Tech News
BBC iPlayer threatened by broadband providers
By Stevie Smith Aug 13, 2007, 14:01 GMT
On the Web
Similar articles
- Barlow: Everyone wants to perform at Queen Elizabeth concert
- Gary Barlow had no problem signing up Diamond Jubilee acts
- Details of Queen Elizabeth's Diamond Jubilee concert revealed
- Tom Jones and The Script`s Danny O`Donoghue complete The Voice UK coach line-up
- Will Young to join the UK version of The Voice?
Latest Headlines in Tech
- 1. Nerd striptease: Unboxing lets others watch you unwrap your gadget
- 2. An online notepad? Your smartphone as a notebook
- 3. Repeaters help get around wi-fi hurdles
- 4. Spring cleaning for your computer: Get the gunk - and the germs - out
- 5. Computer and internet briefs
Older Talkback
page: 1
What a crock of crappola. ISP's charge based on bandwith, if I pay for 4GB download , that's what I get. I won't be able to download / view any more BBC Iplayer content than the bandwith I already pay my ISP for.
This is nothing more than ISP's trying to wangle revenue from the BBC/ our Licence fee.
Why the hell should we pay the ISP's out of our licence fee to allow us to download the content from the BBC site which we already pay the ISP for !!
The ISP's, if they get their way here, will find themselves with a crock of gold, because they will then own everything we can or can't do on the internet, not just for the BBC but every other service provided. ie you will have services selected and against according no particular order and the freedom of the net will have gone.
I sincerely hope Auntie, naive little Auntie that relies on Microsoft far too much, doesn't give in here.
As the comment above said, the point of paying is their point of connection to the web.
i agree with above, so if the bbc set up an isp of their own i shall switch to them merely out of protest for the other providers. i'd gladly pay the bbc my 24.99 per month - and whats more - as i know they would profit from that - they could use the extra cash to improve the service even more.
i currently pay for loads of bandwidth i do not use - its capped at 20gb per month - on an average month i use about 2 or 3gb. they like that. this smacks of cartel manouvering. if thats how they want to play it - why don't they cap youtube and any one else offering video.
i should get what i pay fro - and if i CHOOSE to spend all my allowance on the BBC then that is my CHOICE! i think ofcom or whoever regulates these guys should step in immediately given the clearl anti competitive stance the players are taking.
I was a beta tester of the iplayer and found that although the download was exceptionally fast and really efficient, I noticed that the upload was equally the same, and was horrified to find that while I was downloading something that was a mere 250mb, I was seeding the same programme but exceeding 1gb per day.... there's no upload limitations, we can't cap the rate of the upload... and I did warn the bbc team that they were in for a problem.
Now as for the isps, in reality, we expect to get what we pay for, and if we pay for a service that boasts 'no limits', then we should get just that. However, I can see their point, at what point does a service become overloaded and grind to a halt before we expect them to do something about it. You see, all they're doing is looking to the future.... apart from not adding capacity ;) . So they cap it and then charge for any extras.
It's a money spinner... and we'll be the ones ending up paying.
I also agree, whats the point in paying for an internet connection if the isp is just going to throttle it down to a fifth of its speed whenever you actually want to use it. The isps should be concentrating more on upgrading their infrastructure rather than safeguarding profits. In japan and south Korea average home speed is around 50mbps, even France has an average speed of a little less than 20mbps. You gotta wonder where our money is going.
Ive already had the preliminary letter from Onetel ( Carphone warehouse) advising me that if I use more than 2gb in a day watching TV I will be capped at 512k and then have my account terminated.
I thought faster broadband was meant to mean more access to online TV ect. This is another of the con tricks like dial up came out with time unlimited time online but its really 160 hours a month.
Its profiteering thats all it is.
To Len,
Even if you do have an ISP that boasts 'unlimited', you have to agree to a 'fair use policy'. Now I don't know about all ISPs, but I would assume they can change that policy at any time to include aspects of how much bandwith you actually use.
