By silicon.com, 16 August 2007 11:09
Claims by ISPs that the BBC should fund the extra bandwidth needed by users that want to download content from its online TV service iPlayer seems a little out of touch.
Tiscali says as the BBC is responsible for the content and the distribution service, it sees no reason why the corporation shouldn't fund the extra bandwidth that users will be using.
As one silicon.com reader pointed out - ISPs wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for the content people want to access on the web.
Cheat Sheets
♦ Web 2.0
♦ Mash-ups
Downloading of rich video content is only going to grow over the next few years and ISPs will need to be able to cater for this. If ISPs can't cope, they're not going to last much longer in the changing online landscape.
The specific issue seems to be that iPlayer is a peer-to-peer system so that it uploads and downloads data at the same time, making it potentially bandwidth-heavy.
Added to this, the programmes take around half an hour to download so a lot of bandwidth is used over a sustained period of time.
But to charge a content provider to distribute material just because it takes up more bandwidth cannot be justified in the long term. More and more services will appear which demand as much, if not more, bandwidth and so perhaps one day soon the demands of the iPlayer will seem positively thrifty.
With the number of users for iPlayer likely to be ramped up over the coming few months it's really down to the ISPs to adjust so their customers can make full use of what the service has to offer.
Eventually, ISPs will have to accept they need to offer greater bandwidth and download limits so customers can use the growing number of services but for now some at least may continue to stick their heads in the sand.
Sure, the ISPs might work on thin margins for consumer broadband. But there is certainly a sense that now the iPlayer has arrived, something that might actually make consumers want to use the high speed home broadband they have been sold, that the ISPs are turning round and asking for more money.
It's not an argument that's going to impress businesses out there working on the next big thing - be it a media player or a website - that demands lots of bandwidth. They won't want to pay the ISPs for the extra bandwidth used and nor should they. If ISPs were allowed to tax content providers in this way it would have a chilling effect on the industry.
Consumers have been sold a fully fledged broadband service at a set price and if that service can't handle the rich video content users want to see then it's a problem for the ISP and its pricing structure, not the BBC.
The ISPs have sold the broadband dream - now they must make sure it doesn't turn into a nightmare.
Comments
There are 7 comments. Join the discussion
1. anonymous
We pay for our bandwidth already so what the hell are they moaning about?
Lucky for me i selected signed a "Contract" for an "Unlimited" service, which i intend to use to the max.
If they cant provide this "unlimited" service they should be punished for selling it (trading standards does have rules u know). They (ISP's) are already in hot water over broadband speeds advertised versus received, do they really want to upset us poor consumers even more, who knows we could do something radical like boycote the greedy ISP's and go elsewhere with our hard earned cash.
Personally i would like to see a shame list of all the greedy isp's that want to charge content providers in addition to thier own customers for the SAME bandwidth. Somewhere nice and public like googles home page would be nice! shame they dont advertise on the home page :-(
booo to Tiscalli....
2. anonymous
Why pick on the poor old BBC ? Channel 4's VOD and catch-up service is also peer to peer, and it has been out there for quite a while ! What about youtube ? Are ISP's asking them to pay as well ? This is ridiculous
3. Haydn Rees
Historical model;
- ISP buys wholesale xDSL capacity (bandwidth & download).
- ISP retails bandwidth.
- Customers use less than 100% of purchased capacity.
- ISP sells unused capacity again.
- Ker-ching.
Mature model;
- Useage pattern matures.
- High bandwidth content-on-demand becomes available.
- Usage approaches 100% of capacity.
- ISP complains to content provider.
An ISP complaining because content providers are providing content people want? Nasty BBC - making ISPs deliver the services that their customers have paid for. If this sort of thing continues, what kind of world will this become?
4. Joe Whitehead
I must be stupid - isn't the BBC paying for uploading on their own end to backbone providers? The same for the ISPs in question. This sounds like breaking a deal. (Keep customers coming for more and charge customers for higher download speeds compared to 56k modems)
5. Glen Monks
I get 8GB/month from my ISP and I can pay for more if I want it. I get what I apy for, and the ISP gets the revenue to offer a good quality of service.
If ISPs haven't figured out a business model that works for them, that's their problem.
6. Simon
The ISPs are to blame - they've been selling "unlimited" and "free" for so long that they have painted themselves into a corner by making their customers expectations be "unlimited" and "free" (or cheap). Until now they've been able to hide behind the fact that the majority of customers haven't actually used everything they've been sold - but now that's changing. The fact that many of the p2p users were swapping stuff illegally worked to their advantage as it allowed the ISPs to equate high traffic with criminal activity and so distort the perception of the unknowing masses.
What the ISPs now have to do is re-educate the market to now think in terms of "£x buys you yGB" and that there is no such thing as unlimited. Won't that be good fun for those ISPs going out of their way to promote "free" and "unlimited" ?
Once they've achieved that, then it'll be a simple choice - if the customer wants to watch videos etc then they can pay for it, if they don't they won't. The extra payments will cover the cost of the network upgrades* and everyone will be happy.
* Of course, some ISPs won't charge enough to cover the network upgrades and they'll continue to suffer from p***ed off customers. Eventually the general population will come to realise that "cheap = poor/limited" and be prepared to pay.
On that round, cue the ISPs dreaming up yet more excuses designed to avoid admitting the truth !
7. Ralph
Ah, truth will out.
Naughty Auntie, offering stuff peeps will actually want to download (all those great 70s comedy shows and awful but very addictive sci-fi progs) how will an ISP offering a 'free' conneciton manage on the re-sold bandwidth they use to con suckers currently.
All the above comments have picked up on the same thing, naff service, naff support and soon, naff all.