On 10/04/2008 12:20, Nick wrote:

There's not much chance of the BT prices for EES circuits undercutting
anyone's price for anything, though to be fair they don't charge much
extra for 100Mbps compared to 10Mbps.

In article news:<6650tnF2iaunmU1@mid.individual.net>, John wrote:
Hear! Hear!

(If only the TV companies would stick to a particular time and day for
all programmes in a series, so that we /could/ record them without
having to be checking the programme times all the time.)

Cheers,
Daniel.

and you don't have to sit through all that mindless cack from pres

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 09:46:10 GMT, DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:

Yebbut, if buses went where and when wanted, there'd be an infinite number
of 'em, each with 1 pasenger (says he, having come home today as the only
pasenger).
--
Peter.
You don't understand Newton's Third Law of Motion?
It's not rocket science, you know.

PeterC wrote:

True.


--
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

"DAB sounds worse than FM" <dab.is@dead> wrote in message
news:WodLj.46927$Ge4.10204@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...

Of course its growing month on month, because the BBC is plugging it all the
time, and more people are trying it out. The thing is, chances are many
will also soon become uninterested in iPlayer and go back to other more
conventional ways of getting their TV. Whats wrong with using a video
recorder? We have had them in our homes for three decades!
Obviously a modern digital PVR is the way to go, and many people do already
have a PVR. Lets face it, a lot of people have had a video recorder for 25
years or more. A video recorder is a basic PVR, and so we have had the
facility of being able to watch a TV programme when we want to, for almost
30 years. Its nothing new. The BBC are just using the internet as a new
way to do an old thing!
My comments were not aimed at PVR users, but specifically at iPlayer users.
A PVR does not use bandwidth from your broadband connection. I have no
issue with using a PVR. I have a couple myself and they make it very
convenient to watch a programme when you want to watch. My concern is that
the BBC are using technology for the sake of it, just because they can. I
could see the point of iPlayer if the programmes on offer were new
programmes that had not already been broadcast by other means.

The problem with the world right now is that everyone wants everything on a
plate. If you are interested enough to want to see the content of a
programme, then surely its not too much trouble to set the video or PVR or
Sky+ box before you go out? OK I understand that people might forget to set
the video on some occasions, and iPlayer could save the day if that happens,
but I don't think it should be used as a main delivery system for TV. The
BBC already has a reliable network in place for the delivery of TV and
radio, so why does it need another one that puts strain on a network that is
used primarily for other uses? I find the internet a great place to escape
the rubbish pumped out on TV.... Or is that the concern of the BBC?
Perhaps they are trying to invade a network that until now has done very
nicely indeed without the BBC streaming its output over it. Perhaps they
are feeling left out and want a piece of the action?
So does a PVR (or an old VHS video recorder for that matter) They are
plentiful, cheap and don't require a personal computer or broadband
connection. We have had them for around 30 years and the facility of being
able to save a TV programme for viewing later is nothing new. As I said in
my first post, I believe its technology for the sake of technology. OK
plenty of people are using it right now, but how long will it be before many
realise that a PVR is a better way to do it?

Is BBC iPlayer content available world wide from the BBC website, or is it
restricted to UK users only? If it is available worldwide I can see that
some people abroad might find it useful to watch up-to-date episodes
programmes, but thats about all its useful for in my view.

John

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

Because it puts an immediate halt on Web 2.0 and IPTV, streaming audio,
bandwidth-hungry games, etc.
Next people will be turning off "automatic updates" just to save some money;
and then we have an even bigger net security problem!

: Not idiotic at all. Why should Grandma[1] who does a bit of light
: emailing and looks at the odd website be paying the same as some tosser
: like me to saturates his connection all day with torrents?

Grandma can get a cheap service with a 1GB limit! This already exists.

The technology is available for wireless mesh networking; we could avoid
ISPs altogether if we *really* wanted to.
Of course, that's *slightly* less secure than the current Internet setup,
but we all know the idea of the "network" is changing.