This I feel, is where the iplayer (bbc) is going to fail unlesss they're either going to pay a premium to the ISPs or the customer is going to be forced to pay extra for their already unlimited (FUP excepeted) broadband.
It's not the service we all were lead to believe, unlimited should be just that, especially if you're paying a fairly large subscription.
This should be a message to all ISPs, if you're going to offer an unlimited service, make sure you have the infrastructure to cope with it.
You need to realise that the internet infrastructure costs a staggerig amount of money to build, maintain, and develop. The ISP's need to make enough revenue from companines like the BBC and residential users to keep the shareholders happy and therefor stay in business. If they dont make money, they close down and then there will be no internet. Resiential users pay for a 'contended' service (read your policy).The ISP can only offer broadband for £15 a month by relying on the fact that not everbody uses all their bandwidth at the same time. Offering television programs is likely to change the contention ratio's and therefor change the IPS's business model. Large increases in bandwidth ulilisation on the Internet core will also require the ISPs to invest huge amounts of money in new hardware and fibers. The ISPs need to stay in business so have to charge the content providers (BBC) accordingly and/or increase the costs for residential users or cap their utilisation.
Dont beat the ISPs up, they are often caught in the middle with everybody (content providers and residential users) wanting/expecting everything on the internet to be for free. Get real, if you want to get more, expect to pay more.
To Wobbler
We are not expecting 'more', we are expecting what we already pay our ISP's for and what they already charge us for.
No more - no less. As already stated, if we pay for 10gb download per month, once that's up there is no more TV downloading so the point is moot, it's not costing them any more than we already pay them for.
If your attached to a 'unlimited ' service then that's the ISP's fault for outight lying as to how much bandwith they will give you. They want to use it to market the product erroneously and then whine when god forbid somebody actually has the gaul to use the service in the manner the ISP's themselves describe.
You sound distinctly like some ISP mouthpiece.
ISP 's have been conning nubs with laughable speed ratings for years. I have no sympathy and they don't need any anyway. Once your reach your cap, you won't get any more download - simple.
The BBC should start and ISP , good idea poster.
To Wobbler,
I wasn't beating up the ISPs, they have a hard enough job doing that to themselves. It was they that offered unlimited broadband at ridiculous speeds, the trick there is, if you can't really provide it, don't offer it.
I agree to the fact that they're hoping not everyone wants to use it at the same time and at the same bandwith, but what if we do, they've said we can but in reality, we can't, nor could be expected to.
It all boils down to: If we pay for it, then without a doubt, we should get it, or else they are not agreeing to their own terms (they also can move the goalposts).
The bbc are not the only medium, but maybe before these big companies decide to provide content that's going to have a huge impact on capacity they should invest in some method of delivery that the users have some control over, after all, if you download something of 250mb size, you don't expect that same programme to upload 3-4 times the size on the same day... going way over what most users have probably signed up for.
The users should be able to say, I've downloaded 250mb and will only allow 250mb uploaded from my machine.... that's where the beeb have got it wrong 'no control' (KService).
As is, I pay enough cash a month for my sub, I expect a full and unempeded service (faults and upgrades accepted). Or don't offer what you can't deliver.
I'm starting to get really sick of the ISP's in this country... All over europe everyone pays much less for broadband (more like £5 per month as opposed to £15+) and have better speeds.
THe ISP's need to cough up the dough and pay for better infrastructure to delever the product that we demand and pay for (and get ripped of through the nose for...)
We should be getting faster, more reliable speeds and cheaper broadband, but we won't because everything goes backwards in this country now...
Why can't the BBC enter the ISP market?
I still don't understand what the ISPs are worried about. Thousands and thousands of people download huge files (6Gb +) files over several days. No ISP charges extra for that! With advertised connection speeds getting higher and higher (8Mbps seems to be the latest) people are downloading more content at much faster speeds compared to back in the days 56Kbps.
What people download, whether via the Beebs iPlayer or through other P2P clients is irrelevant. If the Beebs iPlayer does generate more data download for video - its hardly any different from now. People will just stop downloading illegal recorded videos and switch to high quality official and most importantly legal shows to enjoy without guilt. If anything its not going to increase data transfer that greatly - more of just replace some of it.
