Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

BBC and ISPs Clash over iPlayer

Posted by Zonk on from the like-some-cheese-with-that-whine dept.

randomtimes writes "A row about who should pay for extra network costs incurred by the iPlayer has broken out between internet service providers (ISPs) and the BBC. ISPs say the on-demand TV service is putting strain on their networks, which need to be upgraded to cope. '"The iPlayer has come along and made downloading a legal and mass market activity," said Michael Phillips, from broadband comparison service broadbandchoices.co.uk. He said he believed ISPs were partly to blame for the bandwidth problems they now face. "They have priced themselves as cheaply as possible on the assumption that people were just going to use e-mail and do a bit of web surfing," he said. ISPs needed to stop using the term 'unlimited' to describe their services and make it clear that if people wanted to watch hours of downloaded video content they would have to pay a higher tariff, he added.'"

4 of 350 comments (clear)

  1. Why isn't it treated lake any other utility? by nobodyman · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I like this quote:

    ISPs needed to stop using the term 'unlimited' to describe their services and make it clear that if people wanted to watch hours of downloaded video content they would have to pay a higher tariff...
    Absolutely right. I've often wondered why we don't treat internet service like any other utility. If I use more water, I get a larger water bill. Same goes for electricity. Why don't we do the same thing for ISP's? A lot of people bristle at the idea of this, but I kindof like it. That way people that only use the internet for email and light web surfing are charged less than people who troll Youtube all day.
    1. Re:Why isn't it treated lake any other utility? by m.ducharme · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The really crazy thing is...this idea is implemented by my provider, and I for one think it works well. My (smallish) Canadian cable provider offers three or four packages, each with different bandwidth limits. The lowest offers 1mbps/320kbps, for about the same price as dial-up. The highest offers 5Mbps/640kbps (I know, not great, but the best we have). All packages have unlimited up/download volumes. Everything's spelled out nice and clearly on their website, no tricks, and they have in me a brand-loyal customer. Why can't other ISPs do this?

      --
      Rule of Slashdot #0: You and people like you are not representative of the larger population. - A.C.
  2. Because it sucks for entertainment. by maillemaker · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Home internet service is, for me, an entertainment service.

    I would /hate/ the idea of pay-as-you-go internet service, because I would /constantly/ be worried, every time I logged on, about how much money I was spending. Consequently, I would not use it at all.

    Internet access is flat-rate or nothing for me.

    --
    A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
  3. Re:Marketing isn't the problem by POPE+Mad+Mitch · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Ah this version of the story is missing the really juicy part that is mentioned in other related stories,

    And that is that the BBC effectively threatened to put out of buisness any ISP that dares to try to throttle its iPlayer service by 'naming and shaming' any that do, and suggesting that all other content providers do the same.

    I imagine that having trailers appear on bbc tv saying "and you can also watch this episode again via iPlayer (except on the following ISPs)" is going to be pretty damaging to business.