Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Eraserhead, Apr 9, 2008.
I wonder whether they do the same with Apple?
I just don't get how the ISPs can even think about asking the BBC for money. They aren't providing the BBC with a service, they are providing us with a service! We (the customers of ISPs) pay them (the ISPs) to deliver to us the content that we want. They are effectively begging for cash from the BBC, and therefore the taxpayer! It's absolutely scandalous.
It would be like the Royal Mail asking for cash from addressees, even when the senders have already paid the required amount.
Can't wait to see their faces when Apple brings movie rentals to the UK. BBC and Apple won't pay them a penny, and they'll actually have to pay money to upgrade their sh***y infrastructure and cabling.
To be honest going after Apple would be pretty bad, as they charge for the content, that would upset big-content a little I think.
what a load of cock.
I think Sir Tim Berners-Lee (father of the interwebtubes) had the right idea - the internet is now so much a part of many people's lives that provision of bandwidth ought to be treated like any other public utility. That it is to say, the ISP delivers the service, the customer uses as much or as little as they choose, and they pay for that amount.
After all, no-one has grounds to complain if they're on a water meter, then get a high supply bill after using a sprinkler on the lawn throughout the summer!
Of course, the reason that ISPs don't want to switch to this business model in the UK is that they're making a killing out of people who pay too much for usage-capped, nowhere-near-the-upto-eight-megabit-speed-advertised ADSL broadband. </rant>
A giant pile of poppycock.
Firstly the iPlayer is one of the best services to come out of the BBC for a very long time. It's a lifeline for when my EyeTV messes up and a dream come true for the iPod Touch/iPhone.
If BT want to charge me extra to use it then I'll simply move elsewhere.
Boy, and to ad fuel to the fire:
Hopefully the BBC will be able to give the ISPs a right kick up the backside.
Thought BT is government-owned? Why is it a problem (with BT)?
BT isn't owned by the government, it was privatised many years ago. BT hasn't yet said anything about receiving compensation from the BBC with regards to the increased traffic generated by iPlayer. It's Tiscali who have been the ones scrounging for extra cash.
We already do... Its called a TV license.
And if consumers pay through their broadband for iPlayer then you are "taxing" the people who can use iPlayer which seems fair to me.
What about 4od?
It's probably not as (for lack of better word) popular as BBC's iPlayer. Not knocking it, all I watch is BBC and Channel 4.
I will be moving to BEthere after many years of using BT.
Not available on my G5 iMac.
I can't believe ISP's actually think they have the right to ask any content provider for money to upgrade their systems! They should just upgrade their systems to cope in line with changing usage habits as has always been done since the day the internet was spawned....
The primary reason high speed broadband ever became popular is not only gamers wanting faster connections, but of the popularity of bittorrent as a large file transfer medium as well. ISPs cant exactly try to charge bittorrent users to upgrade their systems, they certainly can't try to charge the BBC to upgrade their systems either!
So because regular people are starting to use the internet and get what they pay for, the ISPs are complaining. Did they honestly think that my mum and dad would never figure out the internet, and continue only using it for email and planning vacations? Too bad the ISPs aren't getting a free ride anymore, but that's too bad for them.
What a load of nonsense. It's the ISP's job to make sure they can deliver the services as they advertise - if BT says I can get 8 meg broadband with unlimited bandwidth, then I should be able to get 8 meg broadband with unlimited bandwidth.
As it is, I'm stuck on 400k download speeds, despite the fact we've had a new line put in. The UK phone/communications network is in desperate need of some major work, but BT seems more interested in spending copious amounts of money on advertising than upgrading the network...
Personally, I'm getting a little tired of ISPs not taking responsibility for their own services. Why on earth should the BBC pay for something that they [ISPs] are offering, clearly poorly?
I pay for 'up to' 16Meg Broadband, I only get 4, when I reach my limit of what I pay for, then we'll talk... Also, if I ever get hit with the fair usage policy, well, I wont be the only one getting hit. Lets put it like that.
The BBC owes ISPs money as much as the ISPs owe their customers money for never allowing them to get service that's as fast as the theoretical top speed they advertise.
They do in a way, they sell connections to normal users, some of which use bittorrent.
I've never been hit with a fair usage warning and our household consistently downloads about 100-200 gigs a month - we've pretty much given up on regular TV - so I strongly recommend 'BeThere'.
I agree that it is completely ridicules that ISPs are complaining. I pay for unlimited downloads so that is what I should get.
Hopefully this will encourage BT, and possibly even the government, to get off their arses and install fibre and upgrade the exchanges.
Exactly. There are 3 price options with BT and we pay the top end one because it said "unlimited". We haven't been hit with any fair use policies though. Yet.
Reminds me of o2 with the iPhone. Originally "unlimited" was 200mb per month (or so).
Surely everyone is within their rights to use the extent of their bandwidth allowance?
Why should the BBC have to bail the ISPs out because they can't cope with what they offer?
Here's what Virgin Media's CEO had to say about net neutrality:
'In an interview with the Royal Television Society's Television magazine, Berkett said that "this net neutrality thing is a load of b****cks", and revealed that Virgin is already in talks with unnamed content providers about paying to have their content delivered faster than others.'
'Berkett even warned that public service broadcasters who choose not to pay for faster access to Virgin's subscriber base would end up in "bus lanes"'
So they intend on shafting their very own customers, the sames customers that line their pockets. I can't see how it's going to work out for them in the long run. Customers will take their business elsewhere if they perceive that popular sites are slower than others. They are treating their customers with complete and utter contempt.
I quit Virgin Media because sites such as bbc.co.uk seemed to be in the "bus lanes".