A row about who should pay for extra network costs incurred by the iPlayer has broken out between internet service providers (ISPs) and the BBC. ISPs say the on-demand TV service is putting strain on their networks, which need to be upgraded to cope. Ashley Highfield, head of future media and technology at the corporation, has said he believes the cost of network upgrades should be carried by ISPs. Simon Gunter, from ISP Tiscali, said the BBC should contribute to the cost. He said the BBC did not understand the issues involved.
The popular iPlayer service lets users download or stream programmes to a PC. In its first month of launching, the catch-up TV service saw 1m people download more than 3.5m programmes. According to figures from regulator Ofcom it will cost ISPs in the region of Ģ830m to pay for the extra capacity needed to allow for services like the iPlayer.
The popular iPlayer service lets users download or stream programmes to a PC. In its first month of launching, the catch-up TV service saw 1m people download more than 3.5m programmes. According to figures from regulator Ofcom it will cost ISPs in the region of Ģ830m to pay for the extra capacity needed to allow for services like the iPlayer.
I don't know what to say, its ridiculous.
Well I for one, am in no rush to apologise to my ISP for using the bandwidth I pay for for once.
I say the ISP's should blatantly stop selling and advertising a service they do not, and more often, cannot provide.
It really boils my **** when I see ISP's complaining about users who DARE to use the service they pay for to full advantage.
I'm pretty sure I wouldn't see my water supplier start complaining that I had increased the number of showers I had today because Wella had brought out some uber-nice shampoo.
No they would accept the cost and possibly increase their rates to cover costs, but definitely not ask me to only shower in off peak times as Joe's water next door goes cold.
If ISP's need to increase the price, increase they price, but please, stop hiding behind technology to hide your lack of willingness to upgrade your infrastructure.
</rant>
It's a risky slope if they start doing this (See the network neutrality stuff)
/me points at BT.
We are so far behind other ISPS in the world!
If you have a 3GB capped connection , 6 episodes and your connection is history. At least I think the BBC should offer lower quality videos as an option, especially for those using ISP's with lower bandwidth.
It's a massive contradiction, they advertise x many videos you can use their service with but when you actually do they can't handle it.
"There is a broader issue about the downloading of content and this requires an increase in the pipe where the bottleneck is occurring,"
pipes? Don't these people know anything??
It's a Series of TUBES!!
1. ISPs stop increasing speeds and leave the network in its present state for years to get enough cash to upgrade it.
2. An ISP takes a gamble and sorts a network out to give *everybody* (1:1 ratio) a speed of say 10mb, they then will either go bankrupt or have the price set so its not the cheapest and not get any customers and go bankrupt
3. ISPs just give everyone the same speed and charge per usage (like phones are/were done)
Europeans do tend to forget that the US is absolutely huge compared to the EU (over twice as large, according to Wikipedia: 9,629,091 kmē for the US vs. 4,422,773 kmē for the EU), with much lower population density (112 people/kmē for the EU vs. 31 people/kmē for the US), which means that network infrastructure has to be much more massive and spread out.
Europeans do tend to forget that the US is absolutely huge compared to the EU (over twice as large, according to Wikipedia: 9,629,091 kmē for the US vs. 4,422,773 kmē for the EU), with much lower population density (112 people/kmē for the EU vs. 31 people/kmē for the US), which means that network infrastructure has to be much more massive and spread out.
Yay! someone else besides me understands the differences
This is the bit they're getting ****y about - having to upgrade to meet demand. Why is that the BBC's fault? You'd think ISPs would be happy, demand == monies, but no, they'd rather live in the dark ages and charge people through the nose without having to provide the service they advertise.
If they sell a 10Mbit service and can't provide it, it's their own ****ing fault.
The cheap ones, Like tiscali etc, will likely just introduce more traffic shaping.
The ISP's that sell based on sensible usage caps with sensible pricing won't have nearly as big a problem. (say Zen, Plusnet, etc)
This costs Ģ29.99 per month. This package OVERSELL's on bandwidth. If a customer uses 40GB or more, that customer will be a loss maker. This is down to the wholesale cost of broadband being high, not because the ISP's are greedy (ok, yes, many are but that only makes a bad problem, worse)
Next, How many customers are actually willing to pay Ģ30+ a month? The amount of people that complain that broadband is too expensive when they are only paying Ģ15 a month is fairly high.
You get what you pay for.
I do find it funny that ISP's are expecting the BBC to pay. This is mostly down to the fact they know their customers are not willing to pay more. If prices jumped to more realistic prices, they'd end up loosing a bucket load of customers. Still, It's not really a good excuse for them to be using. It's THEIR problem, not the BBC's. If their products don't work economically, re-design them.
Ach, I dunno. Bloody mess it is. It's sure going to be fun watching all these ISP's without traffic shaping or sensible craps over the next year or 2.
We've already seen dozens of ISP's go bust last year and many more get bought out. I think we are on course for the same happening again this year.
it doesnt for me when half of the videos on youtube wont load fast enough to stream
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.