: Surely it not a bug or feature but a practicality. Extra kit at the
: exchange cost money. P2P may make this worthwhile but I would have been
: a bit scared of paying for it if I thought the government might
: legislate against P2P. I guess BBC player is the first really big
: legitimate P2P system.
:

It would certainly take a lot of traffic away from the backhaul, and this
seems to be the logical solution anyway. Surely this would be a *true*
"Next Generation Network". Efficiency is just as important as Level 1 and 2
bandwidth. This kind of change in infrastructure would see backhaul traffic
plummet (P2P is estimated to be around 20% of all internet traffic), even
though the throughput of all data would undoubtedly continue to rise. It
would be faster too - a lot less equipment and hops involved between
"neighbours".
IPv6 allows for this kind of transition too, where IPv4 would have failed
(or struggled).
The data travelling back down to the ISP backbone doesn't cost them a penny
though - they don't have to pay for their own traffic! So they won't see
any reduction in cost by doing this - so it's of no interest to them.

But, surely, THE ISPS KNOW ALL OF THIS. They're meant to be experts in the
field! They just want more money. If they're not happy with the ISP
business, they can pull out! The Internet was NEVER meant to be privately
owned in the first place, it will evolve whether they want it to or not.
They know this too.
Grab the Pound notes while they still can.

Oh yeah, and the BBC is NOT the first do this by a long shot. They're one
of the last to jump on the bandwagon.
The ISPs are screaming at the BBC because they have a better chance of
squeezing money out of them, because it's public money and nobody really
looks after that!

The commerical channels would just tell them to bugger off, and they know
this also.

http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2008/0...ne-set-to.html

Who do they want to pay for the traffic from this?

As if the BBC were the first on the scene!

PeterC wrote:

Cork Soaker wrote:

Oh? so tye routers and teh fibres and teh staff to look after them come
free?

Novel concept.

On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 03:10:00 +0100, Cork Soaker wrote:

Why should that be?

Why should they be free to do all that without paying the costs of doing
so and why should the ISPs or anyone else be required to pay for their
doing so?

"Cork Soaker" <ISawYourMotherLast@Night.invalid> wrote in message
news:ftp6ee$q4n$1@registered.motzarella.org...
it depends.

A cache only does any good for the 2nd access or for multiple simultaneous
accesses where you can tie them together and do something about it.

the killer for any caching scheme is bandwidth reduction vs cost of building
and operating the cache.

So given 5000 broadband exchanges in the UK, how many copies would you "use"
of the same item at a specific exchange before you purge it?

Even the biggest online TV style events only attract sub 1 million viewers,
which means there you have efficiencies of 100 to one on a good day, and on
demand content must be less - just because there is so much more choice.

I suspect the cache "efficiency" is only 2 to 10 times for typical content.

Then - can you share the cache between the different ISPs? And LLU operators
have separate plumbing - so that fragments the user set even more.

then you have to buy the servers, run them, maintain them when they go
wrong, pay BT for rack space and power and so on.

no - caching isnt going to work without a fundamental change to the ISP /
exchange plumbing.

AFAICT this is irrelevent - there is nothing at the network level that IPv6
can do that you cannot get out of IPv4.

the assumption here is that an ISP own their own backhaul.

If they use BT IPstream then they dont, and there are usage charges - so not
in that case.

Even if they are LLU based, many backhaul links seem to use rented fibres /
lambdas or Ethernet pipes - so more capacity is fine as long as the pipe
isnt full, but at some point there will be a step change in cost.

Spread over lots of links to lots of exchanges that will follow the same
cost curve as incremental cost for the extra bandwidth - even on their own
fibre the equipment needed to drive a link at 10G is more expensive than 1G
and so on.