Also. i'd like to think that the Beeb will try and keep file size to a minimum rather than just offering DVD-quality videos - that wouldn't make sense to keep customers waiting for hours on end.
Anyway in conclusion. I see no point in ISPs capping or charging any extra for high data transfer which has been there for ages before anyway.
Isn't it about time that the BBC started giving back some of the taxes we've been forced to pay them over the years?
Now they spend our money on their latest con, the iplayer!
I hope the ISP's stitch them up to the fullest extent, expecting US to use our bandwidth to seed their content out to the masses.
Also, while on the subject of bandwidth, the ISP's also pay for this, and the main people profiting from this are the likes of BT who take most of your monthly internet fee away from your ISP (see: BT wholesale).
It's about time that the BBC were knocked down, and I for one hope that once all the 'iplayers' get their internet shutdown for going over their 'fair use' bandwidth (lol), that the BBC suffers terribly, of course you'll all be willing to pay extra for your licenses so they can continue.
Perhaps I should introduce a charge for people who visit my site, but, charge all of you since you have internet access even if not viewing my site, hmmmm... Then if I force you all to upload/download stuff for me I can save my bandwidth :)
I used to enjoy watching TV some 10 years or so ago, and I admit that now and again the BBC make some decent programs, but seriously, what percentage of it is worth watching??? Don't complain about your ISP's, they don't all tax you just because you have a computer, and you have a choice whether to access the internet. As long as the BBC can make money regardless of their content, this will continue.
Steve!
I find their responses completely laughable. Why? Allow me to rephrase.
The biggest three ISPs want the BBC to stop offering downloadable content, or cough up, in fear that it would overload their networks. The very same networks which they boast has incredible speeds, unlimited downloads and 'always on' connection.
Says a lot about the current state of our networks. And what there is compared to what they promise (so long as they get your money and don't have to work for it, that's all ok).
This is the part where it twists even further - BT (very same company that maintains all the networks for ALL ISPs in the UK) have been working (although most users don't appear to have benefitted from it yet) to upgrade their networks so it can provide an EVEN faster network connection.
So it's even more questionable why they would be so worried about an overload of downloads. Things not going quite to plan BT?
And videos are hardly the worst thing you can send on a network. Youtube doesn't appear to have imploded BT, or seriously colapsed it's networks. Slap on a good codec (if the BBC can compress it, they could even easily bypass the 512k cap), they wouldn't have much problem.
Lets not forget that these are the same ISPs who thrive on people who pay more so they can download more.
Having the BBC as an ISP is only a (very overloaded network) pipe dream. The quality of service would be too good.
Isn't it about time that the BBC started giving back some of the taxes we've been forced to pay them over the years?
*** Err no, you pay a licence fee, that's how the BBC TV and Radio provide you with advertless programming. Giving back ?
Now they spend our money on their latest con, the iplayer!
*** Con ? There's no charge for it it's free and enables people to view what they want on demand from anywhere, yeah real con.
What is it with some people, talk about getting the wrong end of the stick.
Agree with Simon,
It's not a con, the iplayer, it's just another service and we've paid our licence fee over the years for a service, it's not our personal kitty where we can recall some of it when things don't go right.
The main point is, it's NOT the download even though the ISPs are complaining about it, it's the upload. As I mentioned earlier. I downloaded a programme from iplayer @ 250mb, I then became the seed for others to upload from me (no control over how many people used my bandwith)... my upload way exceeded the original download by 3-4 times, so in theory, if I have a 1gb day limit and pay for anything over and above.... I'm already busted by only one download/upload.
The ISPs are right to be a bit worried, but in turn, they should also provide capacity as should the original source (BBC). The BBC couldn't have a central server as we'd all moan about the restricted download speed, instead they use us as their seed which in turn pushes up our usage. ( I did mention this to the beeb but got the cold shoulder and quit the beta test after I raised concerns).
