BBC vs ISPs: Bandwidth row escalates as Tiscali wades in

Who's fooling who?

Surely the ISPs can provide the bandwidth that their customers are already paying for, they wouldn't be taking money for services they can't provide now would they?

I know, I know....

Oi Tiscali no!

Why don't Tiscali sort out their business model rather than asking for money from the BBC? This is a ridiculous state of affairs. I would have thought the idea of stop advertising unlimited broadband £6.49 would have been a better idea?

Tiscali should get their own house in order

and sort out their really shoddy broadband service and especially their excessively rubbish backend hauls before wading into this battle.

"Always on" & "unlimited usage" are the problem here

If the ISPs didn't flog their connections as such, knowing full well that they are unable to fulfill always on & unlimited bandwidth should, horror of horrors, customers take them at their word. There wouldn't be an issue.

The rise of bittorrent, Youtube & iPlayer is highlighting the ridiculous contention ratios some ISP customers have to endure. Bah.

Paris, cos she would never sell anything short.

Well tough shit ISPs

It never occured to them that offering "unlimited" packages that cheaply would drop them in it?

If they don't work out their business model right then they can't bitch when customers start using their service as it was advertised...

Maybe the ISPs should have been clearer about their products.

(Not using terms like unlimited in a different way to the normal meaning, for example).

They give the impression that they were selling a product that could be used like this, but when it costs them more money they moan.

It's their fault entirely.

Saying that, the BBC should provide a caching system, (a live CD, that would run on the ISP's own hardware) .

Paris, well why not?

A bit rich?

"A bit rich that a publicly-funded organisation is telling a commercial body how to run its business"...

Yet it's okay that a commercial body can get away with not selling a service as advertised? And expect the publicly-funded organisation to go begging-bowl in hand for more cash?

I leave Tiscali this month. Yayness.

Aggresively priced?

Cheap Rubbish I think is what he meant to say. I jumped ship on Tiscali a long time back cos their network couldn't handle the traffic, at peak times it couldn't even be referred to as "broadband", I'm not surprised they're complaining now.

Surely the cost should be funded by the users - buy the bandwidth you intend to use through a series of capped packages. Works for me (with a decent, non-traffic-crippling ISP).

Sure I'd prefer uncapped, but you get what you pay for, offer traffic-shaped, uncapped packages & full speed capped at different price points, everyone's happy.

Why just the BBC and not the others?

So what's going to happen when YouTube et al offer high-definition videos instead of the current low-def offerings? Are UK ISPs really going to expect US websites to donate towards their costs?

A use for the licence fee?

I for one would be happy for part of my licence fee to go towards this.

I rarely(if ever) watch anything from the BBC and listen to 3.5 hours of Radio 1 a day - paying a bit of money to (and I use the term loosly) "ailing" ISP's. Id rather my licence fee money was put towards this than the cost of my (horifically crippled, limited, high contention, ANTI p2p) broadband subscription being upped.

Flaky business model

So, I pay for my 'unlimited' broadband connection flogged to me in some big marketing push by a large ISP. I then watch content on the BBC's iPlayer, which is just a fancy name for a website with a whole load of video. The BBC then get flack for causing this demand... Really doesn't make sense.

The iPlayer is nothing particulary special - there are many sites that have provided video content for a lot longer. The only difference is the iPlayer actually gets used. Bandwidth usage has always been continuing to increase so if the ISP's were short-sighted enough that they for some god-for-known reason thought that nothing else new would come along on the Internet, then that is their problem.

It would be like Ford producing a car (the Focus for example) and then the Government demanding Ford pay for the roads for the car to go on because people like that car...

Really the issue falls back to the ISP's dumbass marketing departments coming up with the dumb idea of selling a product as unlimited when clearly they can't back this up.

Agreed

I'll go with the majority here.....

It's not the Beeb's fault if the ISPs' business model has been caught out. And why are they not asking for money from iTunes, ITV Formula 1, Youtube, (any other content provider).

Change your business model, not force all licence payers to pay for your flawed pricing model.

Paris because she's used plenty of bandwidth of her own over the years.

LocalGovtITguy

forgive me if this sounds somewhat like I don't care in any way whatsoever...but haven't the ISP's generally been making people pay for exactly the traffic that they Do use for some time now. How on earth can the ISP's complain because if they just cahrge people for usage - the way they do all the damned time anyhow - then they'll just make more money.

Yes I understand perfectly that the amount of traffic being discussed here is significant but so is the 'I don't care one way or an other as long as the ISP's suffer' attitude that I have.

Does anyone remember the unlimited offers? I know they are not sustainable but if ISP's were actualy transparrent *ALL* the time with their charging then what is the problem. It's the ISP's business, if they are sulking because the BBC has provided a service online that is *horror of all horrors* ... Popular... then isn't that their business problem, not the content provider. Why should any content provider pay an ISP because a customer of an ISP is using a service.

