The Jeff Pulver Blog: For all of us who have held Mark Cuban to a higher standard: -- Goal Tending on Net Freedoms

« Steve Smith Blogs our IP Communications Executive Summit: | Main | Jeff Pulver to Eric Schmidt: Turn the Tide – Turn off BellSouth! »

January 17, 2006

For all of us who have held Mark Cuban to a higher standard: -- Goal Tending on Net Freedoms

Mark Cuban has been an amazing visionary and entrepreneur. He has rewritten, and will continue to rewrite, the way entertainment and media are delivered. He was also one of the first people ever to speak at a VON Conference when he spoke at Spring ’97 VON in San Francisco.

For this reason, I was particularly disturbed to read Mark’s blog posting on allowing multiple tiers of Internet service. “Hey Baby Bells & Cable, We need multiple tiers of service”

Maybe we don’t need multiple tiers of service. Maybe, there are multiple-tiers of Mark Cuban, and maybe this blog posting came from one of the lower tiers. Or maybe, I am missing the point. In any case, I felt compelled to respond to a posting from someone whom I have always considered of the highest possible tier. In any event, after reading Mark’s blog, I shed at least two tears for Mark Cuban and the Internet. Maybe he can shed his lower tier for those of us who want to maximize the Internet experience.

Mark Cuban blogs as follows:

“It always amazes me when people talk about content delivery on the internet. They discuss it as if there is unlimited bandwidth available. Well guess what. There is not. …

There are some basic facts about the internet that remind me of driving on the 405 in Los Angeles. Traffic jams happen. . . . Whether it is the 405 or the internet. Unless of course we add multiple tiers of service so that users, companies and applications that want to, or need to avoid those traffic jams have alternatives. We need HOV lanes and toll roads on the net as badly as we need the HOV lanes on the 405. Take this to the bank. The more we upload and download and share ... the more PCs and servers we backup online, the more Web2.0 applications we use, the more new database applications come online, the more bandwidth we consume. The more bandwidth we consume, the more internet traffic jams we have. The more internet traffic jams we have, the worse our internet applications perform.

To enable mission critical applications, you have to have mission critical reliability. And that mission critical reliability has to be able to reach any home that a broadband connection can reach. To do that you need multiple tiers of service. I would rather have little Johnnys grandma getting priority for her video checkup with the doctor at the hospital over little Johnny getting his bandwidth to upload the video of the prank he pulled on his buddy.. I would rather make sure that information from life support or other important monitoring equipment, medical or otherwise is finding its way without interruption, and without the end user having to pay for an off the net solution. These are the applications that make the net great. These are the applications that offer equal opportunity to those who are disadvantaged.

I want the telcos and the cable companies and the wireless companies to work out a way to exchange traffic at multiple quality of service levels.

At that point, the internet becomes a viable means for important applications it cant support today. We will see a number of new applications developed, whether medical or otherwise, that cant be put in place today, simply because there are definable levels of service.

This doesnt mean that we all cant do all the fun things we currently use the net for. It just means that we will watch applications zip by us in the internet HOV lane. Yes, some of those applications will be commercial and geared towards non mission critical apps. If the networks are smart, they will account for this and prioritize applications within the “HOV” lane. Yes, it will mean some content will cost more if we want it faster, but that will be our choice.”

First of all, I agree with much of the sentiment expressed by Mark Cuban. We all want as much bandwidth as possible, with as many applications as possible (both applications designed to entertain and applications to promote the public good), as cheap to consumers as possible, with as much revenue for both the Internet Access Provider and the Content and Application providers as possible. Obviously, some of these laudable goals are mutually exclusive. So, the question is how do we maximize the value of the Internet to create the greatest overall good. I suggest that we do not do this by letting the fox (i.e., the Internet Access Provider) control access to the chicken coop (the Internet).

Big question for Mark Cuban: After BitTorrent, what application is most likely to eat up scarce bandwidth? My guess is HD.net will be a top contender. Which is why it was particularly surprising to see Mark Cuban suggest that it was acceptable for Internet Access Providers to charge Internet Application Providers for better access to consumers. Is Mark speaking against interest? If so, more power to him for his noble conception of a world where “grandma’s” medical treatment gets priority over a Mark Cuban-produced Internet video download. But, it seems Mark is actually suggesting that the Internet Access Provider gets to determine which bits ride the fast-lane and which bits ride the breakdown lane. Is a self-interested Internet Access Provider in an enlightened capitalist economy going to grant “grandma’s” bits priority, or will the self-interested Internet Access Provider grant priority to the user or application provider willing to pay more than grandma or grandma’s medical provider or benefactor? I suspect that the Internet Access Provider, particularly one with a fiduciary obligation to its shareholders, is going to favor whoever is paying the most, not whoever is in the greatest immediate need. So, Mark Cuban’s noble mission would seem, to me, to cut against both his civic objective to protect “grandma” and his professional interest in ensuring that his bits reach his users without extraction of usurious tolls from the Internet gate keepers.

