Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

BT Wants Cash For iPlayer, Video Bandwidth

Posted by timothy on from the what-do-you-want-cash-for dept.

eldavojohn writes "British Telecom is asking for more money for the bandwidth that iPlayer and video streaming sites eat up. The BBC's Tech Editor is claiming that 'Now Britain's biggest internet service provider is making it clear that, in a cut-throat broadband market, something is going to have to give — and net neutrality may have to be chucked overboard.' The BBC and BT are currently already in talks over how to get past this together. This might sound like a familiar battle from over a year ago."

27 of 229 comments (clear)

  1. This is more about BT Vision than bandwidth by MosesJones · · Score: 5, Insightful

    BT have a TV over the internet offer called "BT Vision" its suffering (and just lost its CEO) in competition with Rupert "any view that pays" Murdoch's Sky. Now if BT could get a richer experience out of iPlayer and access to a longer back catalogue than simply the last 7 days then this would help them in competition with Sky.

    So I'd expect this to end up with BT agreeing to support iPlayer in the same way but an "interesting" tie-up between BT and the BBC around the delivery of iPlayer+ features to its BT Vision customers.

    --
    An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
    1. Re:This is more about BT Vision than bandwidth by FrostedWheat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      BT Vision is awful. Depressing and misleading adverts, the sales people on the phone lie to get you to sign up, no lives channels beyond the standard Freeview stuff, poor image quality and even after paying your monthly subscription you still can't access most of their online content without paying extra. The sooner it goes away the better.

    2. Re:This is more about BT Vision than bandwidth by ZigiSamblak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is just BT believing that because they used to be the national phone service they have a right to dominate any communications market and charge whatever they like. We have a similar company in the Netherlands KPN who used to be the national telephone and post service but since they were privatized have shown a total disregard for fair competition from other companies and tried every trick in the book to hold their dominant position so they can abuse it to make bigger profits.

      No doubt there are some influential contacts in the government who get paid well for these agreements. If you ask me the expense scandal in the UK is just the top of the iceberg and our governments are basically nearly as corrupt as the US, they just make more effort to hide it.

    3. Re:This is more about BT Vision than bandwidth by smoker2 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      BT Vision is Freeview TV, with a hard drive. The part that needs broadband is minimal. Here are a list of "Features" :
      • Pause rewind and record Live TV
        The Vision+ box is a digital TV recorder that lets you pause, record and rewind live TV.
      • 160 GB hard drive
        Record and store up to 80 hours of Freeview TV with the huge 160 GB hard drive.
      • # Dual tuners
        The Vision+ box's dual tuners can record one or two programmes at once while you watch another recording.
      • Record whole TV series
        The TV guide shows scheduling 14 days in advance. Simply press the R button twice to record a whole series.
      • HD Experience
        The HD Vision+ box gives you selected films and TV in crystal clear, High Definition picture and sound quality.
      • # Convenient billing
        Any pay per view movies, sport, music or TV shows you watch will be added to your next BT Vision bill. If you take one of our Value Packs, you will be billed in advance each month.

      Combined with bittorrent, I already have what they are offering. Except their speeds are derisory. I recently switched provider to Be, and experienced a doubling in download bandwidth, and a trebling in upload bandwidth, for 25% less per month including a fixed IP. Plus BT claimed that "it was not possible to get faster speeds on my line". Funny that, considering you need a BT phone line to sign up with Be. But now I'm not with BT broadband, I can't get BT Vision. So there was no net neutrality in this case. All their stuff was prioritised already.

    4. Re:This is more about BT Vision than bandwidth by kyz · · Score: 5, Informative

      BT, the monopoly provider of telephone landlines in most of the UK, only have IPstream in their exchanges, which has a maximum speed of 8Mbps. Most broadband providers, including BT Broadband, are merely reselling this 8Mbps access.

      Be, Virgin and TalkTalk took advantage of the OLO (other licensed operator) scheme that BT was forced by OFTEL/OFCOM to provide. They put their equipment in BT's exchanges. They can provide broadband speeds higher than 8Mbps.

      However, in order get access to those other providers inside BT's exchanges, you need a BT line, even if you never use the BT line. Sure, it sucks to be you, but what's the alternative? Other operators would be forced to build and operate all their own cables and exchanges, rather than rent a corner of BT's exchange, and given they don't have access rights to the land like BT does, there are many places they wouldn't be able to go.