All in all.... we either pay more or get what we pay for and if ISPs are offering unlimited BB usuage, then it should be just that.
ahhh remember dialup, the good old days ;)
The BBC should consider offering the streaming content as a PPV service in which the charge is passed on the the IP provider or become a provider itself, offering dedicated streaming.
Otherwise, their service may be doomed to failure.
Perhaps the real issue here is the threat to both Tiscali TV and BT own broadband tv packages, Tiscali TV and BT-Vision. In fact the more you think about it the more it smacks of hypocrisy.
The key point is that until the BBC's iplayer turns up, there's not really been much in the way of broadband applications. ISPs have been quick to advertise high speeds safe in the knowledge that their business model is based on not very many people actually using the bandwidth they thought they were getting.
The fact that an actual usable useful broadband application comes along is most certainly not something the BBC should pay for. Instead this should be left to the commercial market and all those ISPs running on the gym-membership model where at any one time pretty much no one is using the service, need to rethink their business approach, invest in restructuring and take a fresh look at their pricing.
There are plenty of real ISPs in this country. Those people who voted with their wallets for the cheap cut down stuff will end up needing to vote with their wallets and move to a proper ISP that specifically tells you that you have unrestricted, un-shaped access to BBC's iplayer.
The arrival of real broadband applications is something to be applauded and the whiny squeals of those ISPs that find their verging-on-deceptive business models outdated ought to be given the sort of raspberry reception they deserve.
I hardly get the bandwidth I pay for now! To be robbed of even more simply because the ISP thinks it's too popular, must be nearly criminal. Why aren't they doing the same for YouTube or their own video services? Hec, they wanted me to watch high bandwidth content, that's how they sold me the high bandwidth package. Damn them all to hell. Surely my service has been missold to me? Perhaps all the highbandwidth customers are due for a refund each month on the traffic shaping or throttling? I get 6Mbit on an £30 8Mbit contract, perhaps I should only pay £23; and then less when I'm throttled?
ISP, I want to use all of the bandwidth I've paid for. I don't care if it's difficult for you. You sold it to me, so you should provide it. If you can't then you're in breach, and you should not have offered the service.
Perhaps I should set up a new ISP, offer 100Mbit downloads on things that I don't mind you downloading, and then take humbridge over my users even thinking about trying to use the service I've sold them. I could make millions. Especially when I get other public companies to pay for the upgrades on my service.
Mat,
I agree fully, it's not until now that ISPs have really been challenged (not in the UK anyway), so when they say about 'speeds' and 'unlimited', they were probably safe, safe in the knowledge that there's nothing to really strain the system.
I also agree that if people join the 'budget' services then moan that they can't get this and that, that they really can't complain, after all, it's a budget service. However, if like me you've joined and pay for 'all singing all dancing no restrictions', then suddenly because the beeb have brought out something that taxes the ISPs, and they (ISP) say 'hang on a minute', then I think we're entitled to say, 'no you hang on a minute' ;)
I suppose if the beeb had maybe mentioned to the ISPs what they were thinking of bringing to the market, then maybe the ISPs may have helped with regards to how to traffic it.... I'm not saying what the beeb use is wrong, I'm just saying that a lot of people are going to get caught out.
I still prefer my tried and trusted (legal) method, I download what I want and allow others to upload from me, when I reach my own FUP, I stop the uploads. Looking back on my usage (even though I'm unlimited), I'm way within expected use.
ISPs know that bandwidth demand will increase in the future. It's not like this is any surprise to them, so they can go away and cry to someone who gives a damn.
Let me get this straight, the BBC provide this service, you download a program you missed, once you have it, you suddenly become a broadcaster.
Umm I pay fee for TV because BBC is broadcaster and they use my fee to make programs that I can watch.
So if I now become the broadcaster on their behalf I should get fee from everyone I upload it to. Oh but when I downloaded it I got it from the person who had already downloaded it.
Whilst I'm here BBC take my money make programs I cannot watch EG they spent a lot of money on Torchwood and then put it on BBC three which I cannot watch as I only receive analogue. This is not the only program they have done this with.
Another thing BBC do advertise , axa sponsored Fa cup is just a fancy loophole.
