When it comes to P2P, the answer seems to be, “No!”.

It’s really remarkable to think that this guy sold broadcast.com for a gajillion dollars when he writes drivel like this.

To engage him, though, the biggest problem with the entire series of P2P posts is that he starts with an assumption that I’m not convinced actually makes any sense or is even remotely true. And the problem is that Cuban himself doesn’t actually provide any data supporting his claim that P2P makes last mile bandwidth more expensive and “slows down his Internet connection.” From what I understand about the Internet (and I’ll assert that I know more than a little), neither of these claims are true. Perhaps he knows more about a specific ISPs configuration or topology to support the claim but since he doesn’t provide any specifics, it really seems like he’s starting with his conclusion (P2P is bad) and then reaches for some, or any reason that seemed convenient.

The fact is that my bandwidth is already capped. What’s the issue he’s complaining about?

Seemingly more relevant at work every day, Mark Cuban wrote an interesting post on his blog about the “[worst] reason for doing something”: “Thats the way we have always done it.” While I think that’s a good point, and a lesson that every business can use, his example of a bad case of this is, quite frankly, wrong.

He wants the NBA to stop reporting attendance figures for their games. Why? Because it’s information that could help competitors. From his blog:

Why in the world do sports teams disclose our attendance for games ? Does it make even a little bit of difference to anyone at all ? Do people bet on the number ? No. Does it change the outcome of the game ? No. So Yogi Berra knows its too crowded and no one goes there anymore ?

Does it help competitive entertainment outlets know how our business is doing ? Yes. Could it give them an incentive to spend more money on promotion to compete with us if attendance is good ? Yes. Could it give them more incentive to reference our attendance if its down ? Yes. I know I read the attendance figures of the other Dallas teams and it certainly impacts the marketing decisions we make in our market.

I tend to agree that there’s value in that information. But precisely because there is value in this information, competitors will get it on their own. Better that the enterprise release it’s own metrics than have the kabuki dance that happens in TV or the online space, where a third party estimates the traffic/attendance/viewership and sells that information. At the end of the day, it’s cheaper and simpler and cuts out a middle man. More to the point, if the “other Dallas teams” didn’t release their attendance information, as Cuban proposes, we all pay more and get less reliable information.

Now, it might be that you’re already relying on outside metrics/analysis firms for deeper demographic/behavior breakdowns (how many people paid for the $80 seats vs. the $15 seats, how much does the average consumer spend on concession, etc.). Even then, though, one metric can’t be that valuable. In fact, at least it gives you a baseline of “accurate” data to start other modeling from.

I feel like this is in part a discussion of the benefits of the commons vs. everything being proprietary. Business thrives when the commons are healthy and putting out attendance figures feels like a simple contribution to the information commons with benefits when (most) everyone participates.

Update: And I forgot about the most basic reasons… your advertisers want to know how many people will be seeing their ads. Once those numbers get out, they’re out there… (you can find ESPN.com’s public metrics if you know where to look).