      That's the tradeoff - you can get better-than-BT broadband almost anywhere in the country because you need a BT line.

      --
      Does my bum look big in this?
  2. Non-issue by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This shouldn't be an issue at all; the BBC's ISP should be charging them a fortune for their high bandwidth use and then the squabble is between ISPs for peering costs. Also BT should be charging by the gigabyte instead of offering unrealistic "unlimited" packages that cause problems when people actually use their bandwidth.

    1. Re:Non-issue by JTL21 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Erm, the BBC don't have an ISP. They produce enough traffic in the UK that they peer directly with most UK ISPs at LINX.

      BT's cost is only on its internal network, they won't be paying someone else for bandwidth.

      BTs customers are paying for a connection speed e.g. 2Mbit and they should be able to get that rate from the BBC if they want. BT needs to change its customer charging infrastructure not bitch and whine

    2. Re:Non-issue by ijakings · · Score: 4, Informative

      Really? No problems for me on my LLU ISP. Maybe you should consider one of those instead. Most exchanges are LLU these days, unless it is you really have no excuse to still be with BT's overpriced and underserviced offering. One example of this, on my LLU ISP when it was first activated it was only at 1meg down 256 up, I should have been on their max offering with 2.2ish down and 768 up. Were I with a BT ISP this would have probably taken a fault report to BT to get them to fix their DSLAM, but with this ISP it was done in 5 mins, no hassle. It was a freephone number too. BT are a fail, if you continue to give them money (even on an ISP that uses their network) you are asking for trouble.

    3. Re:Non-issue by DrogMan · · Score: 5, Informative
      You have a viable alternative - or rather about 130 of them, so get clued-up, ask BT retail for a MAC and migrate to another provider who can provide you with the service you want.

      The BT Wholesale network is actually rather good. BT Retail is just one of 130 ISPs who use the BT wholesale network, and they're a particularly bad example.

      It's vitally important to not confuse the two, and do not let BT tell you otherwise. I have BT copper to my home/office, I pay BT the minimum amount a month for this copper, but my Internet access is through the BT wholesale network, via another ISP, not BT.

  3. Share the cake... or make the cake bigger by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So video over IP is wasting BT's bandwidth eh? How about increasing the bandwidth instead of reducing the share of it subscribers are allowed to get? This is typical greedy telco mentality: let's milk the existing infrastructure for all it's worth, instead of investing in said infrastructure. Heck, if Japan or Korea ISPs can provide very high bandwidth residential internet to their customers, why couldn't the UK? This is called investing in the future, and it's what we need in times of economic crisis.

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    1. Re:Share the cake... or make the cake bigger by Rogerborg · · Score: 5, Informative

      Look, I'm going to type this really slowly so that you understand.

      The choice quotes in this article are slighly misleading. The issue isn't the "cost" to BT of carrying the bits. That's as close to nil as makes no difference. The issue for BT is that they are running out of capacity to carry those bits, and will have to upgrade their infrastructure, as you note.

      Heck, if Japan or Korea ISPs can provide very high bandwidth residential internet to their customers, why couldn't the UK?

      Who. Pays. For. It?

      Who pays the wages of the guys digging the holes? Who pays for the fiber that goes in them, and the switches and routers?

      That's all BT are arguing over: whether they have to increase the cost to consumers directly, or whether they can tax the producers (who will then have to tax the consumers through the 'television' license fee).

      The only issue here is who's going to look like the bad guys for making the populace pay for upgrading BT's infrastructure. BT would prefer that the BBC do the squeezing, that's all.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    2. Re:Share the cake... or make the cake bigger by slim · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The only issue here is who's going to look like the bad guys for making the populace pay for upgrading BT's infrastructure. BT would prefer that the BBC do the squeezing, that's all.

      This is exactly right, but it's pretty evident that the BBC shouldn't be paying for general-purpose bandwidth. Just because iPlayer's the driver right now, doesn't mean all kinds of other services that rely on high bandwidth will benefit.

      If it's to be subsidised (for which there is a case - having consumers with good connectivity stimulates the online economy) it should be from some other form of taxation.

  4. WTF? by AccUser · · Score: 5, Informative

    Let me get this straight... the BBC pays for their internet connection, and they will have to pay a tariff appropriate to the bandwidth that they use in providing these services, which covers iPlayer video being delivered from their servers. As a consumer, I pay for my internet connection, and pay a tariff appropriate to the bandwidth that I use in consuming services, included iPlayer video that I download and stream. So if both ends are paid for, what is the problem?