ISP's, sorry but honestly, stop talking bollocks and do your job. Make money by charging people if you wish. Or do you feel that may put people off? Don't make me laugh. (Excuse the spelling, i'm rubbish at it)

sponging shits...

So let me get this right.....after lying to their customers about "unlimited" usage and letting their marketing idiots undercharge for broadband in the first place, ISPs are saying it isnt right to charge customers who use iplayer for using the bandwidth but it IS ok to take money from licence fee payers, many of whom ARENT tiscali customers to pay for the ISPs lack of investment in their networks.

bloody cheek!!!

I dont understand the problem

Sorry, but I'm really missing the point of the tone of the Register over this issue. The authors tone in this article, and indeed in all the articles posted by the Register regarding this issue seem to take the tone that the BBC is in the wrong here. The limitations of various ISP's is of no concern of the BBC, or indeed, any internet content provider.

It is a well documented fact that ISP's have been vastly overselling thier capabilities and now are in a panic desperately trying to back peddal on the services they provide. I certainly understand thier protesting at the launch of a new, and I assume extreemley popular (if not now, in the future) bandwidth heavy service, but how they can demand that the BBC take responsibility is beyond me.

If ISP's have been selling broadband cheaper than it costs to maintain, then that is thier issue. Step aside and let ISP's who know how to manage thier businesses in an appropriate manner take up the mantel (be that higher, more realist charges for bandwidth charged to the customer, then so be it).

Can someone explain how this is any different for the BBC than, say, youtube or bit-torrent, or even, one of my own websites? Is this just an attempt by UK ISP's to broach the subject of tiered internet, anit-net nuetrality?

Cheers!

ISPs: Stop Whinging!

We pay you for a service. That service is a connection to the internet. You have managed to get away, so far, with telling us our connection is Unilimited. Now, Shock Horror! We want to use that unlimited connection? The one we are paying for?

If you have oversold your bandwidth, then tough shit. Your problem.

If you have underpriced your packages assuming that we wont use it(Tiscalli, I am talking to you), then tough shit. Your problem.

If you have lied about your products for so many years that you have come to beleive that it is right to do so, tough shit. Your problem.

If you have done everything right, ensuring that the contention ratio is reasonable, and the price is reasonable, then you don't have a problem.

Stop your belly aching and accept that you are now being found out for mis-selling products for many years. Guess what? TOUGH SHIT!! YOUR PROBLEM!!!!

You pay...

...for a contended connection to the internet with a usage policy attached. It used to be the case that this was unclear, but bluntly, anyone who doesn't know that by now probably uses a wobbly X as their signature. The BBC, whose license fee is ALSO supposed to cover the provision of distribution methods, are demanding that ISPs either choke their existing network with a massive increase in traffic, charge all their users for a honking great upgrade to network capacity, or go bust. They, of course, hope to remain entirely unaffected, and are likely to do so, since for all their snivelling about horrible ISPs not giving enough bandwidth to support them, they only allow streaming from their own servers and over their own bandwidth (that's the stuff they pay for) of low bitrate poor quality video. The high quality version, they expect YOU to distribute for them via the abortion that is Kontiki. Easy for them to play consumer champion when either way they don't have to bear the cost of it, isn't it? I particularly liked the way that that sanctimonious prig Highfield claimed that iPlayer's impact was negligible, until the stats came in and proved he was talking through his hat. Still, at least one has the wonderful spectacle of watching a queue of turkeys lining up to vote for Christmas...

BBC naming and shaming?

Why does the BBC feel that it needs to name and shame any ISP that can't manage the volume of traffic on its network? If the customers aren't happy with the download rates their ISP offers, they have feet.

Contention ratios are there for a reason, maximum load can't be exceeded. Customers who sign up for cheap packages should realise this, businesses who over sell on the hope that worst case contention ratios are never reached need to look at their customer base and model service levels on realistic usage. All they need to do is invest in a few extra pipes and normal service levels will return.

When the BBC sites are not available because a popular story has hit the headlines and too many people are trying to access the site, no one puts the blame on the ISPs for sending too much traffic to the Beeb. It sounds like too many requests is not the problem with the iPlayer. The Beeb has made its investment, time for the ISPs to either invest or drop market share.

Go, Tiscali!

Push other ISPs out of the market by pricing your services below cost and then complain that people are using what they pay for and you need public money to survive.

Take business advice from someone, please? I don't care who, even Paris would be better than whoever told you this was a good idea.

Now seriously for a moment: Budget ISPs bleed money when people use their services. Let them die, it's their own fault. ISPs who provide a decent service, British call centres and products worth paying for, operate on a bigger margin and can afford the hike in bandwidth.

So Tiscali goes down and their users need to make alternative arrangements. Cry me a river. Pipex would have survived it.

