of Nuggets forward Kenyon Martin that her son was "a thug."
Cuban's latest pronouncement involves the new FCC broadband policy rules, announced Sept. 21. In a nutshell, he argues that a free and open internet will be "crippled by a glut of live and streaming video, which leaves disgruntled consumers with no other option but to get cable," as MediaPost puts it. Thus, so-called "net neutrality" is a big win for Comcast, the nation's largest cable company, as well as other cable providers.
In response to a question about his comments to Bercovici, Cuban calls his position "pretty straightforward stuff."
"An open net is just that," Cuban wrote in a Facebook message to DailyFinance. (He almost never does phone interviews.) "And if anyone has the expectation of TV over the internet, an open internet will kill that expectation."
In his conversation with Bercovici, Cuban portrayed net neutrality by using the metaphor of Fifth Avenue, a major thoroughfare in New York. "Take away the special lanes for bikes and buses, take away the cops directing traffic flow, and everything gets very, very slow," is how Bercovici paraphrased Cuban's point.
Is that really so? Seth Johnson, an expert on broadband network management and coordinator of the Dynamic Platform Standards Project, says no. "All those vehicles on Fifth Avenue are already stuck there, and apparently they don't even get an alternate route," Johnson tells DailyFinance. "What he's really describing is bad network management."
"This is apparently the behavior Cuban expects," Johnson says. "The network providers will put up this charade, forcing us to accept that we don't get what we pay for, until we accept their traffic cops."
Art Brodsky, the communications director of Public Knowledge, a D.C.-based group that's pro net neutrality, also finds fault with Cuban's comments. "Net neutrality does not eliminate network management nor does it take away the ability of network providers like Comcast to add capacity," Brodsky says. "What it does do is prevent the people who can afford limos from getting that traffic lane of their own." In other words, the FCC rules would prevent the broadband companies from favoring rich content providers at the expense of smaller startups and consumers.
Other critics say Cuban is just being grumpy because he opposes net neutrality. An open internet offering free, high-quality video content would surely compete with Cuban's company, HDNet. Thus Cuban has been a big advocate of cable-based high-quality video, while disparaging web-based video.
"This is just sour grapes by Cuban," says Robb Topolski, the network engineer who originally detected that Comcast was blocking consumer internet activity in May 2007 and now serves as chief technologist at the New America Foundation's Open Technology Initiative, which supports net neutrality. Comcast has already voluntarily agreed to be "protocol agnostic," meaning it won't favor one type of content over another. That prompts Topolski to note that "the truth is, Comcast will have to change nothing to respond to the proposed FCC rules or the proposed NN legislation. It is already neutral."
In the interview with Bercovici, Cuban goes on a slightly bizarre rant, theorizing that if someone in his neighborhood uploads a live streaming video of the family cat to the internet during a big sports event, "nobody in my neighborhood's going to get the game. Just wipe it out, just like that."
Flat out wrong, says Topolski.
"Streaming video protocols over residential broadband don't work the way Cuban suggests," Topolski says. "Residential broadband is rate-limited, so no one person can commandeer the whole neighborhood." That is, because each consumer gets only a limited slice of bandwidth to use, taking over all the bandwidth on a given block, as Cuban suggests, simply wouldn't happen.
A follow-up e-mail and Facebook message to Cuban seeking a response to these criticisms was not immediately returned.
This isn't the first time Cuban has made grand pronouncements that turn out to be way off the mark. Back in September 2006, when I reported (correctly) that YouTube was for sale for at least $1.5 billion -- contrary to the startup's public statements -- Cuban wrote a post entitled "The Coming Dramatic Decline of Youtube." In it he concluded: "Youtube, we hardly knew you."
Google bought the company two weeks later for $1.65 billion. Since, then YouTube has transcended the web to become a global cultural and political force.
And in an August 2007 blog post, Cuban declared that "The Internet is Dead and Boring." He wrote: "The days of the Internet creating explosively exciting ideas are dead."
Today, of course, Cuban has a frequently updated Twitter account.
Cuban was off-base those times. And he's off-base now. It's not that he's ignorant, he's actually a very smart guy. But in light of his present and past comments, one might conclude that he just doesn't care about the internet. Or maybe he just really wants more cable carriage for his HDNet and simply views an open internet as some sort of competitive threat.
I'll leave the last word to my colleague Jeff Bercovici, who's story 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."
Follow Sam Gustin, a reporter for DailyFinance, on Twitter here. Follow DailyFinance's tech coverage here.



























Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
9-26-2009 @ 11:29AM
David Secord said...
Mark Cuban (like George Soros and Peter Lewis--CEO of Progressive Insurance) have all used a considerable amount of their fortunes to try and influence Congress to legalize ALL drugs. Anyone with that level of 'stoner' maturity is a moron in my eyes.
Reply
9-26-2009 @ 12:51PM
Mark Cuban said...
The only legit response from the people you interviewed was the suggestion that upstream bandwidth is limited, so no one user can commandeer enough bandwidth. Right now that is true for residential accounts. (not for commercial accounts). That will change in the future as users are getting and demanding more upstream bandwidth for personal applications.