The only logical answer I have for Mark Cuban’s conception of a two-tiered Internet (with the “Haves” in the fast-lane and the “Have-Nots” in the break-down lane) is that Mark intends to buy or build his own fast-lane, and allow his preferred customers to enjoy life in the fast-lane. If that is the case, I have no doubt that his own civic-mindedness would compel him to open that fast lane to grandma and other social causes. But I do not have the same faith in the other controllers of the privately-controlled Internet fast-lanes. Short of Mark building his own onramp to the fast-lane, I do not see how his conception of a multi-tiered Internet advances either the goals of those attempting to bring cool applications and content to uses or the public good.

I guess, to some extent, I have to grant Mark Cuban some latitude. It is clear that his blog was a relatively off-the-cuff rant, and I, for one, encourage such free-form blogging (particularly since I live in a glass house, and I, too, have been known to float ideas still incubating and percolating in my mind to see how other minds react). I would hate to have everything I write considered by others to be etched in stone. To me, it is more important to test the waters, float some ideas and encourage critical dialogue. And, I welcome others to tell me if I have missed the point of Mark Cuban’s blog posting.

Tags: Net Neutrality, Mark Cuban, Jeff Pulver

"This blog posting is copyright protected by Jeff Pulver. Portions of this blog posting may be quoted or abstracted if attributed."

Share this post:

Posted by jeff on January 17, 2006 09:19 AM | Permalink

Additional resources: Watch PrimeTime TV Shows | Watch the Jeff Pulver Show | Jeff's Qik Videos

Comments

Jeff,

I respect you for the work you have done and for most of your opinions. I have to disagree with you on one major point. I am sure you wrote "Mark Cuban has been an amazing visionary and entrepreneur" because you do not want to burn bridges with Cuban. To me he is as much "an amazing visionary and entrepreneur" as Bill (640K anti-Internet) Gates (i.e. NOT. Smart guys, aggressive businessmen, lucky enough that market changes covered up their dumb moves and highlighted their lucky/good moves).

Having said that, I have to agree fully with your points in this great blog entry. I would trust the telcos on this issue as much as I would trust Google/Yahoo/MS not to sell me out to China or any other tyranny if my content on their blog sites offended the Chinese. The telcos would have even less ethics and second thoughts than Microsoft did about crushing Netscape.

Keep up the good work(s).

Imran
http://imran.tv/media/blog/

Posted by: Imran Anwar at February 3, 2006 02:52 PM

My two cents are that a multi-tiered system is like communism, a great idea in theory , but easy to corrupt once the powers that be start to "regulate" it. Just as we need car pool lanes, I also forsee that we will need "Voip express lanes".

If these are regulated by the government, then they WILL be used against the VoIP providers by the telcos as the telcos have bigger lobbies.

Posted by: Brenda Keener at January 23, 2006 01:29 PM

I can't believe that there are those of you out there that think this can actually work to anyone's advantage other than the telcos. To turn Mark's own words back on him, the telcos WILL use this opportunity to screw over the VOIP providers and everybody else.

A tiered-service network will drive us right back into the 1980s with the modern equivalent of "calling plans", on-peak/off-peak hours and worse.

I'm not ignorant of the fact that individual ISPs and transports are already doing things like MPLS, QOS and other forms of prioritization, but this is a far cry from what BellSouth and the rest are itching to do.

Anybody who thinks otherwise is either kidding themselves or a shill for Big Telecom.

Posted by: Steve at January 19, 2006 10:33 PM

This multi-tier thing could be good. If the differentiator of added cost/fees is volume, then voice traffic should be safe. Keep it free Skype, Gizmo, MS, Google, Yahoo...

Or will they somehow get to that sacred cow of the Bells business.

Posted by: Rick at January 19, 2006 05:52 PM

Mark, I can't believe you actually suggested that you'd be okay with a government-regulated tier system :-) I think the problem as many people see it is summed up by your description: "If you buy enough bandwidth, host enough servers or spend money in other ways, there is no question you get the pretty routes and the fine tuning goes your way." All we are really talking about is BellSouth and others enshrining that principle, which is effectively done now but not discussed. Is it better just because it's out in the open and there's a price sheet? That's the central issue. I for one would like to see someone tackle the related question of whether we are running out of bandwidth or not -- or is this just a revenue grab? My suspicion is the latter.

Posted by: Mathew Ingram at January 18, 2006 12:10 PM

Hey Jeff. Actually what you are suggesting below, is the exact opposite of the impact of tiers.

"But, it seems Mark is actually suggesting that the Internet Access Provider gets to determine which bits ride the fast-lane and which bits ride the breakdown lane."

A retail store cant refuse to sell nickel candy bars to any given person any more than an MSO, wireless provider, carrier or telco could be prejudicial towards or against a customer. I guess someone might make the argument that you can get drunk on too much bandwidth and refuse to serve, but i dont see thats a fit :).

The reality is, that right now, as suggested by another commnt, tiering is already done, and its based on the amount of money spent or revenue opportunity percieved by the carrier. If you buy enough bandwidth, host enough servers or spend money in other ways, there is no question you get the pretty routes and the fine tuning goes your way. Content providers pay through this directly, or through CDNs.