    It sounds to me like BT has suddenly realised that they have oversold their services on the basis that not everyone uses their internet connection at the same time. This is a classic telecommunications model. Except that, unlike the telephone, our internet access is largely un-metered (flat-rate charge), and we can use it even when we are not physically present.

    --

    Any fool can talk, but it takes a wise man to listen.

  5. Solution by sakdoctor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    BBC shouldn't give a penny to BT. They should cut them off.

    From the perspective of BTs dumb mass audience, who chose BT because it bundled the prettiest ADSL modem, the word will quickly spread that BT is pants because your can't get "teh TVs".
    Problem solved.

    1. Re:Solution by Keeper+Of+Keys · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Nice idea, but the BBC is a public service and would probably be violating parts of its charter by doing this.

  6. Competition by jonbryce · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When people sign up for broadband, one of the main things they want it for in this country is iPlayer. If iPlayer doesn't work well on BT Internet, they will go to another ISP where it does work. That will be a selling point for their competitors. For that reason, BBC can tell them to get lost.

  7. That's the way BT is by Aceticon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Don't forget that BT is the incumbent telecoms operator in the UK - they were originally a state owned monopoly and got most of their infrastructure in place using taxpayers' money.

    These are the same guys that were holding back broadband in the UK a couple of years (all the while broadband adoption in the rest of Europe was taking of like crazy) ago until laws were passed forcing them to allow other ISPs to use their lines. Even now, they will still make it extra hard to use ISPs other than themselves.

    They currently censor their customers connection using the list from the Internet Watch Foundation (a state controlled quango) - the same guys that were blocking Wikipedia some months ago - and will voluntarily give contact data for an IP address to any "content owner" who asks for it.

    These guys are not the good guys and they haven't been so for many years now.

    1. Re:That's the way BT is by Jellybob · · Score: 4, Informative

      I feel I need to put some of that in perspective - BT aren't saints, but they're not as bad as you're making out. This is from experience working for a UK ISP (not BT, one of the other ones).

      These are the same guys that were holding back broadband in the UK a couple of years (all the while broadband adoption in the rest of Europe was taking of like crazy) ago until laws were passed forcing them to allow other ISPs to use their lines. Even now, they will still make it extra hard to use ISPs other than themselves.

      That was indeed the case, but is not nearly as bad now. BT Broadband (the ISP), and BT OpenReach (the infrastructure operator) are required by law to be separate entities, and can not give each other preferential treatment. In my experience that's also the case, with it being no more hassle to get a line setup regardless of who you're subscribing to.

      They currently censor their customers connection using the list from the Internet Watch Foundation (a state controlled quango) - the same guys that were blocking Wikipedia some months ago

      So does every other major ISP in the country. There's an agreement in place since the government essentially said "do this voluntarily, on your terms, or we'll make it a legal requirement". Believe me, the terms written up by a bunch of network engineers are far better - the original request included logging anyone who hit something on the list, which was thrown out early on due to the possibility of false positives.

      and will voluntarily give contact data for an IP address to any "content owner" who asks for it.

      I'll concede that. It's a terrible move to screw over your own customers like that.

      These guys are not the good guys and they haven't been so for many years now.

      Of course they aren't, they're a large company. Large companies are never the good guys.

  8. Needs a translation by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "We oversold and can't cope with the costs. Subsidise us."

    Well, fuck you BT. You made your bed; Lie in it.

    --
    Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    1. Re:Needs a translation by MiKM · · Score: 4, Funny

      Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals! Except the weasels.

  9. Having worked with... by OneSmartFellow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ..BT (not for them, mind you, just with them on technical projects), all I can say is that if BT (and OpenReach) would spend more on their hardware and infrastructure and less on their asinine marketing and the outsourcing of their customer support (which is a hugely inefficient operation), and all the other stupid crap that they spend money on, this would be a none-issue.

    Hey, BT, you still have a freaking monopoly, despite the creation of OpenReach. If you can't make money with a monopoly, you deserve to go under.

  10. Wrong Approach by lobiusmoop · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here's an independent UK ISP ratings site. BT is third-from-bottom for a reason.
      All the top ISP's on the list implement download quotas instead of throttling and port blocking to manage traffic, it is the fairest solution to load management IMHO.