Even if raw bandwidth costs were zero, it takes a lot of IP and transmission
hardware to distribute IP plumbing across the UK - significant capacity
upgrades will make Cisco / Juniper / Alcatel et al very happy.......

cable - no idea, but VM keep getting slammed for having bottlenecks on their
network.
Agreed. And people like INUK have a business model based on IP TV as their
main product....
http://www.inuknetworks.com/

now that bit i believe....

Regards

stephen_hope@xyzworld.com - replace xyz with ntl

In article news:<66agg4F2h89o8U1@mid.individual.net>, John wrote:
The answer to that is presumably that it costs them, the BBC, relatively
little to transmit programmes via iPlayer ... compared with the cost of
running and maintaining the UHF transmitter network.

Let us hope that the current iPlayer craze prompts a huge investment in
internet infrastructure, and that once that has happened the great
unwashed will go back to watching the soap of the moment (ah, irony)
from broadcast transmissions and the rest of us can use that nice new
bandwidth for downloading security patches for Microsoft's ever-more
unreliable Operating Systems [1] as the gods of bits and bytes intended!

([1] or updating our linux distros, as the case may be.)

Cheers,
Daniel.

Daniel James wrote:


Ian

Output certified Microsoft free
Checked with Suse 10.3

"The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message
news:1207990942.3086.3@proxy01.news.clara.net...
: Cork Soaker wrote:
:
: > The data travelling back down to the ISP backbone doesn't cost them a
penny
: > though - they don't have to pay for their own traffic!
:
: Oh? so tye routers and teh fibres and teh staff to look after them come
: free?
:
: Novel concept.

Irrelevant, and missed the point by a mile.

: A cache only does any good for the 2nd access or for multiple simultaneous
: accesses where you can tie them together and do something about it.
:
: the killer for any caching scheme is bandwidth reduction vs cost of
building
: and operating the cache.
:
: So given 5000 broadband exchanges in the UK, how many copies would you
"use"
: of the same item at a specific exchange before you purge it?
:
: Even the biggest online TV style events only attract sub 1 million
viewers,
: which means there you have efficiencies of 100 to one on a good day, and
on
: demand content must be less - just because there is so much more choice.
:
: I suspect the cache "efficiency" is only 2 to 10 times for typical
content.

You are right, but a reduction is a reduction.

:
: Then - can you share the cache between the different ISPs? And LLU
operators
: have separate plumbing - so that fragments the user set even more.

Of course you can, this is how P2P works. It's all about spreading the data
around. It's not *the* solution, it's just something else that might make a
difference. Content providers have reported a significant reduction in
bandwidth when switching to this kind of technology, including the BBC. Do
you want to bet that the ISPs that these providers use aren't moaning about
the change in bandwidth? A REAL test is needed....
Comcast in the states have teamed up with BitTorrent using DNA technology.
If it didn't work, they wouldn't bother.
Comcast provide Internet services to end-users and content providers, so if
they're saying they are seeing an improvement, you better believe them!

:
: then you have to buy the servers, run them, maintain them when they go
: wrong, pay BT for rack space and power and so on.

The obvious problem here is the monopoly.
A simple system can be a cache, especially when it comes to P2P. You don't
need complicated systems, and it's only there to help reduce bandwidth. The
software is free and the ISPs swap out older equipment all the time - they
may as well use it!
Private-owned networks like cable companies would see the obvious immediate
benefit.
BT themselves provide Internet access, so they should see it too.

:
: no - caching isnt going to work without a fundamental change to the ISP /
: exchange plumbing.
:
: > IPv6 allows for this kind of transition too, where IPv4 would have
failed
: > (or struggled).
:
: AFAICT this is irrelevent - there is nothing at the network level that
IPv6
: can do that you cannot get out of IPv4.

Not really, the IPv4 address space is limited. There's no way the world
could handle extra devices at the exchange running IPv4, and NAT is not an
option here. IPv6 is designed with ridiculous numbers in-mind. It's only a
simple issue, but it's been resolved so it may as well be used.

