By Tim Ferguson, 4 April 2008 16:29
NEWS
BBC tech chief, Ashley Highfield, has hit back at ISPs who want online organisations to pay extra for distributing bandwidth-draining video and multimedia content.
In a posting on the BBC blog Highfield, the corporation's director of future media and technology, said: "I would not suggest that ISPs start to try and charge content providers. They are already charging their customers for broadband to receive any content they want."
BBC iPlayer: Latest coverage
♦ BBC plugs iPlayer hack loophole
♦ BBC iPlayer lands on iPhone
♦ Cheat Sheet: BBC iPlayer
♦ BBC iPlayer gets 3.5 million hits
♦ Open sourcers welcome BBC iPlayer for Linux
♦ BBC signs up with iTunes
♦ BBC's iPlayer is go
♦ BBC iPlayer sparks broadband row
♦ 16,000 back iPlayer petition
♦ Leader: Time for a ceasefire in iPlayer row
He said doing so would mean users wouldn't know which content works well through their chosen ISP or which content is throttled due to non-payment by content providers.
Back in August last year, Tiscali suggested content providers should pay for the upgrade of broadband networks to support the growth in online content through services such as the BBC's iPlayer.
Other ISPs said they were less concerned, although Ofcom has admitted it could be an issue in the future.
Highfield claims broadband usage has "changed beyond recognition" since BBC iPlayer received its full launch on Christmas Day last year, contributing to a significant growth in people watching TV on the web.
He said: "All on-demand TV boats are rising on the BBC iPlayer tide."
To cope with the changing demands of these new types of content, Highfield recommends a "broadband charter" to let users know what they're paying for.
This could include the term 'unlimited broadband' meaning exactly that and for ISPs to guarantee minimum bandwidth rather than maximum, allowing users to know the level of service they're actually receiving.
Content providers could also indicate which ISPs allow their content to be accessed most effectively, to limit the squeezing or shaping of content.
But Highfield added he hopes it won't come to this as ISPs and the BBC are currently working well together.
More positive steps from content providers could be to use a bookmarking system - currently being looked at by the BBC - for programmes to be downloaded at non-peak times ahead of broadcast then unlocked after transmission when users could access them.
Highfield's blog post can be found here.
Comments
There are 6 comments. Join the discussion
1. anonymous
As with many other ISP's, considering Tiscali offer their own IPTV service 'down the wire', they in all reality be more jealous than anything else that people actually want to use the BBC's fantastic service, as opposed to their own under-subscribed offerings :-)
Maybe they should charge Tiscali IPTV viewers a surcharge for clogging up shared Broadband Bandwidth !
2. Charles Wood
It is about time someone sued an ISP based on NOT "suitable for the purpose intended". In my view throttling back and any form of "traffic shaping" are simply ISPs breaking the law in many ways. If they sell something as broadband, it should be, it is as simple as that.
They are misrepresenting products to sell them and limiting use in devious ways. It is illegal to set out to decieve people and take their money, and someone ...a judge even, should stand up and say so!
3. misceng
Guaranteed minimum bandwith is a difficult concept if others have experience similar to mine. I pay for 16MB service from Sky and sometimes get just over 10MB. On average it is between 7MB & 8MB but I have to take action to keep it that high. On two days out of three I experience a drastic slowdown in the service sometimes as low as 275kB. Powering down the ADSL modem for 20sec. restores the speed to about normal. Another oddity is that repeated speed testing seems to increase the speed. so what would be my guaranteed minimum speed?
4. Simon
>>> This could include the term 'unlimited broadband' meaning exactly that and for ISPs to guarantee minimum bandwidth rather than maximum, allowing users to know the level of service they're actually receiving.
>>> Content providers could also indicate which ISPs allow their content to be accessed most effectively, to limit the squeezing or shaping of content.
Two excellent ideas - get ISPs to accurately describe what they sell, and name&shame those that tell porkies !
I'd lay odds on there being a correlation between those ISPs moaning about the costs (and trying to extort money from content providers) and those that are "creative" with their product descriptions.
Contrast this with how some ISPs are open with their customers :
http://community.plus.net/blog/2008/03/11/plusnet-broadband-capacity-planning-and-traffic-management-2008/?WT.mc_id=ec_int_200803news&link=trafficmanagement
And in particular, this article goes into the economics of bandwidth :
http://community.plus.net/blog/2008/02/28/how-uk-isps-are-charged-for-broadband-the-cost-of-ipstream/
5. GALLEY SLAVE#41
IT WOULD BE OK IF WE WERE GETTING WHAT WE ARE PAYING FOR NOW!
BT "BLESS 'EM" ADVERTISE UP TO 8 MEG' I GET ABOUT..... 3.6 ON A GOOD DAY
I ALSO HAVE THEIR BT VISION OFFERING BUT MOST OF THE TIME, I CAN'T USE BOTH AT THE SAME TIME
AND I CAN SEE THE EXCHANGE FROM THE ROOF OF MY HOUSE!
6. Joe Whitehead
35-50% of peak is considered reasonable on a shared service... I just wish they'd post the minimums!
1mb/s to 8mb/s is a lot more honost. If my cable company was out more than a few hours a month, they reimburse me some of that month's rent - the same concept should occour for the advertised minimums if more than a day passes with <1mb/s. Of course, having a router that locks up/slows down is not their direct fault. This is because they provided the service, but you couldn't use it. Note that I live in the USA and the utility laws are likely very different.