Slashdot Mirror
BBC iPlayer Bandwidth Explosion Bodes Ill For ISPs
penfold69 writes "Dave Tomlinson is one of the network gurus at PlusNET PLC, a Tier-2 ISP in the UK. He recently put up a blog post about the ramifications of the BBC iPlayer for the ISP industry in the UK. The post makes some very interesting reading regarding the bandwidth usage triggered by the iPlayer, and raises timely questions about the Net Neutrality debate. The Register also picked up on this story with a good review of who is going to have to pay for all this legal video streaming."
I always thought that BBC had Multicast-BGP arrangement with the participant ISPs? Isn't this perfect application for multicast? It would be nice if bandwidth would only be consumed once, and duplicated at branching points, not unicast from BBC's network to all customers individually.
Skimming the article I couldn't find info on whether this is archived-videos type service like Youtube, or for streaming the same over-the-air broadcast that you could pick on normal TV - assuming the latter since the charts talk about "BBCW_1", (assuming these are channels).
And sometimes demand drives supply.
Speaking as an American, where all our telecoms basically conspire to screw the consumer and offer substandard bandwidth, I long for the day when the demand for bandwidth surpasses the ability of their crappy networks to handle it, sparking an all out bandwidth arms race amongst providers desperate to cater to the needs to demanding consumers. I dream of the slug-like cable and phone companies being driven under by agile local providers...It will get to the point where small networks will be able to compete, because the advantages of a giant infrastructure are of limited use in a local environment.
So pardon me if I don't give a crap if the little ISPs are feeling the pinch. If they'd used a little foresight, they'd have plenty of free bandwidth.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Push the cost off on the end-user and the ISP will benefit. All kidding aside, this would be a pretty huge non-issue if they sucked it up and went to fiber like they have been told to do time and time again. The problem here is capping bandwidth usage in areas where it was previously uncapped encourages users NOT to use a high-bandwidth service like iPlayer which is bad for the BBC's business model as well as many other downloading/streaming sites. Places which allow you to download music and movies legally for pay(iTunes for example)stand to take a huge business cut because people will only download the bear minimum.
Crackin' Wise - Blogging about whatever we want
Of course, I think that the ISPs will just set up mirrors internally to accomplish the same goal. It HAS to be cheaper to mirror the BBC/iTunes/etc than to buy all that bandwidth. I don't think that the providers would object, either, since it reduces their costs as well.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
I have been concerned about this issue since 2002, when I was a cable internet installer and I happened to think one day, "everyone's going to need fibre to the home if all the media companies start streaming things on the net... who's going to pay for that!".
Personally, even though I no longer work for an ISP, I don't believe that ISPs should be left holding the bag when it comes to upgrading their networks, becuase a whole whack of other compaines want to make money by streaming add laden videos. That's totally and completely unfair.
Even today most web pages are cluttered with ads that serve no other purpose than to suck up bandwidth and slow down load times (really, use a text browser and see for yourself how fast the internet CAN be...), which only serves to make ISPs look bad. Take out the garbage (aka ads that hardly anyone actually responds to) and the net as whole would be faster. Take out the video, software, and music downloads too and we've a blazingly fast internet.
If it were possible to create a secondary network that worked seemlessly for day to day actions, like HTML/XML/Forms web surfing, 2MB email and ftp tranfers, and another for the hardcore traffic then ISPs could pay for the day to day network and media companies could pay for the hardcore network. That would be fair.
Firstly, non-UK slashdotters should realise that PlusNet is a pretty lame ISP by most peoples standards, and doesn't have a huge number of users, so can't be taken as a reliable data point.
Secondly, the whole philosophy behind IPlayer is fundamentally flawed. I am a linux user, who pays the three-figure license fee every year. How dare they say I can't use BBC content I have already paid for how I like? I understand that Auntie gets a significant amount of revenue selling its content to overseas networks - but this is unrelated to the Internet. You can't regulate Jonny American downloading the latest episodes of Dr. Who but you can certainly regulate how much an American TV network must pay to show it. The Beeb is listening too much to traditional media types who don't fully grasp how the internet works. They don't understand to have a public TV service (a fantastic thing in my opinion, and most Britons agree with me) you must allow unrestricted downloads. Britons downloading BBC content are simply utilising what they already pay for. Foreigners downloading the content are extending the reach of British culture. Forcing it through a proprietary system is ridiculous.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
There's nothing inherently wrong with over subscription -- it would be pretty stupid to pay your Tier 1 provider to provide a dedicated 3.0mbits for Grandma who only wants to check her e-mail -- the problem starts when they try to cheap out and use a bad oversubscription ratio.
