NEWS
The massive increase in bandwidth-heavy online TV and video content being downloaded by UK broadband users has raised questions about whether current networks can cope and who should pay for any upgrades.
Specifically the recent surge of interest in the BBC's iPlayer online on-demand TV service raised this issue following a massive 3.5 million programmes being streamed or downloaded in the two weeks following its marketing launch alone.
And as more of these bandwidth-heavy content services - such as the multi-broadcaster Kangaroo media player - are launched and more people use them, the result could potentially be gridlock on broadband networks as bandwidth is used up.
BBC iPlayer: all the coverage
♦
BBC's iPlayer is go
♦
BBC iPlayer sparks broadband row
♦
16,000 back iPlayer petition
♦
Leader: Time for a ceasefire in iPlayer row
♦
BBC tech chief hits back at iPlayer critics
♦
Open sourcers welcome BBC iPlayer for Linux
♦
BBC iPlayer gets 3.5 million hits
But if this is going to be a bandwidth problem does the responsibility to fund network upgrades to cope with it lie with the internet service providers (ISPs) or the content providers?
Tiscali, which also owns Pipex, has been the most vocal ISP on this subject and has stated in the past it believes content providers such as the BBC should foot the bill for upgrading networks to cope with the content they're now churning out.
Tiscali claims that both the streaming and download versions of the BBC's iPlayer can create problems on its network.
Last August a Tiscali spokeswoman told silicon.com: "We don't believe that the potential for it to cause congestion is being properly recognised and acknowledged."
Tiscali employs traffic shaping on its network with bandwidth for large packets of data restricted at peak times to ensure every customer has a similar service.
This means services such as iPlayer or Channel 4's 4OD can be slowed (but not interrupted) as available bandwidth is reduced.
Despite its comments, Tiscali says it would not target iPlayer content for traffic shaping - possibly as it can't distinguish iPlayer content from other BBC traffic - but the issue is something the company is concerned about.
Speaking to silicon.com this week, a Tiscali spokeswoman said: "If the content providers don't come to the table on this, the cost will be solely on the end user. It is an issue and we want to talk about it."
She added: "My hope for this year is there will be some sort of cross industry consultation on this."
Industry regulator Ofcom is also aware of the potential looming conflict and told silicon.com broadband traffic prioritisation is likely to be necessary in the near future as different kinds of traffic such as voice, video and data continue to proliferate.
Click here for page 2 of this article…
Comments
There are 4 comments. Join the discussion
1. Rob
I always thought that it was limited international bandwidth that mainly caused congestion and expense for ISPs
For UK ISPs where is the bottleneck going to occur? They can peer with the BBC in London.
If for ADSL users the major contention is at the local exchanges then I wonder if local storage (i.e. a CDN pushed out to the larger exchanges) might help. The BBC have a limited range of programs on iplayer - possibly no more than a few Tb that could be multi-cast to distribution points.
2. Gareth Evans
Many, if not most, Broadband packages have a limit (say, 5 or 10GB per month). So for those people who want to use iPlayer type services they either pay more for an unlimited service or pay for the extra data they use beyond their limit.
So the mechanism is already in place to differentiate between those users that want to use high bandwidth applications and those that don't. So isn't it simply a matter of getting the price right.
3. Simon
It seems simple enough to me !
The content providers (such as the BBC) already pay (quite a bit I expect) for their end of the network. The individual consumers pay for their bit. In between, the UK ISPs all peer with each other (mostly at LINX).
Simply, if it isn't "unlimited" then it shouldn't be called "unlimited" - period. Every service should be sold on the guaranteed rate available (ie the guaranteed rate taking into account contention ratios) with max rate being relegated to the small print. Services should also have a well defined data transfer allowance - again in the large print.
Put both these in the publicity material and people will soon work out what's wrong - once ISPs can no longer lie about how much they've oversold their bandwidth.
People can still have "cheap" or "free" packages if they want - but they'll know what they are (or rather aren't) getting.
At the moment it's hard for an honest & decent ISP to survive, let alone grow. If they compete honestly then the masses ignore them because of the perceived expense of their product. How do you sell something for £30/mo when others 'claim' to be selling the same thing for £10/mo ?
4. Richard Davies
ISP's should foot the bill. The BBC will be paying for a leased line to upload / make content available etc. and so in a way...content providers are already paying. We then as customers are generally paying for bandwidth to download from ISP's for either bandwidth which we never receive or 'fair usage' policies which are only fair to the ISP. This to me means that ISP's are already being paid by everyone...content provider and end customers.
ISP's have been getting money from people for years and must have been feeling very cosy and secure. It is there own fault if they have not seen the future and done proper capacity planning on their networks to ensure that they can cope / keep up with new technology.
Also, most streaming media is UDP based. Unlike TCP this has no built in congestion control and so someone somewhere needs to also invent a TCP-friendly UDP style protocol because until then streaming media will eat up bandwidth whilst TCP backs off for congestion.
Bottom line is though that Tiscali should not be bitching like they are.
Can anyone say for sure that if iPlayer etc. didn't happen that congestion would still not be a problem...they are constantly increasing customer base and so eventually congestion would hit anyway!?!