digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

ISPs to BBC: We will throttle iPlayer unless you pay up

arstechnica.com — Network neutrality debates aren't theoretical in the UK, where ISPs have banded together to tell the BBC that its iPlayer TV "catch-up" service will destroy their networks. The choice: be throttled or pay up.

Who dugg this? Made popular Aug 14, 2007

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

119 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • OfF3nSiV3, on 10/10/2007, -1/+85BBC can offer whatever they want on their site, it's the ISPs responsability to offer their customers what they promised

    example: City A offers something really great that City B citizens really like and start moving around between those 2 cities. The flood is so great that the roads get worn up and congestioned. Who is responsible for the situation? City A or the road management entity?
  • lieutenantmudd, on 10/10/2007, -1/+56Me to ISPs: What do you think is driving the sales of high-bandwidth, high-margin connections?
  • ShaunOlsen, on 10/10/2007, -0/+51This is ridiculous.

    Congestion on their network is due to oversold plans, FIX IT.
  • osc1882, on 10/10/2007, -1/+43*****! What ever happened to just having a fast as hell network instead of being a bitch about where the Internet is sure to go. Never hear about Japanese ISP's bitching about something. They are to busy trying to become even faster.
  • austin63, on 10/10/2007, -0/+36"which banded together to tell the BBC" wouldn't that be seen as collusion?
  • codballs, on 10/10/2007, -0/+35Exactly. The BBC is funded by the public so any charge the ISPs levy against them are ultimately paid for by the same public paying them for a broadband connection. It's a disgrace. Maybe if the networks they run had sufficient capacity (like in Japan) they wouldn't have to worry about the load created by iPlayer.
  • redfox2600, on 10/10/2007, -1/+31Please don't digg this down.
    Can someone explain me what their logic for this is? BBC pays their hosting bill every month and I pay my ISP bill. They get to charge per MB transfer and I get a connection rated for 1.5 Mbps (actually it lower even). So how can they just say oh you have to pay more for this site? BBC pays for them to maintain their network and I pay to connect to it.
  • vagarach, on 10/10/2007, -0/+29You know what the ISPs do: they simply get away with not being able to handle everyone using the 10Mbit connections they are selling them because not everyone (indeed, very few) makes full use of that bandwidth. So the ISP charges for 10Mbits but doesn't have to bear the cost of actually providing that service. Then when this new concept of P2P service comes along they grumble about how they have to outlay $5mil to upgrade the network. Shaw Communications, I'm looking at you.

    Bastards.
  • buba69, on 10/10/2007, -2/+31I have the right to keep my bits neutral...
  • OrangeTide, on 10/10/2007, -0/+23the logic is when you cut into an industry's profits they'll hunt you down, rather than adapting their business model to a changing market.
  • BlackOp, on 10/10/2007, -0/+23As if UK broadband wasn't enough of an embarrassment already.
  • etnu, on 10/10/2007, -0/+17Maybe ISPs should stop overselling their networks and then lying to customers about what the actual supported bandwidth is.

    If your CUSTOMERS are using a lot of bandwidth, you should charge them more, just as any website that is using a lot of bandwidth should be doing the same.

  • Fihiro, on 10/10/2007, -1/+17***** OFF ISPS.

    ***** OFF.
  • geoken, on 10/10/2007, -5/+21The guy is not supporting Ron Paul.
  • sputnike, on 10/10/2007, -3/+18Man, now it's here in the UK? Save The Internet was right... (and I'm their top friend after AskANinja on myspace btw)...

    But seriously this is crazy... I mean I pay $50 (£25) a month for an 8mbit connection, BUT becuase I download more than the average user (I use generally 90gb a month maybe?) I get traffic shaped during peak hours... so for 8 hours of the day, I get a 4mbit connection, and the other 16 I get 2mbits!

