BT wants BBC to pay for bandwidth used by its customers

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technolog...e_iplayer.html

BT need to take their ideas and shove them where they never see the light of
day again. If the BBC give any ground over this, what other nonsense are
they going to come up with? Their Phorm shenanigans show they'll fuck over
their users at the slightest opportunity, so I dread to think what else
they'll come up with.

--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) ((E-Mail Removed))
18:29:46 up 34 days, 23:11, 1 user, load average: 0.37, 0.39, 0.26
A few flakes working together can unleash an avalanche of destruction

On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 18:09:53 +0000, Ato_Zee wrote:

>> BT need to take their ideas and shove them where they never see the
>> light of day again.
>
> We are already paying BT (directly if BT is our ISP) or via our ISP for
> the bandwidth we use. So now BT is asking to be paid twice, Ofcom should
> tell them where to stuff their ideas as well. We are of course also
> paying the BBC via our licence fee.

And of course the BBC is already paying for hosting and streaming at
their end.

Regards
Gordon

alexd wrote:
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technolog...e_iplayer.html
>
> BT need to take their ideas and shove them where they never see the light of
> day again. If the BBC give any ground over this, what other nonsense are
> they going to come up with? Their Phorm shenanigans show they'll fuck over
> their users at the slightest opportunity, so I dread to think what else
> they'll come up with.
>

It would set a dangerous precedent where ISPs could restrict content
based on how much of a tax, er, levy, er "donation" that content
providers make.

Microsoft Updates? Drivers from Dell? Software downloads from
SourceForge? YouTube? iTunes?

Cya
Simon

"Simon Dean" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> alexd wrote:
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technolog...e_iplayer.html
>>
>> BT need to take their ideas and shove them where they never see the light
>> of day again. If the BBC give any ground over this, what other nonsense
>> are they going to come up with? Their Phorm shenanigans show they'll fuck
>> over their users at the slightest opportunity, so I dread to think what
>> else they'll come up with.
>>
>
> It would set a dangerous precedent where ISPs could restrict content based
> on how much of a tax, er, levy, er "donation" that content providers make.
>
> Microsoft Updates? Drivers from Dell? Software downloads from SourceForge?
> YouTube? iTunes?
>
> Cya
> Simon

You missed out Micro$oft updates ;-)

--
Graham.

%Profound_observation%

"alexd" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technolog...e_iplayer.html
>
> BT need to take their ideas and shove them where they never see the light
> of
> day again. If the BBC give any ground over this, what other nonsense are
> they going to come up with? Their Phorm shenanigans show they'll fuck over
> their users at the slightest opportunity, so I dread to think what else
> they'll come up with.
>




maybe BT - and other ISPs, should charge their users a price that allows
them to make a profit instead of complaining when users make use of their
connections for the things that the ISP boasts you can do.



--
Gareth.

that fly...... is your magic wand....

I personally don't see the need for television channels to break out onto
the internet. Surely if something is worth watching, you would either watch
it at the time it is broadcast, or record it for later viewing. Perhaps
thes TV channels should quit their services online and stop the wasting of
bandwidth that is obviously not needed.

--
Labour won't win under Brown or anybody else for that matter, the game
is up and time for a General Election and let the people decide.

On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 20:51:14 +0100, Geoff wrote:

> I personally don't see the need for television channels to break out onto
> the internet. Surely if something is worth watching, you would either watch
> it at the time it is broadcast, or record it for later viewing. Perhaps
> thes TV channels should quit their services online and stop the wasting of
> bandwidth that is obviously not needed.

The idiot's lantern rules people's lives. They can't get enough of it.
They'll use anything to stay glued to it :-(
--
Regards,

Hugh Jampton

alexd wrote:
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technolog...e_iplayer.html
>
> BT need to take their ideas and shove them where they never see the light of
> day again. If the BBC give any ground over this, what other nonsense are
> they going to come up with? Their Phorm shenanigans show they'll fuck over
> their users at the slightest opportunity, so I dread to think what else
> they'll come up with.
>
Arsey versey
Bt should be paying the BBC, and charging their users accordingly.

On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 20:51:14 +0100, "Geoff" <123@321.00> wrote:

>I personally don't see the need for television channels to break out onto
>the internet. Surely if something is worth watching, you would either watch
>it at the time it is broadcast, or record it for later viewing. Perhaps
>thes TV channels should quit their services online and stop the wasting of
>bandwidth that is obviously not needed.
A general election would be a waste of time and money due to the fact
that when David Cameron took charge and the conservatives where forced
to impose strict monitory constraints on all of us due to Labour's
total mis management of the economy, the majority of voters would not
stand for it and would want the conservatives out again.
If only the British people would just let the conservatives sort it
out once and for all we could all live in the land of plenty once
again .
The Brown boy did an excellent job when he was at the treasury the
country was doing well with Blair in No 10, look how it as all gone
down the pan with Brown in charge .

alexd <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technolog...e_iplayer.html

Surely the way that the internet works is that each party pays for their
connectivity and the bandwidth they use. So the BBC is paying for its
connections to the internet and for the bandwidth to send data from its
servers and the site visitors are paying for the connection and
bandwidth they use to receive the content. So all the external
bandwidth used has been paid for. How ISPs and carriers charge each
other for moving data within the internet is a commercial matter between
themselves.