NO NO NO! So both the consumer and content provider pay … yeah – no thanks.
The BBC would have to pay ISPs to deliver iPlayer traffic under the government’s new internet policy recommendations. Say bye bye to HD BBC iPlayer.
Lord Carter, the Communications Minister, released his Digital Britain report yesterday, outlining the Governement’s plans for internet regulation in the future, and one of the key recommendations was to allow ISPs to charge for prioritising types of traffic. In other words, providers of bandwidth hungry services like BBC iPlayer would have to pay extra to guarantee that data would be delivered to users at a reasonable rate. Sounds like being held to ransom, if you ask us.
via Electricpig.
This is the kind of crap that comes out of people who don't know what they're making decisions about. They should be levying the ISP sort their house out and upgrade to this century of communications and speeds, with the right infrastructure to support high bandwidth supply. If they don't know how to do it, they need to take a trip to South Korea and Japan and perhaps get a few ideas.
Prioritising traffic is plain and simple wrong.
That really is just crazy! Surely it won't hold?
this is like paying tax on tax. everyone should not have to pay. Build in the cost and if you offer the consumer a bandwidth tier (which I also hate) they can get as much of whatever type of data they choose. I have an unlimited connection and do what I please at home. same at our office. It's not up to the carrier to decide. If they suck at business planning that's their issue.
Precisely, I pay for an un-metered access to the internet for the highest possible speed I can obtain. Plain and simple, they need to keep it that way. ISPs seem to be paying catchup and as usual pocketing the profits they've been making from the last 4 years without upgrading their infrastructure. I did read they were the ones complaining how services like the iPlayer were putting strains on their networks – simple solution, upgrade ur network, stop whining to the government for help, they don;'t have a clue about these sorts of things.
There's always a chance with governments, next thing you'll know we'll be paying extra to have BBC services on the internet as a separate TV licensing BS.
unfortunately it is something up for debate in the US as well … it's a huge loss for the consumer and content publisher
It is mad. It is even madder when you consider that 25m UK TV licence holders who pay for the content to be created, produced, transmitted etc. are then are paying commercial companies for the benefit of presenting the content to the 6.7 billion world population for potentially nothing.
In the UK, we love the BBC. It's a fine institution. We get excellent content. We appreciate it's good and in the main we're happy to fund it and share it. Just don't let commercial organisations get in the way please.
ISPs already get subscription revenue. Let them sell added value paid for commercial content. Leave public broadcasting to be precisely that: Open source TV.
unfortunately it is something up for debate in the US as well … it's a huge loss for the consumer and content publisher
It is mad. It is even madder when you consider that 25m UK TV licence holders who pay for the content to be created, produced, transmitted etc. are then are paying commercial companies for the benefit of presenting the content to the 6.7 billion world population for potentially nothing.
In the UK, we love the BBC. It's a fine institution. We get excellent content. We appreciate it's good and in the main we're happy to fund it and share it. Just don't let commercial organisations get in the way please.
ISPs already get subscription revenue. Let them sell added value paid for commercial content. Leave public broadcasting to be precisely that: Open source TV.