<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7336940.stm>:

"A row about who should pay for extra network costs incurred by the
iPlayer has broken out between internet service providers (ISPs) and
the BBC.

ISPs say the on-demand TV service is putting strain on their networks,
which need to be upgraded to cope.

Ashley Highfield, head of future media and technology at the
corporation, has said he believes the cost of network upgrades should
be carried by ISPs.

Simon Gunter, from ISP Tiscali, said the BBC should contribute to the
cost.

He said the BBC did not understand the issues involved."

I think it's Tiscali who don't understand the issues involved. A
quick glance at their website finds this
<http://www.tiscali.co.uk/products/broadband/?code=ZZ-NL-11GK&srccode=>:

"£6.49 For 1st 3 months then just £12.99." That particular deal
includes "Unlimited downloads. This great value package offers you
unlimited downloads every month. Download movies and music, play games
online, watch video clips and listen to the radio."

Of course there is the usual disclaimer for the "umlimited downloads"
claim, which redefines the word "unlimited."

To me, the sensible solution to this problem is to do what many of the
better ISPs do: bill customers for their usage (over a pre-set limit).
--
Martin Jay

In article <i69pv3h4fspvl0o1o3n3m118sujc0lqiis@4ax.com>,
Martin Jay <martin@spam-free.org.uk> writes:
There was a similar argument in the US. Actually it was worse;
the ISP's said they would prioritise traffic for the service
providers who paid them the most. Legislation was hurried through
to make that illegal.

For the most part, customers select ISP's entirely on price.
This has forced prices down to the point where they no longer
cover costs. ISP's are looking at other ways to fund themselves.
Hence things like this, and selling customers' browsing habits
to advertisers.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

Correction, the cost of network upgrades should be carried by the
carrier, which may be BT or the ISP.
If a rolling fibre programme had been started years ago, by now
we would have a decent broadband service with capacity to cope.
It's typical of shiddy ISP's to lock you into an inadequate
service for 12 months, or longer, promising the world with,
of course, the usual "up to" getout clauses, with unlimited
downloads, and then complaining it costs them money
when people want to use it.
Of course we want to use it.
ISP's throw money at advertising because it brings
in customers and revenue, but the bean counters
won't let them spend money on infrastructure and
adequate customer support, because that hits
the bottom line and upsets the shareholders.

ato_zee@hotmail.com wrote:
I thought the BBC player was overloading the backhaul, which I thought
already was fibre?

I think the OP was right the ISPs need to bill based on the amount
downloaded/uploaded.

: I thought the BBC player was overloading the backhaul, which I thought
: already was fibre?

The backhaul is nowhere near overloaded. They're crying over peering costs,
a problem that can be resolved by each ISP setting up one or two servers to
server popular content. BBC, CH4, Sky and so on all use P2P technologies to
REDUCE the peering costs anyway, the idiot ISPs should take up the
technology, as some already are!

Greedy ISPs looking to make more money.

:
: I think the OP was right the ISPs need to bill based on the amount
: downloaded/uploaded.

How truly idiotic.

"Cork Soaker" <ISawYourMotherLast@Night.invalid> wrote in message
news:ftjb51$17k$1@registered.motzarella.org...

the stuff pumped out on usenet was more about BT IPstream charges for
backhaul between BT and the ISP (Net central?) - not stuff going to other
ISPs.


AFAIR most iplayer users dont act as seeds, so most of that data comes from
the BBC.

if it doesnt - a typical consumer ISP dominant traffic flow is from "the
internet" to its users - stuff going back the other way is not going to
cause major changes to the overall traffic.

and since both ADSL and cable have big pipe down, little pipe up, the users
would struggle to send "lots" to other ISPs compared to normal download.

So i dont think that actually works out on the back of a fag packet......

BBC already peers with most ISPs (and asks for that if they take more than
10 Mbps of traffic) - and all the ISP has to do is present their interface
at a mutually convenient point.
http://support.bbc.co.uk/support/peering/

AFAICT no money changes hands - so it isnt like this is a big cost, since
BBC and a UK ISP will already have presence in the same data centres- eg
LINX.
Regards

stephen_hope@xyzworld.com - replace xyz with ntl

Cork Soaker wrote:
AIUI ISPs have to pay for bandwidth. The more bandwidth each user takes
up the more the ISPs have to pay. I thought backhaul costs were in the
region of £100 per month for 1Mb/s.

Where can I find out what these are?

Even if they cache they still have to pay for the backhaul don't they.

That is what running a business is about, isn't it?

Why?

"Martin Jay" <martin@spam-free.org.uk> wrote in message
news:i69pv3h4fspvl0o1o3n3m118sujc0lqiis@4ax.com...
Aside from the argument about costs, why has the BBC launched the service
anyway? Lets face it, its just technology for the sake of it. Years ago
when all programmes were only shown once (and in those days no-one had a
video recorder) if you wanted to see a programme, you made a point of
sitting down and watching the programme at the time it was broadcast. If a
programme is worth watching, its surely worth putting yourself out to watch
it? These days we have multiple other ways to record programmes with ease
(without iPlayer), and repeats by the bucketful. Apart from novelty value
(and that soom wears off), I don't see what use BBC iPlayer is really any
good for.