If I missed program chances are it was because it was krap.
Let me get this straight, the BBC provide this service, you download a program you missed, once you have it, you suddenly become a broadcaster.
Umm I pay fee for TV because BBC is broadcaster and they use my fee to make programs that I can watch.
So if I now become the broadcaster on their behalf I should get fee from everyone I upload it to. Oh but when I downloaded it I got it from the person who had already downloaded it.
Whilst I'm here BBC take my money make programs I cannot watch EG they spent a lot of money on Torchwood and then put it on BBC three which I cannot watch as I only receive analogue. This is not the only program they have done this with.
Another thing BBC do advertise , axa sponsored Fa cup is just a fancy loophole.
If I missed program chances are it was because it was rubbish
Keith, your post is very like the BBC, it's a repeat! lol
Seems a lot of people are getting a bit mixed up here.
The problem isn't only the ISP's, My ISP sells me a capped package, they tell me the capacity, tell me the download speed, and all for a reasonable price (saying as BT get over £10 of that money from the ISP).
If your ISP is lying to you about being 'unlimited' etc, then complain to them, or use your wallet to show them how it works.
The problem here is, they're planning on using OUR bandwidth to distribute the programs that people missed, lots of people miss programs because they don't want to watch them in the first place.
At the moment you're all taxed by the BBC, in part to distribute their programs, and if we're becoming distributors for them (at cost to OURSELVES!), we should be rightly paid for doing them this service. Maybe then the ISP's can push BT for a better infrastructure.
Maybe the ISP's should have a 'premium package' say £100 a month for people using the iplayer service, this would make sense, and the customer could afford this from the money the beeb pays them for distribution :) Otherwise use traffic shaping for the iplayer programming, perhaps capping the download to 56k speeds.
Steve!
TimeRiderAug 14th, 2007 - 13:15:28
'Seems a lot of people are getting a bit mixed up here.
The problem here is, they're planning on using OUR bandwidth to distribute the programs that people missed, lots of people miss programs because they don't want to watch them in the first place.'
Bill says: Spot on :)
It's our bandwidth that the bbc iplayer will be using. Very little if any they themselves will be providing.
Also, a little nugget that most don't know.
You download a programme, it can sit there for 28 days PROVIDING you do not open it, start it or have a little looksee, if you do, you only have 7 days to watch it, from then on, it can NO LONGER be played. You can ONLY watch it on the pc/laptop that you downloaded it to, even if you're on a network, you CANNOT play it on anything but the original download machine.
Now how's that for sauce ;)
Its simple, vote with your wallet!
If your ISP introduces additional charges (wether they expect you to pay it or the bbc), SIMPLY GO ELSEWHERE!
Take your money and give it to an ISP that isnt so greedy.
Lucky for me my ISP package is unlimited and as that is the 'Service' i have entered into a 'Contract' to pay for, that is what i expect.
This is thier problem not ours. If they cant provide 'Unlimited downloads' to all thier unlimited package customers then they should stop selling it until they can.
One word describes this whole situation, 'Greed'.
Matt
BT provide my broadband. I pay them for the service of up to 8MB. I never get close to this. I do get a promise of the 'best speed my line can handle'. BT have also a service called BT Vision (similar to BBC iPlayer). BT Vision customers get priority for network bandwidth at the further expense of the service I already have purchased from them. Efectively re-selling MY network bandwidth that has been promised to me. this must be against some law.
How can I quantify exactly what I have paid for when promises and estimates is all I get.
In the past 3 weeks, broadband speeds have been down 40% on my line.
You also have to understand that all these companies are run by a bunch of old people that don't know anything about computer networks let alone how a mouse works.
Why is eveyone picking on the BBC.
First 4OD use the exact same system, it even sits in the same folder and afaik Sky's equivelent Sky anytime is also the same program.
4OD has been out for a while now. But because it's the 'BBC' everyone gets in a whohar. Why have they not been ranting at 4OD ?
Look, you do not have to get iPlayer, you do not have to downl=oad any content so you will not be uploading any either.
