Recently Mark Cuban posted an article on his blog concerning Net Neutrality. I thought I would throw in my two cents.

First, you need to know what Net Neutrality is. Net Neutrality is simply a term that has been made up to emphasize that all traffic on the Internet should be treated the same. According to Columbia Law School professor Tim Wu, Network Neutrality "is best defined as a network design principle. The idea is that a maximally public information network aspires to treat all content, sites and platforms equally."

Cuban states in his blog that this is good for "traditional TV" because digital TV (i.e. Internet TV) takes hits because other apps such as Facebook and Myspace take bandwidth away from TV.

So needless to say, Cuban is against Net Neutrality, seeing that he owns HDNet, a broadcast network.

First let's explore what he defined as "traditional TV". There is no such thing as "traditional TV" any more, especially after the "big switch" to digital. Everything is now digital. Note that you get your TV and internet over the same digital cable in many cases. So the idea of traditional TV is already a thing of the past.

In the old days (ok, really not that old), you got your TV on the cable or an antenna - let's call it a "pipe," and you got your Internet on a phone line, DSL, or T1. This is a completely separate pipe. Two pipes, two different services.

In the quest of greater market share, better and faster Internet, and simply put, greed, big cable companies decided that they needed to get in on the action and they took advantage of an already obvious pipe, which is the cable that goes into so many households throughout the US. Thus, in layman's terms, these folks created a common pipe for delivery of both TV and for Internet.

Now let's get back to the idea of Net Neutrality. People who are against it generally want to regulate the speed of your Internet for certain sites and services, or perhaps your access completely. This goes against the grain of the Internet and why it was created in the first place. These folks who want to regulate it are the very same people that enabled the problems to begin with - the big cable and TV providers. They want to choke off your access for downloads and other things so that you get a clear picture; and they want to figure out a way to make more money.

Granted, we like to have a clear picture, especially with HD. However, the solution is to dedicate the bandwidth necessary for cable and/or digital TV and to separate the pipe for Internet access.

In traditional network engineering, for example, you can break off a certain amount of bandwidth from a T1 for voice services, and dedicate the remainder for Internet. It's not that complicated. And, all packets on the Internet are created equal. Net Neutrality.

Another thing Mr. Cuban doesn't take into consideration is the dramatic increase in bandwidth and speed that has been introduced over the past several years. Ten years ago, you had to install a T1 if you wanted 1.544 MBS, and that's only a 10th of what you can get for "downstream" these days (downloads).

With so much bandwidth, it would be easy to apportion what is necessary for TV and leave the Internet traffic alone.

Of course, it's more complex than this. But my point is that if there is a will, there is a way, without hogging bandwidth, and without hurting either scenario - crystal clear TV or your downloads of Pamela Anderson.

Basically what I'm saying is that by effectively using technology, it's possible to separate what was already separate to begin with, which should keep everyone happy; and as consumers, we should be educated enough to know that the cable companies can't ram things down our throats simply because they say so.

As I was scanning through the daily news articles, I ran across something very interesting. Some of the previously unreleased confidential documents of depositions in the Mark Cuban / Don Nelson dispute were released today, and made available in the Dallas Morning News. I will write a lot more on this later, but for a fascinating read in the interim, click here.

Scanning through the web today I ran across a blog where a reader expressed shock that Mark Cuban's HDNet was dropped from Time Warner Cable. I can't say that I'm very shocked by this development.

I will hand it to Mark. He was well ahead of the curve by identifying what would be a potentially lucrative market. However, the fact that all of the major networks adopted the HD format is one major reason HDNet is now having trouble. They are well-established. The other major reason is because the programming on HDNet leaves a lot to be desired.

Just to make sure I wasn't barking up the wrong tree, I brought up a programming schedule. To my amazement, I was greeted with an entire host of killer programming (ahem). For example, "Bikini Destinations" where "bikini models travel to exotic locations for photo shoots," "Vegas Confessions," obviously a ripoff of HBO's highly successful Taxicab Confessions, and this new arrival, "Deadline!," which starts the adorable (and very sweet) Katie Daryl as she broaches such topics as "Butts, boobs and booze." I'm not kidding.

These fine examples of cinematic brilliance, coupled with a few sporting event oriented shows, seem to make up the complete catalog of original programming, give or take a few. Squeezed in between this plethora of stimulating programming is a bucket of older shows, such as reruns of the 2004 "Jammys" where jam bands like String Cheese Incident perform; old episodes of "JAG"; not quite so old episodes of Star Trek: Enterprise (the one mildly redeeming show in my eyes); and let's not forget Smallville, which is actually pretty decent.

But that's it folks. You can, if you want, enjoy "Dan Rather Reports" if you enjoy wondering whether the story was truly 100% real. And you can get drunk and watch "Nothing But Trailers", which as you might guess, is nothing but (movie) trailers.

There are a few glimmers here and there. But let's face it. This isn't going to get HDNet into the top 10, or even the top 20 networks. What is the problem? To quote a news story:

Time Warner Cable director of corporate public relations Robyn Watson said, "There's a limited appeal for the programming. In a world with more than 100 HD channels, being in HD is not enough. We are adding other channels in HD to give our customers more choice."

Well, the biggest cause of this is, of course, the major networks that have adopted the HD format. They are powerhouses that have been around for much longer than HDNet and therefore have the power, money and relationships to make it happen. Hollywood is a very tight knit community. And it's not someplace that a "maverick" (pun intended) is going to jump right in and win. That isn't to be said that it can't be done. But you are talking about networks that are already very established and have some of the best writers, actors, and staff that the industry offers.

Yes, there are definitely some "duds" out there on ALL the networks. No doubt. But if HDNet truly wants to compete, then it is going to have to spend the money to get the kind of talent required to push it to the next level.

The other issue that I briefly mentioned is that Hollywood is a tight little family. And if you bump heads with them, chances are you are going to have a rough time and it is easy to get blacklisted. My guess is that, given Mr. Cuban's history of being the aforementioned maverick, as they say in Texas, "he ain't won many friends". As a result, my suspicion is that the major studios and production companies stay away from him.

For Time Warner to drop HDNet - however it may be otherwise dismissed - that's kind of a big deal. If I were HDNet and Mr. Cuban, I would be looking at ways of building relationships instead of ignoring the foundation that already exists in Hollywood. Make friends! There's plenty of opportunity, but even if you have the most money in the world, you can't run around pissing everyone off and then expect you to be welcomed with open arms. I'm sure I may have my moments, too, but ultimately I sincerely do the best I can to reach objectives without raising the ire of those around me. Sometimes it can't be avoided. But I firmly believe that the waters can be navigated successfully.

I respect and admire Mr. Cuban's ability to identify a hot market and go after it. However, once the market matures, such as with HD formatted broadcasts, to continue being a trendsetter you have to adopt at least some of the predefined and established business practices to be able to fold into the mainstream. Fox is a great example as one of the newer networks that has been successful. Same thing with USA Network. I think they have some of the best shows on the "regular" channels, and not only that, they pick the best reruns too (for example House M.D).

Here's my advice. Pick up some good programming. Pay for it. Make amends and try to fit in better in Hollywood. Hire good, talented people that won't feel alienated or threatened if they work with you. There's the answer to increase viewership on HDNet.