Ulysses Posted April 13, 2008 Share Posted April 13, 2008 BBC and ISPs clash over iPlayer, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7336940.stm lmao this is a kick up the arse for all the ISP's for not keeping up with what the british public want, why the hell should sites like BBC iplayer pay for there lack of action in ensuring there network can cope....I say Tiscali, BT and all the other companies need to get there arse moving and stop bitching about it. [br]Posted on: April 13, 2008, 18:46:21if they are gonna also blame the BBC Iplayer then they also need to blame any other site that does video streaming such as Utube Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted April 13, 2008 Share Posted April 13, 2008 You realise that the money for the bandwidth has to come from somewhere, if it isn't coming from the BBC (which I'd have to agree with is a rediculous demand), then it's either going to come from part of the profit and investment into a 'better' (read faster, more reliable) network or it's going to come out of the consumer's pockets, possibly a combination of both. There is nothing free in this world (unfortunately). In light of that, another possibility could be that they again switch over from 'unlimited' *cough* access, back to a XX GB/month system. Somehow I think the ordinary consumer never thinks of this aspect when they talk about ISP's, they are not a public interest company, they are there to make profit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted April 13, 2008 Author Share Posted April 13, 2008 Somehow I think the ordinary consumer never thinks of this aspect when they talk about ISP's, they are not a public interest company, they are there to make profit. We dont mind paying more when we are upto the speeds of the other first world countries but its simple we aint so why the hell should we pay more? a example of this is British Telecom, they charge me and my Fiancee 60 quid ($120) a month for phone and broadband, we mainly us our mobiles so out of this we probably pay 20 ($40) quid a month on phone calls, the rest is for the Broadband, for 40 ($80) quid we are only getting at best 4-6mb download speeds and a allowance of 40gig a month which is pathetic. You goto somewhere like Japan they pay less and get alot better speeds, its time the UK ISP's got there act together instead of milking everyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted April 13, 2008 Share Posted April 13, 2008 Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the current system is right, but it's the system that's in place and I'm very doubtfull it's going to change anytime soon. It's not just the UK btw. We pay (converted into USD) $160/month for just broadband (no phone included). That's for a monthly bandwidth limit of 50GB, but the speeds are good, no complaining there. The price is rediculously high though, but it is shared between all the inhabitants of the appartment complex (so is the bandwidth limit btw, so in reality for me, the price and bandwidth limits are 1/10th of what I mentioned above, if I need more bandwidth, I can buy that at $1.5/GB). Coutries like Japan/Korea/... are the exception, not the norm. Though we probably would all want that to change, it's unlikely to, not in any major way anyway and not very fast either. That's just the way things work over here. Broadband requires huge investments that are not easily earned back (because of the incredibly rapid development of new technologies in this sector), so by letting 'the free market' do it's thing, you create monopolies that have a large enough customer base to stay in business and make money (the more the better, high service is secondary to high profit) from it too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted April 14, 2008 Author Share Posted April 14, 2008 It's not just the UK btw. We pay (converted into USD) $160/month for just broadband (no phone included). That's for a monthly bandwidth limit of 50GB, but the speeds are good, no complaining there. The price is rediculously high though, but it is shared between all the inhabitants of the appartment complex (so is the bandwidth limit btw, so in reality for me, the price and bandwidth limits are 1/10th of what I mentioned above, if I need more bandwidth, I can buy that at $1.5/GB). Coutries like Japan/Korea/... are the exception, not the norm. Though we probably would all want that to change, it's unlikely to, not in any major way anyway and not very fast either. That's just the way things work over here. Broadband requires huge investments that are not easily earned back (because of the incredibly rapid development of new technologies in this sector), so by letting 'the free market' do it's thing, you create monopolies that have a large enough customer base to stay in business and make money (the more the better, high service is secondary to high profit) from it too. The problem is if the ISP's decide to actually increase what they charge they have the new problem of slowing down customer up take of the faster services. I think they may be talking about these cheaper offers i.e £10 - £15 a month offers, in which case I would agree. In this case then the ISP if worried about what they are getting paid then they should offer there budget packagaes but with blocks on sites that do offer video streaming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dBLOOD Posted April 14, 2008 Share Posted April 14, 2008 I can not understand something... For the record, I can not and do not want to use iplayer for watching UK TV, since I do not live in the UK. Anyway, I simply do not understand why BBC should pay for network-upgrades. I mean does YouTube pay for network upgrades too? Or any owner of such bandwith-consuming service? This is ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyran Posted April 14, 2008 Share Posted April 14, 2008 CABLE get virgin media there is no limit on downloads virgin do a connection through phonelines for the poor unfortunates who do not have cable in their area but I believe it still has no limits Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted April 14, 2008 Share Posted April 14, 2008 kyran, you should know that Virgin is THE one company that is pushing for the BBC to pay extra fees to pay for the bandwidth increase because of the online BBC videos. It is the company that most pronounced said that they'd either get paid for providing good service for the BBC or they would throttle them as far as they see fit. The new CEO of Virgin Media is putting his cards on the table early, branding net neutrality “a load of bollocks” and claiming he’s already doing deals to deliver some people’s content faster than others. If you aren’t prepared to cough up the extra cash, he says he’ll put you in the Internet “bus lane”. http://torrentfreak.com/virgin-media-ceo-says-net-neutrality-is-a-load-of-bollocks-080413/ By all means, if you like a fully tiered network, all go to Virgin and soon you'll find yourselves in more trouble than before you began. dBLOOD, this is simply the American net neutrality arguement crossing the Atlantic, Europe is catching up it seems. The consumer organisations are already filing with EU to make net neutrality law, if they succeed, the Virgin CEO can shove his taunts 'where the don't shine'. Some background: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080413-atrans-atlantic-definition-of-net-neutrality.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TFMF Posted April 14, 2008 Share Posted April 14, 2008 Another friend of mine on Virgin may not download more than 300mb per day, or their connection is dropped down to 1 meg for the rest of that day. For the UK, 1 meg is still bloody good, but still. :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted April 14, 2008 Author Share Posted April 14, 2008 Another friend of mine on Virgin may not download more than 300mb per day, or their connection is dropped down to 1 meg for the rest of that day. For the UK, 1 meg is still bloody good, but still. :p Depends on how much your paying for it lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenebrae Posted April 15, 2008 Share Posted April 15, 2008 ISPs are getting hauled over the coals for their blatant lies - which is to say if I sold you a car and said it could do "upto 120mph" but actually it turned out that was only if you strapped a rocket onto it, I might be prosecuted for fraud or some such but that ISPs somehow get way with it. Similarly, "unlimited" broadband is seldom without limits because "fair usage" usually means "die bandwidth hog!" To be honest, it's a good way for them to make money by bending customers over when they exceed their limits... and of course for those with "unlimited" the ever popular throttling. As the article TetsuoShima helpfully posted in another thread points out - these warnings of the end times when traffic slows the Internet to a stop are perpetual favourites for ISPs - for various reasons... The infrastructure does need to be upgraded but asking the BBC to do it is at best, idiotic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now