John
flame away, I dont care!

stephen wrote:

The ratio of people streaming to downloading on the iPlayer is about 8 or 9
to 1, so even though the download version uses higher bit rate files, it's
the streaming version that accounts for the lion's share of the bandwidth.
The BBC apparently uses an Akamai CDN for the iPlayer streams.



--
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

Nick wrote:


It depends where they cache - if they put caches inside the exchanges that
would solve the problem, but the caches are at the ISPs at the moment
apparently, so the data then has to go to the exchanges.



--
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

John wrote:

If it were just technology for the sake of it then it wouldn't be as popular
as it is, and over 550,000 people are using it every day on average already
within just 3 months of it being launched - it's growing at 25%
month-on-month.

I recently bought a PVR, so I've actually stopped using it, but before I had
a PVR I liked having the iPlayer as an option to use.



What is the attraction of having someone dictate to you when you have to
watch a TV programme? The thing I love about the PVR I've just bought is
that I can set it up at the beginning of the evening and then watch things
when I want, which is almost never when it's actually being shown. Oh, and
you can fast forward through the adverts in about 5 seconds.



If you got the bus, would you prefer to have to get to the bus stop by a
certain time, or would you prefer that the bus arrived just as you got to
the bus stop? I'd prefer the latter, and the same goes with TV.



It breaks you from the TV schedule.


--
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

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 00:43:34 GMT, DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:

And then concrete everywhere to deal with the traffic?
--
Peter.
You don't understand Newton's Third Law of Motion?
It's not rocket science, you know.

"John" <nospam49765447@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:6650tnF2iaunmU1@mid.individual.net...

I use it if I miss a program for any reason (like they change the schedule
and it doesn't record, or I forget its on).
Saves downloading it of usenet or similar (technically illegal).

DAB sounds worse than FM wrote:
That's small beer to the number using mobile *phones* for anything but a
phone call - and I would put both in the *technology for the sake of it*
category :-)

--
PeeGee

The reply address is a spam trap. All mail is reported as spam.
"Nothing should be able to load itself onto a computer without the
knowledge or consent of the computer user. Software should also be able
to be removed from a computer easily."
Peter Cullen, Microsoft Chief Privacy Strategist (Computing 18 Aug 05)

On Wed, 09 Apr 2008 23:48:14 +0100, Nick wrote:

Yes, that's what BT charges ISPs for Centrals. However, how much unlit
fibre does BT have? That's the /real/ backhaul. Is the price difference
that BT charge for 10M/100M/1G EES justified? The bit of fibre doesn't
care how much data you're shoving down it.

By definition peering doesn't cost anything [other than installing the
kit to do it, and getting data to/from the peering point].

Unfortunately yes, that's the way IPstream works - if an ISP has two
customers on the same exchange who want to share a bit of data with each
other [as in a P2P distribution system], that data will have to travel
all the way across BT's network, down the ISP's Central and back again.
Bug or feature, you decide!

Personally I have little sympathy with ISPs that promise Unlimited!*
internet access and then cry about it when people actually, er, use it.

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?

--
<http://ale.cx/> (AIM:troffasky) (UnSoEsNpEaTm@ale.cx)
09:44:35 up 45 days, 16:38, 3 users, load average: 0.14, 0.05, 0.01
Convergence, n: The act of using separate DSL circuits for voice and data

[1] I noticed Grandma seems to be using Youtube as her music/TV library
of late. This can't be easy on the bandwidth.

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 00:13:58 +0100, "John" <nospam49765447@nospam.org>
wrote:
LOL. Things have moved on a bit from the 1960s. Obviously the BBC's
iPlayer service is proving to be popular, otherwise ISPs wouldn't be
whinging about it.
--
Martin Jay

I not like having to use my computer to watch it.
If one had an idiot proof way to put on a DVD and then watch on the normal
TV then they would have a winner.
Seems daft one can record a "live" broadcast on to DVD watch later on the TV
but not this.
Regards,
David

Please reply to News Group

PeterC wrote:

Considering that if everyone got the bus/coach/train instead of using their
cars this would lead to a reduction in traffic, and therefore less need for
new roads, no.


--
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

David wrote:
You were lucky this time as I normally "select all" and then select
"this is spam" without checking (as indicated in the first line of the
sig file) :-) As it was the only item, I picked up the subject - it is
unlikely to happen again!

--
PeeGee

The reply address is a spam trap. All mail is reported as spam.
"Nothing should be able to load itself onto a computer without the
knowledge or consent of the computer user. Software should also be able
to be removed from a computer easily."
Peter Cullen, Microsoft Chief Privacy Strategist (Computing 18 Aug 05)

alexd wrote:
I thought BT was constrained by the regulator so that it didn't undercut
LLU suppliers.

But the point is surely that there needs to be a cost benefit for them
to provide more bandwidth. VirginMedia also appear to have problems
providing sufficient bandwidth. I'm not entirely sure where this is
happening but I suspect it is in their backhaul too. Presumably they
want to make as much use of their fibre as possible?

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.


Companies are often constrained to do whatever it takes to get
customers. If everyone else offers unlimited it is hard to be the grown
up and say well actually we can't offer that, all the kids will go next
door.

I would like to see the regulators tighten up the definitions so that
the customer investing in a year long contract isn't buying a pig in a poke.

But there does seem to be tremendous antipathy for this viewpoint. It is
hard for an non-technical person like me to follow as a lot of people
seem more interested in justifying their own position rather than
explaining.