An interesting story this week on BBC News (ironically enough) about UK ISP’s complaining that the iPlayer is overloading internet bandwidth and potentially forcing them to invest large sums in upgrading networks. The ISP’s are going so far as to suggest that the Beeb should foot some of the bill for doing so – which raises all sorts of interesting questions. For one thing, there are loads of sites out there offering TV over the web, including of course YouTube and countless other copycat sites. But, of course, the BBC is underwritten by HM Government (and all of us saps here in the UK paying the annual licence fee) – so makes for a very attractive target.
There is part of me that says the whole basis for the claim these ISP’s are making is ludicrous – the reason people are flocking to the iPlayer is that it offers content they want to watch, so to blame the BBC for putting something in the web sphere that is popular and compelling is almost like blaming a new theme park for increased congestion on the roads around. But then, I think to myself, people DO blame new shopping centres, schools, attractions etc for increased traffic flows, and expect developers to invest some of their profits in ensuring good transport links.
All of which leads to inevitable calls for the Government to step in and broker a deal. Well, whatever the solution, chances are that web users will pay – either through increased monthly subscription charges, reduced broadband speeds, limitation on accessing web TV services – or some kind of Internet Tax (shudder!). This topic is sure to run and run – it comes off the back of a number of increasingly dire warnings that the internet could come apart at the seams – so what do you, our expert community, think the solution should be?
Tags: advertising, business, digital, internet, marketing, web 2.0
April 15, 2008 at 11:33 am
Agreed. When I first heard this story on BBC news, my thoughts were exactly the same, in that YouTube and other sites must surely be creating far more ’strain’ on the networks than the iPlayer?
ISPs are just looking for a scapegoat for their own incompetence of not keeping up with demand.
I remember that years ao they complained that not enough users were signing-up for broadband!
April 15, 2008 at 12:08 pm
The BBC is correct in its stance - the ISPs (and for its part, BT) have retarded the otherwise-natural growth in bandwidth usage in the UK for the past decade now, and when you have other ISPs such as Virgin Media publicly decrying the entire concept of net neutrality (via its CEO), it ridicules the established framework of ISPs-as-agnostic carriers of all data. To even consider that some data should be prioritised, or the majority of large traffic “put in the bus lanes” unless they pay large amounts of money for carriage, is plainly ridiculous.
That local carriage of data over BT’s IPStream network costs more than international carriage for many ISPs is also ludicrous, and needs sorting out as soon as possible if the natural growth and increase in usage of the Internet is to continue.
If you want to blame the BBC for rapidly increasing the usage of the Web, blame Microsoft for its worldwide Windows Updates - blame YouTube for its continued saturation of our series of tubes - there is absolutely no justification for making the BBC contribute towards the UK’s broadband network any more than for making ITV contribute for its realtime streaming of the Formula 1 coverage and qualification sessions via its web site.
Companies like Virgin Media are also currently trialing (with a view to roll out) “traffic management” (the dreaded ‘STM’) with much longer hours of operation (from 10am to 8pm currently under trial!), effectively making your broadband a 5mbps connection with the ability to burst to 20mbps for 20 minutes per five hours - this is yet another retrograde step indicative of a failure to invest in their core network, all the while adding new subscribers to its customerbase and continuing to ‘upgrade’ peoples’ connections to faster peak speeds.
BT is almost as bad; trying to barter a deal to relieve it of some of its obligations under the USO in exchange for further investment in a fibre network is unacceptable. Yes, I agree the aging copper network should really be ripped out and replaced in its entirety with a fibre backbone, as should the (highly inefficient) ATM layer be removed from Colossus for IP traffic, but BT as the incumbent operator of most of the UK’s telecommunications networks should not be even capable of making statements such as this - they have an obligation to continue to invest in futureproofed networks and they should be brave enough to invest in fibre alongside their copper network, migrating customers over wholesale when the fibre network has reached sufficient maturity (in effect, they should have started to install fibre nationwide as the core of their 21CN upgrade, not just install consolidated IP, voice and ADSL2+ kit in their exchanges to run over the same delapidated copper and THEN install fibre five years down the line). Ofcom needs to grow some claws and more effectively oversee the growth of the UK’s IP and telecommunications networks if the UK is to see sustained and supportable growth in VoIP and broadband data usage over the next decade.
As it is at the moment, the UK is in danger of moving down the rankings in the league of Internet-connected countries, both in terms of natural growth in usage AND in the speeds and availability.