Still, even with limited upstream, it doesnt take much demand beyond existing prime time usage to negatively impact ongoing throughput. If I had known you were going to turn the interview into a hatchet piece, rather than creating a simple analogy, I could have made it even simpler. Rather than using a local connection for an upstream broadcast, it would have picked downloading the same high bit rate stream from a hosted server. No amount of network management is going to fix multiple adjacent users attempting to receive a 100mbs stream from a single host.
But given you just stuck a microphone in my face and i was nice enough to respond, i didnt ask the questions required to find out what an ass you would turn out to be.
If any of your interviewees actually used a network and were honest, they would have to admit that their current internet throughput slows down. That it is difficult to sustain throughput in the current network environment. That the introduction of bandwidth intensive applications, such as live streaming, on top of existing network implementations will only serve to slowdown the last mile of internet connectivity further. That bandwidth applications and consumption are increasing faster than actual throughput (as opposed to published numbers) in the last mile connections to the home.
If your interviewees were honest, they would admit that no amount of network management (particularly in an environment where there can be no discriminatory practices) will prevent high bit rate apps from negatively impacting real throughput to the last mile. Even in a fiber world.
And all this is before we get to the problems of in home networks, which of course are a necessity for anyone trying to replace their cable or satellite with the internet.
That is what this is all about remember ? That the benefit to the cable companies comes from the inability of video over the internet to reach the levels of quality for live streams that TV consumers require. Talk about a Heidi moment. You missed the end of the game because of rebuffering.
Or more likely, you turned off the game because of continuous rebuffering. Unlike streaming movies, with live events you cant advance fill a buffer to reduce the problems with streaming . Football fans dont want to be 5 minutes or more behind the action.
Its a nice try to jump on me, but you #fail
Reply
9-28-2009 @ 2:38AM
The Desert Rat said...
I don't give a damn about sports, and what you do with your team or your money interests me not.
What you do with your politics, your mouth and how you down grade my country bothers me greatly. You have the First and Fourteenth on your side, but, the only objection I can lodge is to tell you how I feel, give you not one red cent of my money, and broadcast this on my blog.
Aside from sports, in my opinion, you are a bad influence on my country, Mr. Cuban.
Roger Fulton
Tucson
9-30-2009 @ 10:55AM
Jeff Bercovici said...
Mark -- I think you skimmed this piece a little too fast. Sam, the author of this post, didn't stick a microphone in your face. That was me, Jeff. I wrote the post quoting your views; Sam offered his own point of view in this follow-up. Frankly, as I think I conveyed in our conversation, I don't know enough about broadband policy to really take a position either way. That's more Sam's area of expertise.
9-26-2009 @ 12:44PM
ANNE PEARIGEN said...
CUBAN IS AN A-- HOLE.
Reply
9-26-2009 @ 12:51PM
Clayton Dow Jacobs said...
Network neutrality is defined as offering high quality video content on the net for free. Mark Cuban's company HDNET would become competition, therefore it would only make sense for Mr Cuban to oppose neutrality. I believe that Mr Cuban is well aware that neutrality is such a serious competitive threat that he is willing to call the public "incredibly greedy people" due to the fact that people would prefer to watch TV over the internet for free.
Mark Cuban's views on neutrality are understandable and make a lot of sense from the standpoint of owner of HDNET. Unfortunately 99% of us are not billionaires and would welcome free TV over the net. Competition in this industry is good for the public. I must say that Mark Cuban is one of my favorite entrepreneur's. His passion for his business ventures is inspiring and over the top to say the least. When Mr Cuban sold his company for 5.9 billion dollars and then bought an NBA franchise he became a very public person. I have enjoyed all the news he is responsible for good and bad. I will never forget his job at Dairy Queen and the fact that he would go to any length to make a point. Mr. Cuban's views make a lot of sense for his reasons and all I can say is that he is living the dream....
Clayton Dow Jacobs
Reply
9-26-2009 @ 1:15PM
bill said...
You lost me after about the 72nd paragraph
Reply
9-26-2009 @ 2:55PM
Nick said...
@Clayton, You clearly have not even a modicum of understanding of what net neutrality is.
Reply
9-26-2009 @ 6:24PM
Dan said...
Did someone get paid to write this?
Reply
9-27-2009 @ 8:07AM
MyKisa said...
....know that government control will grow, and real quality will diminish.....pablum and mediocrity mwill go hand n hand
Reply
9-27-2009 @ 10:35AM
Brad said...
9-26-2009 @ 12:51PM
Mark Cuban said...
The only legit response from the people you interviewed was the suggestion that upstream bandwidth is limited, so no one user can commandeer enough bandwidth. Right now that is true for residential accounts. (not for commercial accounts). That will change in the future as users are getting and demanding more upstream bandwidth for personal applications.
******************************************************************
How wrong you are cuban. All accounts on the net have bandwidth restrictions as they can only upload as fast as their ISP allows them to per their contractual aggreement. One business or residence will not be able to use enough bandwith to affect anyone. Maybe cuban doesn't even know what the term bandwidth even means. It doesn't mean tha maximim amount one can send but the rate, or how much data is sent/received, for a particular unit of time.
How someone that has made billions that writes he knows so much about the Internet, and yet doesn't understand the actual facts of how the Internet works amazes me, and just shows to me that you are in fact really an idiot.
Reply