StillAnnoyed

So... Dos this mean that Blizzard should pay my ISP for all my World of Warcraft usage? If I can get them to pay the subscription too, I'll be quids in!

So unlimited bandwidth means....

... everything except where the bandwidth exceeds the ISP's ability to deliver it. Nice one Tiscali, I think you have just opened a huge can of worms. What next? No streaming media at all? Only email without attachments and web pages?

I seem to recall a company called Freeserve offering unlimited connection time for free in those heady days when 56K dial-up was fast. And nearly crumbling themselves and Energis (their network provider, sadly no defunct) when they realised that people might just take them at their word.

If I recall, didn't the Beeb talk about putting content servers closer to the customer, say in trunk exchanges? I thought that was jolly decent of them, even considering this. After all, all the Beeb needs to do is pay for their uplink service and have some decent servers. If they are doing that today (and after some tentative starting problems, they seem to be) then their oblighation is fully discharged.

How long before Tiscali start traffic shaping the iPlayer traffic?And then how long before someone takes them to task for breach of contract?

Who pays?

"The BBC would like us to pass all those [iPlayer bandwidth] costs on to the end user"

Instead he'd prefer to charge the BBC, who would find the extra money to pay for it at the end of some magic fucking rainbow, presumably?

You're on the wrong side, Reg

I'm surprised at the Register's reporting on this whole issue, which appears to be siding with the ridiculous comments of Tiscali and the like.

Yes, the ISP business is in dissarray and that's partly as a result of the Iplayer, but it's mostly as a result of their business being structured around lies and half truths. If they can't provide the capacity their users demand, and would appear to be paying for, then they need to be honest about that. Tell customers the truth about the service they're being charged for, and introduce a new scale of charges that actually reflects the way their business works. If that's really so impossible, then put pressure on the regulator (Ofcom) to force a system where the smaller ISPs can compete fairly with the infrastructure owners like BT.

But to direct this bile at the BBC? Actually make a straight-faced argument for them to pay? Utterly ludicrous. It's an impossible argument that flies in the face of every technical (or ethical) principle underlying the internet. The BBC is a content provider putting stuff on the web - no different to the Register, or Google, or Youtube, or any of the other video-on-demand players like Channel 4 or ITV - there is simply no good reason why they should be singled out for some kind of backwards levy on the "broadcast" of content they're not forcing on anybody. The Iplayer is not broadcasting, it's providing content on request to users, using bandwidth that's supposedly been paid for already by the same. If those users are exceeding some limit then just block the connection. That's the ISP's right - under the terms of whatever contract they have with their subscribers. Honest implementation (and charging) of those contracts would avoid this entire problem.

The license fee is a complete red herring in this. When you compare ITV's VOD content with the Iplayer, does it become any more lighter or less bandwidth intensive because it's funded by ads rather than the public? Does Tiscali get some extra wedge from ITV's advertisers to carry their material? Of course not. The only real difference is that the BBC content is more popular, and that publicly funded bodies are always seen as soft targets when they apparently conflict with the interests of poor, defenceless private companies like Tiscali.

The funny thing is, I don't remember any of these ISPs complaining all the time that the BBC were using public funds to drive internet and broadband takeup through advertising and educational campaigns, and establishing various internet "killer apps" like the BBC News website, much to the benefit of private companies like Tiscali. These things never work the other way though, do they?

I look forward to the Register's positive reporting on Tiscali's tax demand to Google - surely carrying that website must be costing the poor ISPs a bob or two as well?

A further comment...

...rarely does an El Reg story produce such common comments - apart from Phorm maybe.

ISPs are all rubbish

The governemnt should force all ISPs over to public ownership and the shareholders and managers shot for being unable to to provide decent customer service.

Misuse of technology

It's a misuse of technology, plain and simple. Like the roads infrastructure, the UK's data infrastructure just isn't geared to supplying large amounts of video content.

Stick to letting the users watch TV content where it's supposed to be viewed - on the TV. If they miss a programme, then they should record it on their dedicated boxes (freeview with integrated hard drive, DVD recorder, SKY+, Virgin whatever, or even a good old VHS recorder).

I'd much rather have a reliable fast internet connection for traditional content, rather than it be slowed down because someone missed Eastenders last night or is downloading dozens of movies from a torrents site or even legitimately from a DVD rental company.

Reaffirming

I find it very reassuring that so many people here consider this to be the ISPs' problem. My consicence is clear paying for a service which is "unlimited" and using as much bandwidth as I can find uses for. Too many of my friends make the argument (the same one people make about insurance companies): that if I'm using up more than my fair share of bandwidth then I'm hurting the service other people receive, which upsets me; if it's a government service that affects society, then I'm happy to reduce my consumption of the service when I don't strictly need it, because I understand that public resources are limited and others could gain more benefit from them than I. When it's a private contract between myself and a corporation, I'll do exactly what they do - try to get as much as I can for as little as possible.

Paris, because she gets a lot for not very much