    F*CK You British Telecom... I'm going with Sky.
  • michaelinnotts, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16Tiscali UK has got to be one of the worst ISPs on the planet--they throttle connections without warning if you download more than 2gb in a day (even with an "unlimited" connection). They also kept trying to charge me for 4 months after I cancelled my contract with them--that is, until I emailed Mary Turner. This news story confirms that they are not a real, reliable ISP. Stay away from them at all costs.
  • nukem996, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14Interesting how they would pick the BBC to start this battle in the UK. BBC could refuse and since they are one of the worlds largest media corporations start spreading news about the dangers of a tiered Internet. In a way this could be a good thing.
  • ifinlay, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12Presumably UK ISP's will now withdraw any mention of "stream exciting video content right to your computer" from their advertising blurb? I shall be watching for that.
  • dallasjfreeman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11this is the stupiest thing I've read, people are already paying money to have an ISP to begin with, it doesn't matter where those users go
  • xnviews, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10All throttling should be illegal. You should be alloted a set bandwidth that you can use to your full extent as you see fit. On top of that throttling should be highly looked down on and ISPs should be service blind. They should only shut down your connection if someone complains of a virus/worm at your IP. The ISPs are trying to run a racket and we shouldn't let them. Only then can we demolish future roadblocks to growth.
  • sullyz0r, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9The road management entity. And with the way our world works today, they'd interpret "being responsible for the situation" as "erecting toll plazas to pay for road damages". Similar, no?
  • r3zonance, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Oh shut up about the iPlayer thing. They have said they are working on a more permanent solution, they need to serve the most people as soon as possible, and unfortunately that happens to be the Windows population. The other 10-15% (I'm being generous) of the population that want to view the stuff on Linux/Mac OS X will just have to wait for a bit while it's sorted out.

    BTW, I'm a Mac user.
  • PhilH, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Exactly. You read the terms of service when you buy a 20Mbit connection from these people, and basically it could be summed up as: "we reserve the right to offer you whatever speed we want, or none at all".

    If I go to a supermarket and buy a bag of 10 oranges, I expect to get 10 oranges in that bag. Not some checkout worker explaining to me: "oh sorry, there's a lot of demand for oranges recently. Now our bags of 10 only contain 6".

    The problem lies with the ISP's, and I will be disappointed if the BBC submit to this bullying.
  • compgeek, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8hrmmm let's see the BBC is one of the biggest networks out there. if there was a high demand and the ISP's throttled the service I think they would lose out not the BBC as customers would say gee our internet is slow on provider A let's go to provider B etc. really smart move by the ISP's (heavy sarcasm). Also since the BBC even though independent is still technically owned by the government the government could simply tell the ISP's no you will not be doing that as this is a government company throttle us and we shut you down or severely restrict your right to operate in the UK. I think in this instance the ISP's will not/can not win
  • PatrickBrown, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Ah, the old "Brits for neutral bits" campaign.
  • Babau, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9I just love the logic being used by that EU carrier that installed deep packet monitoring on their undersea cable.

    "It found that P2P was accounting for 60 percent of incoming traffic and 80 percent of outgoing traffic, and as soon as it began to throttle the total bandwidth available to P2P users, the network performed far better."

    Wow! You cripple the services people want to use and utilisation goes down! They should also completely block all gaming, voip, http and email usage, imagine how much spare bandwidth they'd have then!

    While bandwidth may be horribly expensive here in Australia, at least you get what you pay for.
  • r3zonance, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7You mean the BBC programmes don't cost anything to make, none of the BBC staff are paid, and they don't have to pay for their hosting?

    I think not.
  • niczar, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Download quotas? No ISP has those in continental Europe AFAIK. Maybe in Albania?

    You guys are getting seriously shafted.
  • Error601, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Or they could just raise rates across the board rather than on the people actually using the service. Or just cut everyone's bandwidth down.
  • inactive, on 10/10/2007, -3/+91. Large download quotas
    2. High-speed internet
    3. Unfettered access to content.

    In Britain, pick any two.
  • ismith, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5You're right. I actually thought us Americans were the only people in the world who bitched about this stuff, but apparently the Brits have their place too,
  • nukem996, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5The vast majority of ISPs don't guaranty speed they say you can have a maximum speed of 10Mbit but you never get that. Mine is a max of 10Mbit and the fastest I've ever gotten was 5Mbit, its usually around 1Mbit.
  • niczar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Or maybe they should spend a little less on dishonest advertising, and more on upgrading their network. That's what my ISP does, we get 28 Mbps ADSL2+, moving to FTTH in a few month, with no quota, throttle or shaping of any kind; and they make ***** of cash. http://free.fr
  • Drood, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Absolutely my friend. Here we get these endless ads for high speed internet. "Download music and video" and all that stuff, then when you actually DO that, they bitch at you about your usage. They're unwilling to adapt. Their ideal customer is the one who pays for broadband and doesn't use it. I'm sure they'd be ecstatic if everyone was like that. "Well you've used more than 60 gigs this month". "True, but I am quite certain other customers haven't even used a tenth of that, so why are you getting pissy when A) you're still getting paid, and B) the bandwidth is there anyway?" It's not like the bandwidth ISN'T there. They just don't want you using it.