:
: > The data travelling back down to the ISP backbone doesn't cost them a
: penny
: > though - they don't have to pay for their own traffic! So they won't
see
: > any reduction in cost by doing this - so it's of no interest to them.
:
: the assumption here is that an ISP own their own backhaul.
:
: If they use BT IPstream then they dont, and there are usage charges - so
not
: in that case.
:
: Even if they are LLU based, many backhaul links seem to use rented fibres
/
: lambdas or Ethernet pipes - so more capacity is fine as long as the pipe
: isnt full, but at some point there will be a step change in cost.
:
: Spread over lots of links to lots of exchanges that will follow the same
: cost curve as incremental cost for the extra bandwidth - even on their own
: fibre the equipment needed to drive a link at 10G is more expensive than
1G
: and so on.
:
: Even if raw bandwidth costs were zero, it takes a lot of IP and
transmission
: hardware to distribute IP plumbing across the UK - significant capacity
: upgrades will make Cisco / Juniper / Alcatel et al very happy.......

True. But it's not a recurring cost. The extra purchase exists to reduce
bandwidth, so should last.... (famous last words).

:
: cable - no idea, but VM keep getting slammed for having bottlenecks on
their
: network.

Yes, well, they are still offering staggering speeds compared to DSL, but
that's a technology thing...
They would benefit the most from redesigning their network, less "core" more
"regional".

: >
: > But, surely, THE ISPS KNOW ALL OF THIS. They're meant to be experts in
: the
: > field! They just want more money. If they're not happy with the ISP
: > business, they can pull out! The Internet was NEVER meant to be
privately
: > owned in the first place, it will evolve whether they want it to or not.
: > They know this too.
: > Grab the Pound notes while they still can.
: >
: > Oh yeah, and the BBC is NOT the first do this by a long shot. They're
one
: > of the last to jump on the bandwagon.
:
: Agreed. And people like INUK have a business model based on IP TV as their
: main product....
: http://www.inuknetworks.com/

It's sad, but a lot of people think that the BBC are the first to do this,
because it was in the news! These are the same people that believe
everything they see on TV of course, and watch Big Brother ;-)

:
: > The ISPs are screaming at the BBC because they have a better chance of
: > squeezing money out of them, because it's public money and nobody really
: > looks after that!
:
: now that bit i believe....

It's fairly clear though isn't it?

:
: >
: > The commerical channels would just tell them to bugger off, and they
know
: > this also.
: --
: Regards
:
: stephen_hope@xyzworld.com - replace xyz with ntl
:


A response with some intelligence! Thanks Stephen :-)

"Jason Clifford" <jason@ukfsn.org> wrote in message
news:ftpu6e$iqa$2@localhost.localdomain...
: On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 03:10:00 +0100, Cork Soaker wrote:
:
: > : > : I think the OP was right the ISPs need to bill based on the amount
: > : > : downloaded/uploaded.
: > : >
: > : > How truly idiotic.
: > :
: > : Why?
: >
: > Because it puts an immediate halt on Web 2.0 and IPTV, streaming audio,
: > bandwidth-hungry games, etc.
: > Next people will be turning off "automatic updates" just to save some
: > money; and then we have an even bigger net security problem!
:
: Why should that be?
:
: Why should they be free to do all that without paying the costs of doing
: so and why should the ISPs or anyone else be required to pay for their
: doing so?
:

Because that's what they signed up for when asking for the license to do so.

: The
: BBC already has a reliable network in place for the delivery of TV and
: radio, so why does it need another one that puts strain on a network that
is
: used primarily for other uses?

Because that is what people want. Video on demand is already big, the BBC
are not the first to do this. They have watched Channel 4 do this, it is
successful, so they're providing the nation with what they want - that is
their mandate.

Do you know what the primary use of the Internet actually is? It's not all
about web pages and emails you know. (There's viruses and spam too!)