BT vrs BBC!

[Elliot Kane]

Apparently BT (British Telecom - the UK's main phone/communications company) is not thrilled that so many of its broadband users are watching TV programs and videos on sites like YouTube and the BBC iPlayer. They think they should get paid by the companies offering these services.

Full article here.

Of course, this rather begs the question of why in heck BT thought anyone would actually GET broadband if they weren't intending to use some serious bandwidth. Whether you are downloading game demos, watching TV online or viewing stuff on YouTube, isn't that kinda par for the course? Is anyone using a serious connection just to view text-only sites once a month?

Sometimes, the thinking behind stuff baffles me, I have to say...

Next the BBC will be complaining when people use the iPlayer to watch their programs (Which is its purpose)... Oh wait, they've already done that... ;D

[rhiian]

lmao wtffff

[Glance A'Lot]

This is nothing!

In Germany it is law to pay 'media dues' for public radio and TV programs (some 39,- Euros per quarter!) - not if and when you're actually watching it mind you, but if you have a set POTENTIALLY able to receive it!

It went as far as to claim from Nintendo to pay for each of the many thousands game console displays spread around Germany, that certainly were not hooked up to any TV antenna, and with which watching TV would actually have been misuse.

Those guys are already charging PCs, if they have a TV-Card - for the rest they're lobbying strongly.

[Elliot Kane]

Only 39 Euros? You're lucky! The television licence in Britain is close to £200 and if you own a TV or can get a signal, you MUST have a licence. The BBC are trying to persuade people that because they invented the iPlayer that should also include all computers... Some people just need (metaphorically!) shooting out of pure principle...

[Dark Phoenix Rising]

The reson that BT are complaining is that most ISP's sell broadband based on "average" figures, and then buy extra capacity when it's needed. However with people starting to watch "live" tv over the internet, their old averages are going out the window.

As for the "TV Licence" the BBC gets that instead of using advertising, and also has a public service agreement that says they will devote a specific amount of the money into new programming and benefits for the licence holder - which is why ITV and SKY keep [Censored]ing so much.

[Elliot Kane]

The BBC are also supposed to be completely unbiased and many other things they do not stick to. There is a vast amount of 'supposed to' with them that bears little relation to what they DO. I honestly see no reason not to make them go commercial like all the rest.

BT just need to update their figures. It's pretty darn stupid in a high tech industry to keep using outdated figures, isn't it?

[Dark Phoenix Rising]

define outdated... esp. for price setting. After all you can't change your prices ever 24 hours if you want to stay in business...

[Elliot Kane]

You can't change your prices every 24 hours, of course. But you can increase them by increments on a yearly or so basis to reflect inflation and increasing business costs. Every OTHER company does, after all.

[Dark Phoenix Rising]

bbc i player is less than 6 months old, and it's use rampped up at around christmas, and early part of this year...

[Elliot Kane]

It's more like 8-10 months old, IIRC. Maybe close to a year, now. And it's hardly the only place anyone in Britain watches TV online.

I have no doubt it has increased bandwidth usage - and Channel Four putting their entire output online will likely increase it even more! - but if you offer the increased speeds, surely the increase in usage is at least somewhat predictable?

BT are simply whining because they got their sums wrong. As they still make stratospheric profits, though, I fail to see where they have much of a case.

[Dark Phoenix Rising]

you'll probably fine that BT Wholesale are rubbing their hands and opening the printing press waiting for their licence to print to come through. While BT Retail - who sell the broadband to the likes of you and me - are wringing their hands about the increase bandwidth usage.

Also don't forget that speed and amount are not the same, as one is how long it takes to transfer the other, and it's the amount, and at what time, that BT are complaining about, cos they have to pay premium rates whenever they exceed the bandwidth they've bought.

[Elliot Kane]

Absolutely. But who would care about speed if not for the amounts of data involved?

[Dark Phoenix Rising]

Most people - Web pages load faster, email downloads faster, people get to do what they want - faster.

Gamers get better ping rates, etc.

The problem isn't with the 1mb files that people download, as they will often spend longer reading them than they do downloading them. It's the 500mb + files that people are downloading at the same time that's the problem.

as an alagory - consider the internet to be a road, the speed limit is your download speed, and the number of lanes the road has is the bandwidth of your ISP. If you have the speed limit set at 30 MPH and a single lane of traffic, then it doesn't take many people trying to use the road at the same time to slow traffic down to a crawl (i.e. a traffic jam), if you up the speed limit, then more traffice can go through before the same road starts clogging up, because it's less likly that enough people to swamp the road will be on at the same time. Now your average web page will probably take up very little space on the road (like a motorbike), and a slightly more flashy one might be a like a car. But then someone comes along with 300 artic lorries in a convey.

This is fine as the ISP can just add another lane of traffic, and suddenly everythings moving smoothly again, but then another 5 conveys come along, and suddenly the ISP can't cope anymore without spending a lot of money, so now we have 7 lanes of traffic, but it's costing the ISP a fortune.

[Elliot Kane]

But for the actual user, if all they are looking at is normal web pages (Like, say, this forum) then there's no real difference between 56K and broadband. It's only when you start wanting to use more high bandwidth stuff that you see the benefits. So the desire for greater speed is concomitant with the desire for greater bandwidth usage.

[Dark Phoenix Rising]

Now look at it from a business point of view - you have a business model that allows you to make a modest 10-15% profit. And a big someone releases a new application that ramps up your outgoings by 300% in ad-hoc expenses.

How would you feel?

[Elliot Kane]

If it's that much, I'd be pretty pissed. I honestly doubt it's anywhere near that figure, though, honestly. Even if the iPlayer is very popular, it's nowhere near quadrupling the amount of internet usage in Britain on its own.

The actual figure might approach 10% (Which is still a lot) but I doubt even that.

[rhiian]

Jun 12, 2009 16:34:07 GMT Dark Phoenix Rising said:

consider the internet to be a road, the speed limit is your download speed, and the number of lanes the road has is the bandwidth of your ISP. If you have the speed limit set at 30 MPH and a single lane of traffic, then it doesn't take many people trying to use the road at the same time to slow traffic down to a crawl (i.e. a traffic jam), if you up the speed limit, then more traffice can go through before the same road starts clogging up, because it's less likly that enough people to swamp the road will be on at the same time. Now your average web page will probably take up very little space on the road (like a motorbike), and a slightly more flashy one might be a like a car. But then someone comes along with 300 artic lorries in a convey.

This is fine as the ISP can just add another lane of traffic, and suddenly everythings moving smoothly again, but then another 5 conveys come along, and suddenly the ISP can't cope anymore without spending a lot of money, so now we have 7 lanes of traffic, but it's costing the ISP a fortune.

this is my favourite metaphor, EVER.