I personally would rather see tiers that are defined (and i have not problem if they are regulated) and allow the little guy to take advantage.
Bring me a multicast tier. Bring me an API for a bit torrent client that the ISP distributes to every client. Bring me tiers that are adhered to across peering points.

Everyone has the option of buying the service options any tier offers, or not buying it. If not, hopefully, because the traffic on the tiers is better managed, then those not buying have better levels of service than we get now in a world where whoever spends the most, gets the best.

I think we want the same thing. I think part of the disconnect is that the VOIP world thinks the Telcos will screw them at every turn, where I think if you manage them, given there is competition from MSOs and others, and more comp for the last mile coming from wireless (although at the low end of service), then you end up in a better spot then if you ignore the current situation which gives priority to those who spend the most.

Adn in terms of HDNet and delivering HD content, I dont imagine a net, with or without tiers that can support 8mbs continous unicast streams that offer the same quality of delivery as current video delivery options in the next 20 years.

In fact, with the exception of FIOS offerings, the telcos are the least capable of EVER reaching the point of offerng streamed HD over the net.

sorry for the typos..on my wireless

Posted by: mark cuban at January 18, 2006 10:23 AM

The larger question really is what are the market forces driving this? Over the last decade or so, the growth in bandwidth has largely kept up with and during short periods (e.g. end of the bubble), outstripped demand. In a situation like this, there is really no need for this to happen because the service degradations being discussed don't happen enough to cause a mass outcry. Are we now at a place where applications are beginning to place more demand on bandwidth that can be supplied?

Let's assume the answer is yes (although I'm not convinced of that myself). There are two ways to solve this problem technically. You can prioritize traffic or you can throw more bandwidth at it. To date, its been cheaper to throw more bandwidth at the problem. I'm not sure that that's going to change anytime soon. However, if it becomes cheaper to provide traffic prioritization than it is to increase the bandwidth, prioritization will happen and those with money will get better service than those who don't, regardless of what applications they are using.

Posted by: Frank Miller at January 17, 2006 04:53 PM

I'd like to comment on two main points, 1) the implementation of multiple tiers in the Internet, and 2) the relevance of a tiered Internet to the Net Neutrality debate.

The debate around multiple tiers of service quality on the Internet is an interesting one.

Mark Cuban points out that the Internet is congested and needs an HOV lane (or more of a toll express lane from the sounds of it). But the thing is that QoS -- a.k.a. Classes of Service, or tiers -- does not in any way create bandwidth, it merely determines which packets get dropped when there's not enough to go around. To use the freeway analogy, we are talking total gridlock between the hours of 3pm and 7pm. You may as well not even to get on the freeway because it's completely unusable.

The reality of the situation is that any user on the network wants their application to work. If they pay any money at all for their connection (and perhaps even if its free) they want it to work. When I am in a hotel with free Internet Access, I expect it to at least be usable.

Global Crossing found this in it's own network implementation. We implemented QoS in our network some time ago in support of our IP-VPN service, and reinforced it when we added commercial voice traffic to the network. The Internet services that run over the same pipes remain a best effort service, and reside in the lowest tier. We knew that our Internet customers would not be satisfied with degraded service, so the network is engineered provide high quality at all service tiers.

When it comes to Net Neutrality, the idea of a multi-tiered Internet is largely orthogonal to the issue. In the situation where no tiers are created Internet-wide, the local access carrier creates two tiers of service inside their network, one for their applications and one for everything coming in from outside of it. On the other side of the coin, Internet-wide service tiers are created so that other providers can send traffic in different classes to the access carrier, and the access carrier can still create one additional high-end class that supersedes all others.

The angle to be concerned about for net neutrality is where the access provider literally impairs the ability for their competition to provide their applications. Multiple tiers alone will not do this, because if there is no other application competing for performance in the bottlenecked areas (almost always the last mile) then the application in the lowest tier will perform acceptably.

Posted by: Dave Siegel at January 17, 2006 11:46 AM

I think that Mark Cuban has faced the future and seen the problems on the horizion. Just as VoIP was not feasable in the past for most people due to lack of bandwidth, he sees the next "level", video applications being stuck in the mire of an internet that is too slow.

His idea of a multitiered internet is a good idea for a short term answer. It will get the bandwidth to those that want to pay for it quickly. The guys that are willing to pay $5 for a movie or $1 for a TV show will gladly fork out another $50 a month to be the only one on the block to be able to see a film at home the day it hits the theater.

BUT they will be the only one on the block. The rest of us, in my case the entire country, will have to wait until the internet becomes fast enough at a price we can afford.

Will Mark Cuban's multitiered internet help us? NO. Will it help the independant video or movie producer? NO. IMHO it will hurt us.

Once the die is cast, there is no turning back. Having the ability to charge different rates for different service levels will stay with us forever, like having to pay more for calls to cell phones than landline phones (common outside the U.S.)

It's a quick fix that will cause more problems in the future than any gain that will be realized.

As I say in my internet .sig, "The trouble with being a futurist is that when people get around to believing you, it's too late". Lets hope they believe you Jeff, not Mark Cuban.

Geoff.

Posted by: Geoff Mendelson at January 17, 2006 10:07 AM