ISPs whinging about BBC's iPlayer

<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7336940.stm>:

"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."

I think it's Tiscali who don't understand the issues involved. A
quick glance at their website finds this
<http://www.tiscali.co.uk/products/broadband/?code=ZZ-NL-11GK&srccode=>:

"£6.49 For 1st 3 months then just £12.99." That particular deal
includes "Unlimited downloads. This great value package offers you
unlimited downloads every month. Download movies and music, play games
online, watch video clips and listen to the radio."

Of course there is the usual disclaimer for the "umlimited downloads"
claim, which redefines the word "unlimited."

To me, the sensible solution to this problem is to do what many of the
better ISPs do: bill customers for their usage (over a pre-set limit).
--
Martin Jay

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Martin Jay <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7336940.stm>:
>
> "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.

There was a similar argument in the US. Actually it was worse;
the ISP's said they would prioritise traffic for the service
providers who paid them the most. Legislation was hurried through
to make that illegal.

> 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."
>
> I think it's Tiscali who don't understand the issues involved. A
> quick glance at their website finds this
> <http://www.tiscali.co.uk/products/broadband/?code=ZZ-NL-11GK&srccode=>:
>
> "£6.49 For 1st 3 months then just £12.99." That particular deal
> includes "Unlimited downloads. This great value package offers you
> unlimited downloads every month. Download movies and music, play games
> online, watch video clips and listen to the radio."
>
> Of course there is the usual disclaimer for the "umlimited downloads"
> claim, which redefines the word "unlimited."
>
> To me, the sensible solution to this problem is to do what many of the
> better ISPs do: bill customers for their usage (over a pre-set limit).

For the most part, customers select ISP's entirely on price.
This has forced prices down to the point where they no longer
cover costs. ISP's are looking at other ways to fund themselves.
Hence things like this, and selling customers' browsing habits
to advertisers.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

> > 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.

Correction, the cost of network upgrades should be carried by the
carrier, which may be BT or the ISP.
If a rolling fibre programme had been started years ago, by now
we would have a decent broadband service with capacity to cope.
It's typical of shiddy ISP's to lock you into an inadequate
service for 12 months, or longer, promising the world with,
of course, the usual "up to" getout clauses, with unlimited
downloads, and then complaining it costs them money
when people want to use it.
Of course we want to use it.
ISP's throw money at advertising because it brings
in customers and revenue, but the bean counters
won't let them spend money on infrastructure and
adequate customer support, because that hits
the bottom line and upsets the shareholders.

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>>> 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.
>
> Correction, the cost of network upgrades should be carried by the
> carrier, which may be BT or the ISP.
> If a rolling fibre programme had been started years ago, by now
> we would have a decent broadband service with capacity to cope.
> It's typical of shiddy ISP's to lock you into an inadequate
> service for 12 months, or longer, promising the world with,
> of course, the usual "up to" getout clauses, with unlimited
> downloads, and then complaining it costs them money
> when people want to use it.
> Of course we want to use it.
> ISP's throw money at advertising because it brings
> in customers and revenue, but the bean counters
> won't let them spend money on infrastructure and
> adequate customer support, because that hits
> the bottom line and upsets the shareholders.

I thought the BBC player was overloading the backhaul, which I thought
already was fibre?

I think the OP was right the ISPs need to bill based on the amount
downloaded/uploaded.

: I thought the BBC player was overloading the backhaul, which I thought
: already was fibre?

The backhaul is nowhere near overloaded. They're crying over peering costs,
a problem that can be resolved by each ISP setting up one or two servers to
server popular content. BBC, CH4, Sky and so on all use P2P technologies to
REDUCE the peering costs anyway, the idiot ISPs should take up the
technology, as some already are!

Greedy ISPs looking to make more money.

:
: I think the OP was right the ISPs need to bill based on the amount
: downloaded/uploaded.

How truly idiotic.

"Cork Soaker" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:ftjb51$17k$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> : I thought the BBC player was overloading the backhaul, which I thought
> : already was fibre?
>
> The backhaul is nowhere near overloaded. They're crying over peering
costs,

the stuff pumped out on usenet was more about BT IPstream charges for
backhaul between BT and the ISP (Net central?) - not stuff going to other
ISPs.


> a problem that can be resolved by each ISP setting up one or two servers
to
> server popular content. BBC, CH4, Sky and so on all use P2P technologies
to
> REDUCE the peering costs anyway, the idiot ISPs should take up the
> technology, as some already are!

