LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Here's a brief breakdown for those not up to speed:
Shortly after BBC's iPlayer launch, some UK ISPs noticed monthly streaming costs jump 20% - and for some that was 5% of their total running costs for the month.
ISPs are now suggesting that the BBC should help foot the bill.
The BBC says that's ridiculous, and that if the ISP networks aren't up to it then they should improve their networks, advertise their products better, and charge appropriate prices for appropriate services.
The ISPs didn't like that much, saying that the BBC has no business telling ISPs how to go about their... business.
So what do you think? Vote above!
--------------------------
And separate from the question itself, here are my thoughts:
Firstly, ISPs are sh... rubbish. All of them. Well, most of them. You pay for something, and you only get some of it. In some cases, you pay for super-fast broadband, but if you use it for anything that actually benefits from super-fast broadband, you hit your usage cap in next to no time.
Essentially, ISPs are putting off actually providing us with a decent amount of bandwidth for as long as they possibly can.
The BBC iPlayer is creating more demand for that change, so ISPs need to invest. The BBC is funded by our license, and as the corporation moves towards more online-distributed content, shouldn't it use some of that funding to improve the distribution network?
But if that's the case, there are two problems. First of all, we have iPlayer traffic getting preference over 4OD traffic, YouTube traffic and so on, because the BBC helped pay for the networks delivering the content... but of course we are the ones that helped pay for the network, really, so enough of that tiered Internet traffic bull.
So what of the other video distribution services? Should Google pay to help ISPs deal with YouTube traffic? Should Channel 4 - which is ad-funded - help too?
Without having to unravel a tapestry of awkward questions, it should be pretty clear already that such a system simply won't work.
You pay whoever provides your pipe. Once your data's on the pipe you've paid for, it's on the Internet - and with the Internet, the idea is you're pretty much guaranteed the data will get where you want it to - you don't have to worry about it after that. If you start having to pay for somebody else's pipe so that they can receive your data... well the Internetwork becomes an Internotwork.
Now for the hard hitting bit... ISPs, listen up:
If your users want iPlayer and your network isn't up to it, upgrade your network infrastructure. To compensate for the expense, either save on outgoings somewhere else, pass on the costs to the customer, or a combination of the two.
If your network is up to it, but your bandwidth costs are going up, well you still have to deal with the expense in much the same way.
Some people will leave because they don't like the higher charges. But they'll come back once they realise that everybody's got to do it. And for those that don't do it... well you'll lose all the customers that actually want to make use of a true broadband connection.
Oh look, I managed to solve the whole problem without creating a non-neutral net. I rock.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Ephesians
yep
too.. many... choices....
