Obligatory pro-BBC article
There's an interesting article over on the Register about the growing acrimony between the BBC and ISPs over Iplayer. The basic problem is that the Iplayer, the BBC's new system for making its programming available online, is very popular - and since it's video, it also takes a lot of bandwidth. Internet Service Providers in the UK are finding that carrying all this data to so many users is quite costly, and we're supposed to feel sorry for them.
The Register is generally quite scathing about the BBC, and predictably they're taking the ISP's side in this argument as well. The BBC are being branded as arrogant and abusive of their position in setting up Iplayer in the first place, and in criticising the industry's suggestions that they should subsidise the ISPs in some way for having to carry all this extra content.
The thing is, I'm generally a big fan of the BBC so probably just as biased, but I really do see the BBC's point. All they're doing is providing popular content, the same as any other website or service on the web, such as Youtube for example (another video heavy application using very similar technology). Nobody would ever suggest that ISPs collect some kind of fee from Google for "broadcasting" Youtube content over the web, so why are the BBC being singled out? The ISPs are generally thankful for good content on the web, since without it they wouldn't have any subscribers in the first place, and they charge end users pretty heavily already for access to it all. Is it right that they should start charging in both directions? As the proud producer of a website myself, should I be paying BT or Virgin for conveying it to my three visitors a week?
Seems to me the industry have got it wrong here - it's their infrastructure that's not keeping up with demand, and their problem to sort out. ITV and Channel 4 have online video on demand too, so do an increasing array of other services both in and outside the UK, and attempting to tax particular sources is neither fair or sustainable. Inevitably they'll up the prices for consumers too whatever happens, so let them spread the cost that way.
I just don't understand the
I just don't understand the ISP's arguement here. It's like the insurance companies after the flooding last year complaining that they might actually have to pay out for the damamge caused. It's the service they are meant to provide - so get on and provide it! There's no way on earth that it costs Orange the £17.99 we pay each month to them to supply us with our Broadband - they make a massive profit and now with technology constantly changing (as it has a bad habit of doing) they need to figure out ways to prevent their profit margin from falling. As my friend Barbara would say - suck it up.
Absolutely right, they're
Absolutely right, they're making a mint and just trying to protect that profit without actually doing anything to respond to their customer's demand.
I think they're also using the beeb as a soft target - they think they can play the license fee card and expect sympathy for having to privately support a public service. Of course it doesn't work the other way - they've been only too happy for the BBC to use public funds to help drive internet take up in other ways, and push up the ISP's private profits. The BBC News site is still one of the most popular sites on the web, wholly funded by the license fee, and I'm quite sure the ISPs have never objected to that...