AFAIR most iplayer users dont act as seeds, so most of that data comes from
the BBC.

if it doesnt - a typical consumer ISP dominant traffic flow is from "the
internet" to its users - stuff going back the other way is not going to
cause major changes to the overall traffic.

and since both ADSL and cable have big pipe down, little pipe up, the users
would struggle to send "lots" to other ISPs compared to normal download.

So i dont think that actually works out on the back of a fag packet......

BBC already peers with most ISPs (and asks for that if they take more than
10 Mbps of traffic) - and all the ISP has to do is present their interface
at a mutually convenient point.
http://support.bbc.co.uk/support/peering/

AFAICT no money changes hands - so it isnt like this is a big cost, since
BBC and a UK ISP will already have presence in the same data centres- eg
LINX.
>
> Greedy ISPs looking to make more money.
>
> :
> : I think the OP was right the ISPs need to bill based on the amount
> : downloaded/uploaded.
>
> How truly idiotic.
--
Regards

(E-Mail Removed) - replace xyz with ntl

Cork Soaker wrote:
> : I thought the BBC player was overloading the backhaul, which I thought
> : already was fibre?
>
> The backhaul is nowhere near overloaded.

AIUI ISPs have to pay for bandwidth. The more bandwidth each user takes
up the more the ISPs have to pay. I thought backhaul costs were in the
region of £100 per month for 1Mb/s.

>They're crying over peering costs,

Where can I find out what these are?

> a problem that can be resolved by each ISP setting up one or two servers to
> server popular content. BBC, CH4, Sky and so on all use P2P technologies to
> REDUCE the peering costs anyway, the idiot ISPs should take up the
> technology, as some already are!
>

Even if they cache they still have to pay for the backhaul don't they.

> Greedy ISPs looking to make more money.
>

That is what running a business is about, isn't it?

> :
> : I think the OP was right the ISPs need to bill based on the amount
> : downloaded/uploaded.
>
> How truly idiotic.
>

Why?
>

"Martin Jay" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7336940.stm>:
>
> "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.

Aside from the argument about costs, why has the BBC launched the service
anyway? Lets face it, its just technology for the sake of it. Years ago
when all programmes were only shown once (and in those days no-one had a
video recorder) if you wanted to see a programme, you made a point of
sitting down and watching the programme at the time it was broadcast. If a
programme is worth watching, its surely worth putting yourself out to watch
it? These days we have multiple other ways to record programmes with ease
(without iPlayer), and repeats by the bucketful. Apart from novelty value
(and that soom wears off), I don't see what use BBC iPlayer is really any
good for.

John
flame away, I dont care!

stephen wrote:
> "Cork Soaker" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:ftjb51$17k$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>>> I thought the BBC player was overloading the backhaul, which I
>>> thought already was fibre?
>>
>> The backhaul is nowhere near overloaded. They're crying over
>> peering costs,
>
> the stuff pumped out on usenet was more about BT IPstream charges for
> backhaul between BT and the ISP (Net central?) - not stuff going to
> other ISPs.
>
>
>> a problem that can be resolved by each ISP setting up one or two
>> servers to server popular content. BBC, CH4, Sky and so on all use
>> P2P technologies to REDUCE the peering costs anyway, the idiot ISPs
>> should take up the technology, as some already are!
>
> AFAIR most iplayer users dont act as seeds, so most of that data
> comes from the BBC.


The ratio of people streaming to downloading on the iPlayer is about 8 or 9
to 1, so even though the download version uses higher bit rate files, it's
the streaming version that accounts for the lion's share of the bandwidth.
The BBC apparently uses an Akamai CDN for the iPlayer streams.



--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm

Nick wrote:

>> a problem that can be resolved by each ISP setting up one or two
>> servers to server popular content. BBC, CH4, Sky and so on all use
>> P2P technologies to REDUCE the peering costs anyway, the idiot ISPs
>> should take up the technology, as some already are!
>>
>
> Even if they cache they still have to pay for the backhaul don't they.


It depends where they cache - if they put caches inside the exchanges that
would solve the problem, but the caches are at the ISPs at the moment
apparently, so the data then has to go to the exchanges.



--
Steve - www.digitalradiotech.co.uk - Digital Radio News & Info

The adoption of DAB was the most incompetent technical
decision ever made in the history of UK broadcasting:
http://www.digitalradiotech.co.uk/da...ion_of_dab.htm