To be fair, a few years ago nobody could have seen the rise of p2p (though foresight should have predicted the rise of streaming video), so that probably changed the ratios they should be using. I lose all sympathy for them though when they whine about how much money upgrades cost.... most of these outfits (here in the states anyway) are literally swimming in profit. It's not as though they are running their businesses in the red and can't afford to invest in upgrades.
Beyond that, I really don't understand this push to "shape" p2p traffic. Wouldn't it be much more fair to just give your customers the highest amount of bandwidth that you can provide them with and allow them to use it as they see fit? What's the damn point of raising the speed again and again if you can't actually provide it to your end users?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
That excuse only goes so far. There are ways with DOCSIS networks to mitigate this. The easiest way is to allocate more channels on the HFC plant to HSI services. A more expensive option would be to split your network into smaller nodes so less customers are connected to each coax segment.
Cable and DSL came about with the assumption that most people download way more than they uploadThat's still a valid assumption, even with p2p. I leave all my torrents running until I've hit at least a 3.0 ratio, but at the end of the day I still download more data then I upload (mainly due to streaming video). I have often wondered why there isn't a provision with DSL (dunno if it would work with cable) to dynamically shift the bandwidth as needed between upload and download. It doesn't seem like that would be technologically impossible to achieve.
A few people paying for 10M/1M service in a cable node can easily take down the entire node.Hell, even at 5M downstream it takes less then eight users to peg the DOCSIS node. At the end of the day though, the ISP shouldn't be offering that tier of service if they can't actually provide it.
Time-Warner Cable (iTunes throttling, byte metering)Actually, the argument that I heard about Time Warner is that they are more scared about streaming video undercutting their cable business then they are about being able to provide the bandwidth. If that's actually the case then I find that hugely ironic -- they've been beating up on the telcos pretty badly by pulling people away from POTS and onto their VoIP product. It would be poetic justice if they found one of their key revenue streams threatened by new technology.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
All ISPs give DSL lines with a contention ratio. That means that several users share an certain amount of bandwidth. So, a typical 'home user' contention ratio may be 50:1. So, there are 50 users sharing a 'block' of bandwidth. This is well known, and typically described when you are buying a DSL connection.
Usually that's not an issue, most of the users won't be using the internet at the same time, and most of the ones who are will be doing low bandwidth things like browsing websites or downloading email. The issue comes when large numbers start doing high bandwidth things such as streaming or file sharing.
If you aren't happy with that, you could buy a business DSL connection, which may have a 20:1 contention ratio (that's what I do). It costs about 3 times more than a home user connection, but I potentially get 3 times more bandwidth (as well as no 'fair use' limits)
I suppose if people wanted it, ISPs could provide a 1:1 contention ratio, but how many people would be willing to pay 50 times more than a home user connection for that? You could get a T1 leased line for that sort of price.
So, you do get what you pay for, and as long as ISPs honestly publish their contention ratios, it's your own fault if you don't get what you wanted.
Contention ratios are generally a good idea to give people fast internet connections at a lower cost. If ISPs do traffic prioritisation fairly (eg the first 1/50th of the bandwidth block that you use has a higher priority than any excess) then I don't see that anyone has any right to complain (ISPs or customers). This doesn't need to be against net neutrality, you don't prioritise based on the type of data, just the amount.
Usage limits are another issue, and I *do* get annoyed when you get adverts like 'Unlimited Internet for £15 a month' and then in tiny writing "(fair use limits of 20 GB per month apply)". These should be cracked down on IMHO, but contention ratios are sensible and fair.
The dishonesty is reason enough to be annoyed with them. Actually, I think the behavior of some ISPs borders on fraud and it could be much worse for them than a few people hating them:
;-)
They could get sued (happened to Comcast recently, sorry I can't find the link anymore) and maybe end up having to pay large damages.
There is also another way of offering 20mbps and not have it overused:
Sell 20mbps for the first 50 Gbyte/month and make the limitation clear in your advertisments. Throttle those who exceed it to dial-up speed... and announce that in advance as well. That would make it a fair deal, and anyone who still runs into the limit won't get much sympathy from me
C - the footgun of programming languages
But they need to ship it to London or Manchester so the snoops can look at stuff when they want to.
;).
Maybe much of the money you are paying isn't going into upgrading service for customers, but into equipment to make the snooping easier