If ISP's want to throttle the kontiki traffic (iPlayer/4OD/Sky and any others that start to use it) then so be it. They traffic shape all sorts already and you are probably on a tiered system of priority down the line. (QOS technologies)
Oh and P.S. to somebody up there. BT do not maintain all of the UK. There are other companies that own some networks in the UK. London has for example. Cable runs on Virgins own netwroks. Kingston Commnication own it's network in it's area.
The other probelm is it's not just the ISP that take the bandwidth hit. It's every link in the chain from the BBC's servers, to the peers to yourself. So how would anyone know how much to pay anybody. It's impossible.
I say they just increase their traffic shapping. The people that want faster download will pay for it (more money to ISP) so they'll benefit from it if it becomes popular in the youth market ;)
Of course the BBC will need to add controls and some fairness to the koniki program, but then the player is only in beta testing to see how it work int he real world.
It doesn't work on VISTA or Mac or Linux properly. It has a messy interface and looks more like a bodge together than a modern seemless program. Certainly not ready for the majority of users.
To B Simmons,
Not everyone is picking on the BBC, it's just the original story IS about the bbc's iplayer...so we have to (from time to time) mention the BBC ;) (I think it's a contractual arrangement).
And most of us do know about Kontiki KService and we do know that other companies use it, I myself have Sky on pc and use the exact same service. However, the upload from Sky is only a fraction of my origianl download, not as in the BBC's iplayer where the upload is far greater than the original download.
You're right in saying we don't have to use it, but some of us are beta testers and it's right to pick fault with a system they're using, especially when you've (me) told them about problems with KService usage.
There is a facility for the iplayer to be used on vista, it's not 100% but it does work.
We (not the Royal we) want to be able to control our bandwidth with regard to what we upload..... not the other way around.
I don't think it looks like a 'bodge together', pink and black is easy on the eye (no strain) and the interface although a little cumbersome at times (especially multiple logins), the iplayer looks set to be what we see now. I just hope that they include some kind of upload control...and as I've had many arguments on their boards... a way of killing KService with a single click.*
* I already have it, but numpties said it would damage the HDD, not that it ever has and I've had months of Sky's service to vouch for that + it's not reliant on any other service, nor any other service reliant on it as when you restart the iplayer, KService starts with it..... (deep breath).. but others didn't see it like that... I think they were computer experts or street cleaners, I couldn't be sure ;)
an appropriate way forward may be for the BBC to pay isps and as it it is a public service the government could levy a public service tax on isps to cover the cost.The tax could then be returned,if ring fenced, to the BBC. Problem solved!!!
John: Why should the ISP's be charged a tax when the BBC already collect their own tax from their 'users'? The ISP's aren't wanting to watch the BBC, it's some of the end users.
I don't watch TV, I find real life so much more interesting, and I have much better things to do with my time, so WHY the heck would I want to pay extra to the ISP (to give to the bbc)?
Simple answer, if you want to use these services, YOU pay extra to your ISP, yes I said YOU, not the rest of us, not the people who only watch the non-bbc channels, but YOU who want to use this... ehm... 'service'. As I said in an earlier post, chase up the bbc to claim your distribution payment which might offset the extra bandwidth the bbc (or rather you!) are using.
In answer to some other points brought up here:
BT have the monopoly on the vast majority of xDSL services in this country, okay so some areas have cable etc, but the majority still use bt lines, bt charge hefty amounts to the ISP's for this usage (over a tenner/month) so your ISP isn't making a great deal as it is!
Not all ISP's are ran by 'old people' who don't have a clue, mine certainly isn't, and the one a had previously certainly wasn't either (not initially anyways, for sure!). They know what they're doing, and do what they need to do.
I'll be contacting the MD of my ISP today and asking about this iplayer lark, suggesting that a premium charge be levied on those who wish to use it, and otherwise implement harsh traffic shaping on them. Hopefully this will pass down through the various ISP's and they'll do the same.
This would be a lot fairer, as only the people using the iplayer service would be paying, NOT like it is with the unfair tv license tax.