    The UK ISP's should be ***** ashamed of themselves. They're assuming everyone is going to use the service, whereas in my experience, the majority of normal people (ie. not geeks) go "Watch TV on a computer? Ew..." Why are the ISP's not going after iTunes? Or YouTube? Or Divx's Stage Six or whatever the hell it's called? It's hypocrisy. They know the BBC has deep pockets and they want to suck from it's teat.
  • nukem996, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5The problem with the free market solution to keeping Internet Neutrality is that all ISPs want to throttle and that most people are in two year commitments with their ISP. If there is no Net Neutral ISP for the customer to switch to or they are in a commitment they are screwed.
  • inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Yeah, I guess YouTube really ***** up their networks so far.
  • noisymime, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Used to get what you pay for. The ISP Exetel have admitted to shaping P2P traffic and have said (Unfortunately without naming names) that they know they're not the only ones doing it, just the only ones who 'fess up to it.

    Better the devil you know?
  • NikoKun, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5That's only some of the reasons why I support Gravel over Paul... =P
  • geoken, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5The ISP's are fine with a super fast network......as long as it's not being used to replace the functionality of the other services they're also charging you for.
  • dtribe, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4What on earth are you on about?
    The License Fee is not a Tax, despite what the Daily Mail might say, and nobody pays taxes on computers (apart from VAT obviously) unless you use your computer to view tv.

    ...Also, what the heck is a 'viewscreen'?
  • mich181189, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4And oh look... Tiscali offer TV services, go figure.
  • LeeVal, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4It only seems to be Tiscali pushing this. They don't have as many customers as BT or Virgin Media.
  • NikoKun, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6And thus begins the end of equality on the internet... -_-
    More ISPs will start to claim websites overuse their bandwidth, and will start charging those sites... -_- how fcking bogus...
  • Dygear, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4BBC happens to be payed for by the government by way of taxes on their TV license. I think that's a really bad idea to challenge the government this way.
  • B0jangles, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Well BitTorrent is already throttled by many ISPs simply because bandwidth is so expensive on the BT Exchange. I'd be suprised to see the BBC pay. There will always be a few ISPs out there who can support the massive dataflow and customers who are willing to pay the extra for it.
  • lieutenantmudd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3At least in the states, collusion has to demonstrate companies worked together instead of competed to the detriment of the consumer. Verizon and Comcast can bankroll the same trade association/lobbyist and meanwhile pummel each other in Fios v. Cable war. So no, that's not collusion even though they "banded together"

    I am not sure, but I think arguments like collusion are uniquely American. Oligarchy reigns supreme in the US. In Europe, it is the private-public partnerships.
  • benjpw, on 10/10/2007, -5/+8Except hes right. Paul is against NASA.. the "big government" of Net Neutrality and against stem cell research and gay adoption.

    Come on guys, dont just show his good sides - thats dirty politics now.
  • GhostCow, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Inaccurate. Paul admits he doesn't know enough about the Internet to do anything about it, which is why he doesn't support net neutrality. He isn't against stem cell research, he's against government funding for it. Why is it that we always have to subsidize or illegalize everything? The gay adoption bill that he voted down gave gays better rights when it comes to adoption than straights. He voted it down because it was discriminatory.

    Yes, he doesn't want to fund NASA, but there are plenty of privatized projects out there that could take it's place in many areas. Just look at some of the stuff that Carmack does outside of ID.

    Try giving the whole story next time.
  • inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4what it boils down to is - government regulation or let the market regulate itself? it's an issue to most diggers because they use the internet, obviously, but it can be applied to any situation.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 120 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.