Comments on: Lets chat about P2P some more

By: anonymous

anonymous — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 21:39:50 +0000

My position is related to the last mile. P2P is so incredibly inefficient. You send and receive the same bytes , which means for the portion of the file you are a seed for, you are at least 50pct inefficient. The more often you supply the bytes on your PC to others, the more you impose on the network. If there is a failure somewhere in the chain of delivery and assembly on the destination device , the error recovery process makes things far less efficient. All consuming more and more last mile bandwidth. The bandwidth that defines how fast my internet connection is.

Mark, please sit&down and talk with some intelligent network engineers. You are either woefully misinformed&confused or intentionally misrepresenting the facts. Me thinks it\’s more the latter than the former.

By: Tom

Tom — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 11:31:36 +0000

Since you decided to use the buffet analogy,there\’s nothing wrong with buying something, food or otherwise, and reselling it. That\’s sort of the entire backbone of a small company called eBay.

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 17:22:55 +0000

Mark,

I am not sure I agree with your take on the subject, but I would have to question the idea that people using P2P are bandwidth freeloaders. Since the client serving the file is paying their bandwidth and the person downloading the file is paying for their bandwidth. So the ISP\'s are getting paid it just by different people.

I think the ISP\'s last mile problem is the ISP\'s fault... They offered bandwidth at a rate that didn\'t support the expansion of the system and as the amount of clients grew the system could not longer support the throughput they were advertising. Which is why we have the \"up to\" clause on advertised speeds.

-- Jeremy

By: Jack Mott

Jack Mott — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 12:49:47 +0000

I\'m not sure that banning something incredibly useful, like P2P, is the solution to the economic problem of improperly charging for bandwidth.

A better solution I think is proper pricing schemes for bandwith usage. A buffet wouldn\'t just ban Americans because they start eating too much, they would raise the price, or charge fat people more.

I\'m *happy* to pay an extra 5, 10 dollars a month for the right to use P2P. Its extremely useful to me.

By: Chris

Chris — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 10:55:01 +0000

\"I think the position that \"you pay for the bandwidth, so you can use it any way you want\" isn\'t reality and very flawed when it comes to P2P.\"

Yes it is reality. And I will do what ever I legally want with the bandwidth I pay $40.00 a month for.

\"Because if it wasn\'t costly, we all would already have 1gbs to our home via fiber or free wireless everywhere.\"

It\'s not too costly for France, Korea, Japan, Sweden or the other eleven countries that have faster and cheaper broadband access. The last mile problem is not P2P\'s fault it\'s the ISP\'s and the US governments fault for not upgrading or providing an incentive to upgrade the nations broadband infrastructure.

By: Charbax

Charbax — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 10:18:16 +0000

You should check out the BitTorrent cachelogic protocol:

http://torrentfreak.com/cachelogic-and-bittorrent-introduce-cache-discovery-protocol/

The Cache Discovery Protocol allows ISPs to detect their customjers most popular torrents, cache the data, and seed it. ISPs like it because its cheaper to use bandwidth within their network than to use external traffic.

This fixes the whole last mile inefficiecy of BitTorrent traffic. The exact same thing can be done for live P2P streaming, eMule traffic and any other P2P traffic.

ISPs simply need to install one caching server for every few thousand customers, and algorythms optimizes the caching on those cache servers, this will speed up P2P file sharing for customers using P2P, it will speed up bandwidth for customers that are not using P2P and it will lower the bandwidth costs for the ISPs, so everyone will be happy (just maybe not the media moguls who want to keep control on the media).

By: yusuf guler

yusuf guler — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 07:35:12 +0000

no war! everythings will be good with sex.

By: Healyhatman

Healyhatman — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 05:18:27 +0000

Some people flat-out can\’t afford to distribute their content by buying their own server or paying another service provider for the site bandwidth. P2P enables those less fortunate with something to contribute, to go ahead and contribute that special something. And if you did the research you might find that you last mile (I assume we\’re talking about literally the last mile of cable from the exchange to your house) is barely affected.

By: Marcos Pinto

Marcos Pinto — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 03:54:38 +0000

Mark Cuban, I\’m calling you out. Marcos Pinto is my real name and I live in West Chicago, Illinois. Come and try to sue me, you ignorant, self-intitled little baby. You can talk all you want in a blog, but what are actions without words? I\’m the lead developer of Deluge Torrent (www.deluge-torrent.org), which is a p2p client. I say we stop playing games and let the courts decide. I\’m all in; are you?

By: Wriley

Wriley — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 15:00:13 +0000

Mark I dont think you have any idea what you are talking about. P2P is not affecting your Internet connection at all. Its sure not affecting mine. Its actually more efficient to use P2P to distribute a file then to have the same file sent and recieved 1000 times over. Please do some research before you talk about internet issues ever again. Thanks