I'd like to see how this works out by next year, all these people on 'UNLIMITED' packaged with their ISP's, READ THE SMALLPRINT! 'Subject to fair use' is the loophole they use here, and yes, that's unfair, and if it wasn't for that line, would also be illegal.
Where some ISP's do fall down however, is taking on 5x more clients than they can handle at any one time, users having to try, try and retry to get a connection, only to be kicked off again 20 mins later. THIS IS WRONG, immoral, and I would think illegal. Again this is probably covered in the small print these days, but in any event, I'd not go with an ISP who does this anyways.
8MB download rate:
Depending on your line quality (which comes down a lot to distance from the exchange) your speeds could be a lot lower, this is not your ISP's fault, but BT's, but, even though BT get the majority of cash from our monthly fee's, WE can't contact em to complain, they won't replace lines, BT are not providing the service they are paid to provide.
So... The ISP's should not have to levy the cost, people who don't use it should not levy the cost, anyone wanting to use the iplayer, get ready to pay your higher fees, I've no doubt the beeb will increase the license tax to you too, which will also be funny, you pay them to distribute their drivel, lol
It's unfair and against human rights that we cannot watch the other channels without paying the beeb the tax, their is an article which mentions 'freedom to information' or to be informed, without prejudice or having to make payment. These aren't the exact words, you can look them up yourselves. I hope that recent events with this iplayer go towards spelling the demise of the bbc as we know it, perhaps when they have to make decent programs or get no revenue they will again start to do this.
Steve!
Steve,
It's all about choices... and I have to agree, if people want to watch *repeats* on the iplayer, then there lies the nub. They should pay for it, not the ISP not us but those that wish to use it. However, the iplayer is just one in a long line of new media that's on the net and I still believe it's the way forward.
I too have an ISP run by forward thinking people and I'm on an unlimited service (subject to fair use policy *small print*). I also cap my own usage to be fair to my ISP and to others using the service...why not, it's all about sharing.
I'm no longer an iplayer tester and I have to say, with what I did download, there were numerous repeats on their (bbc) myriad channels.
Didn't read all comments so apologies if this point is already made, but BT bleating about this is a bit rich, given their coincident launch of BT Vision, which if successful will cause far more problems than the iPlayer! Most of the ISPs continue to advertise aspirational bandwidth that only a tiny minority can reach anyway - best I get from my 8Mb service is 1.7Mb and I'm less than a mile from the exchange!
Gus, where were BT bleating about anything? (did you imagine this?), did you read a post that you didn't think you'd read, and indeed hadn't read? Was it repeated on another forum? Maybe you didn't pay me your subscription ;)
If you're on an 8mb package and getting only 1.7mb I suggest that you take this up with your ISP so THEY can take it up with BT, there's a fault somewhere. Firstly I'd check your internal wiring, and ensure you have a filter on each telephone (or each main base if cordless etc). Within a mile of the exchange, I'd expect at least 7mb.
Be aware, that if the problem is YOUR wiring, inside the house, your telephone company could bill you for this.
Or, maybe your iplayer is eating all the bandwidth, lol, maybe all your neighbours are in league with the bbc to bring down broadband, lmao
Steve!
www.timerider.co.uk
[quote]best I get from my 8Mb service is 1.7Mb and I'm less than a mile from the exchange![/quote]
Mile away you say.
I got told by my mate where my exchange was in comparison to where I Live.
He said 'see that building in there the one with loads of manuals, thats the new telephone exchange so your about 800 yards from it and should get the full 8 meg'
Excellent I thought Until bt connected me and I got under a 1 meg connection after complaining It turns out I am 5 miles away from the exchange but only 800 yards from my local library.
Off sick after dodgy meal.... but have to say to corned_beef_keith, cheers for the laugh :)
ISPs have been ripping us off for ages. If I pay for 8meg and unlimited, I expect to get near 8meg and unlimited providing I keep to the ISPs agreement (Fair use)
Iplayer is well within what my ISP says it can provide (Tiscali), so stuff them if they can't provide it.
page: 1
Your Talkback on this Story