Nevermind all that DRM stuff that we talked to the FSF about, the iPlayer is causing all sorts of other trouble for ISPs. The player, built for viewing and downloading popular television shows onto computers through the special application is taking a toll on the ISPs bandwidth. So much so that they are looking for compensation from the BBC, threatening to initiate traffic shaping that would slow down service and render the player unusable if they don't pay up. The BBC iPlayer is supposedly seen as 30 times as bandwidth heavy compared to other video players like YouTube. These ISPs might not realize what's in store for the internet as even more services and larger content moves online, they might have to buckle sooner rather than later and spend the $2 billion necessary to upgrade networks before things really get out of control.
[via usatoday]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
8-15-2007 @ 7:18PM
Mysterius said...
Will this become simply the first case of ISP censoring?
Reply
8-15-2007 @ 9:51PM
Jordan Running said...
I call bullshit. BBC is already paying for every byte of that bandwidth on their end, and the viewers are paying for it on their end. Nobody owes the providers another cent. This is why we (and our friends across the pond) need net neutrality.
Reply
8-16-2007 @ 5:29AM
Jack said...
To put it simply; in countries where download quotas are in place, the ISPs don't charge the end user for the full quota of downloads they receive. They rely on the 'light' users that don't use all of their quota to 'subsidise' the heavy users costs.
So in the end, ISPs will have to raise prices or get compensation from the services that are causing the increase in bandwidth. :(
Reply
8-16-2007 @ 6:07AM
Sasha S. said...
It is no wonder that ISP's from countries with the worst Internet connections in the developed world are the only ones making a noise about this.
They want most money without investing in the infrastructure. If they have invested so far they would not had a problem. Who shouted "Network Rail"?
(another "fine" british infrastructure company that does a "fine job" of maintaining rail infrastructure) he he he
Reply
8-16-2007 @ 9:09AM
RedWing said...
UK internet is unbelievably poor, with most homes not even getting 8mb broadband. Then you have BT which does traffic shaping on all non-HTTP traffic. Then you have the ridiculous "fair use" clauses which they put on your unlimited Broadband, which give them the right to slow down or limit your "unlimited" service. And now this.
Reply
8-16-2007 @ 11:28AM
James said...
What they need to do is make the ISP divulge strict terms of what constitutes "abuse" of the "unlimited" service, and stop using weasel words like "at our sole discretion". If they said "averaging more than 500MB/hour downstream over more than 24 hours" (or whatever) in the contract, users would have the choice of watching less content or paying for a higher allotment. "Net Neutrality" would only cut off options -- ISPs would be forced to stop offering "unlimited" service, or would have to use even more weasel words and arbitrarily cap accounts, or start charging insane amounts of money. If the law only forces full disclosure, people can make informed decisions about what kind of Internet access suits them best.
Just my 2 cents.
Reply