    --
    "I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
  11. Re:What do you expect? by Keeper+Of+Keys · · Score: 5, Funny

    1. Sign up users who don't use their connection much
    2. Price War
    3 ???
    4. Loss

  12. BT should paying the BBC by OdinOdin_ · · Score: 4, Interesting

    BT is the principal landline telecommunications supplier in the UK. Most of their income is generated from being a wholesale infrastructure supplier, so I don't understand why there is a "bandwidth delivery problem". Since BT must have the cheapest cost of getting bandwidth from one location in the UK to their customer base. BT can well afford to put multiple 10GbE into LINX and/or BBC directly and connect 1GbE into every local exchange/Point-of-Presence.

    So the question has to be asked, what specific thing is it that stops these things from taking place ? Could is be that upgrading equipment at both ends of a fiber optic medium might increase bandwidth by 10 fold but decrease the comodity value of that same bandwidth by 8 fold. Which also has the effect of decreasing the comodity value of all other bandwidth products a telco has for sale. Net result is less profit.

    BT inherited their network from the government when it was the "GPO", maybe it is time for the GPO to come back so that the monopoly position BT has is rebalanced against the technological improvements of the past 10 years that a state owned entity could push forward. Some people in the UK don't like privatisation and other people don't like nationalisation, but I say we should have both (at least 2 companies) and let the customer spend their money with the company who best serves their interests.

    It is my understanding that when you are a content supplier, people pay you to get connected to you, since you have the content that your "consumers" are paying you to get to. Within reasons the cost of bandwidth is free to the BBC (over and above some ~£million costs to setup, own and manage). Internet bandwidth at neutral exchanges must look pretty cheap compared to satellite video bandwidth needed for a world leading TV, radio, news and media organisation. The money for connectivity flows in that direction, consumer to producer.

  13. BT's Heavy User package by Some+Bitch · · Score: 5, Insightful

    BT have a Heavy User package (£20.54pcm) that contains the following as part of it's description...

    Downloading 3,333 music files, 26 videos or streaming 40 hours of iPlayer every month

    If you can't afford to provide it then don't advertise it, fuckwits. Manage your customer's expectations properly and stop making promises you can't keep, it's a much more sustainable business model.

  14. The invasion of the paid-for content... by Archtech · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Unfortunately we have different communication technologies overlapping here, each with its traditional pricing structure. They don't fit.

    The Internet has always been free to the end-user, thanks to the generosity (and perhaps intelligent self-interest) of parties like the US federal government, owners of the many servers that forward packets to us all, and - let's not forget - even telcos. Where I live, in southern England, I can buy ISP service for about $20/month upwards. That gets me continuous Internet access using ADSL, over a telephone wire designed for speech only, with a maximum bandwidth of about 2Mbps (because I live 3 miles from the exchange). On a good day I might get 2.8 Mbps, on a bad day (and perhaps due to contention) down around 1.5 or even less.

    Now this is perfectly adequate for almost everything I want to do. I use email (and have since 1980); download with ftp; browse the Web; and other such traditional activities. The only time I bump my head on the ceiling is when I have to download a really big file, or (occasionally) watch some streaming video that I can't download in its entirety first.

    Where it breaks down completely, of course, is if I want to download (or worse stream) movies, watch live sporting events in full glorious technicolour on a large screen without graininess or intermittent motion; or watch TV. That's because the Internet was never intended for those activities, most of which are better adapted to the plain ol' steam TV set (complemented by a video player, DVD player, etc.) Why on earth would thousands (potentially millions) of individuals download high-bandwidth material over separate, contending, low-bandwidth links, when much of that same material is freely broadcast through the air they breathe? It doesn't make very good engineering sense. More to the point, it doesn't make good economic or business sense. Movies, TV, sport, music and other live entertainment have traditionally been things you had to pay for - whether by buying a ticket, subscribing, or just watching tedious commercials.

    AFAIAC, the really important aspect of this whole thing is that the Internet itself should remain free - as in speech and as in beer (apart from content-neutral ISP fees). Unfortunately, there are pople like this http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=19552&tag=nl.e539 who reckon otherwise. We have got to make sure they don't get their way.

    --
    I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
  15. Simple solution by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is just BT believing that because they used to be the national phone service they have a right to dominate any communications market and charge whatever they like.

    There is a simple solution to this: the BBC should just ignore them. If they decide to limit or block access to iPlayer then I'm sure their competition will make mincemeat of them given its popularity. All they need to do is advertise that they have iPlayer access and let the market decide - this is one time that leaving things to the market might actually work.