|
iPlayer is costing ISPs too much, says BT
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 12 June, 2009
Just last week, the BBC publicly accused ISP BT of throttling iPlayer streams, hindering user's ability to watch television online.
John Petter, managing director of BT Retail's consumer business, has shot right back today, accusing the BBC of getting a "free ride" on the back of ISPs.
"We can't give the content providers a completely free ride and continue to give customers the [service] ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
|
cainy1989
Newbie
|
12. June 2009 @ 17:08 |
Link to this message
|
pre iPlayer BT's service was awful...I know, used to pay £45pm for "unlimted" 8MB package, only ever got 500kb/s and that was only after 11pm no matter how much I downloaded, I now have a 2MB connection with sky and its FREE, no speed caps and it will stream HD vids from iplayer easily, BT want to get a grip stop over charging and throttling no wonder there customers are leaving thick and fast
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
|
pphoenix
Suspended permanently
|
12. June 2009 @ 18:19 |
Link to this message
|
|
Whats BT's pay for UK freeview tv service over the web called again? throttle all competition??
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 12. June 2009 @ 18:19
|
|
Serialluv
Junior Member
|
14. June 2009 @ 18:26 |
Link to this message
|
|
What a crock another ISP as bad as Virgin (mine) they should start upgrading more of the network and given the customers what they pay for move with the times and reinvest instead of living off fat ass salaries (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/15/bt_profits_flat/) What a biased story, actual combined profits of 8.2billion GBP that's ridiculous, flat where??? Upgrade your network with something better then 21CN 2mb FTH??? bollox let's get gig FTH and see how much it hurts your traffic network then? Estimated costs of £15billion to input FTH to 80ish% of the UK this is investement that should be done, end of discussion!!!
|
|
Mez
AfterDawn Addict
|
15. June 2009 @ 08:55 |
Link to this message
|
There is software that will double to quadruple the bandwidth of cable. I guess they don't care to get it. They would rather beat on their users.
|
|
mightyzog
Junior Member
|
18. June 2009 @ 08:33 |
Link to this message
|
|
I don't usually side with the big ISP's but in this case I have to agree with them. Why should they have to pay for a companies upgrade in service. I mean, I;ve had a netflix account for about 3 yrs now, about a year ago they started having movies available to download and watch in your browser. Who gets the short end of this stick, not netflix ( they get a new service for thier customers and only have to pay for thier hardware upgrades), not customers ( they get movies on demand type service for nothing), but the ISP's have to absorb the added traffic of the new video streams over thier network. Now add to that all the network TV stations that have added full tv shows on thier sites, you tube, porn sites.....etc. What is the only option for the ISP's....raise rates....then they get backlash from everyday joes who want cheap highspeed. Something has to give....I don't want them to go to a model of charging per gig like they are testing....kind of reminds me of the old AOL model (charge by the minute).
|
|
Mez
AfterDawn Addict
|
18. June 2009 @ 09:09 |
Link to this message
|
That service is does not cost a big deal. Most of the cable ISP actually took bandwidth from the internet users to provide more bandwidth for HD TV.
I agree that both sides need to be resonable. My ISP has a public limit of 200g/mon which is really more like 50g. After the 50g a robot app starts messing with you so you never get to 200. It used to be 100g but now they have a new tier for an extra 20 bucks/mon they are playing hard ball. That is reasonable to me.
It is not reasonable to take bandwidth away and not give back.
|
|
Serialluv
Junior Member
|
18. June 2009 @ 10:24 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by mightyzog:
I don't usually side with the big ISP's but in this case I have to agree with them. Why should they have to pay for a companies upgrade in service. I mean, I;ve had a netflix account for about 3 yrs now, about a year ago they started having movies available to download and watch in your browser. Who gets the short end of this stick, not netflix ( they get a new service for thier customers and only have to pay for thier hardware upgrades), not customers ( they get movies on demand type service for nothing), but the ISP's have to absorb the added traffic of the new video streams over thier network. Now add to that all the network TV stations that have added full tv shows on thier sites, you tube, porn sites.....etc. What is the only option for the ISP's....raise rates....then they get backlash from everyday joes who want cheap highspeed. Something has to give....I don't want them to go to a model of charging per gig like they are testing....kind of reminds me of the old AOL model (charge by the minute).
I signed up for an unlimited service of high speed broadband, I should receive that service, if they need to charge more I'm happy too. I used to pay £45 for 512kb If I have to pay that again for 20mb then I will.
but when they post massive profits and scrape on the service and don't pay for the upgrades than it's unfair to the consumer not the corps who upgraded the service!!!
|
|
Mez
AfterDawn Addict
|
18. June 2009 @ 12:00 |
Link to this message
|
|
I am lucky I am in a "Comcast area" but Verizon FIOS (fiber) is moving into Comcast areas. They need to keep their customers a bit satisfed. Comcast is famous for its lack of customer service. I my area some woman went bizerk in a Comcast customer service area. She smashed all the monitors with a hammer. The judge made her pay for repairs and do community service. He let her off light because she was provoked. So we still have our problems.
|
|
six60six
Junior Member
|
18. June 2009 @ 12:29 |
Link to this message
|
|
do sites that stream video NOT have to pay for anything? of course they do. it can't be that cheap for them either.
|
|
senator29
Junior Member
|
18. June 2009 @ 13:50 |
Link to this message
|
this bandwidth crap is really getting old. how about they not offer speeds higher than any home user needs. i would like to see the upload rate increase. i still have never understood why they won't increase the upload limit to something much better.
we could have installed fiber nation wide years ago but no, companies complained about ownership and wanted retarded prices to use the new infastructure.
consumers pay for internet and content providers pay for internet. providers usually pay a very high price tag. heck, a 1 meg connection for a small business is about double the cost of my home 5 meg service.
it is in no way our fault or content providers fault for idiotic ISP companies building networks to offer 5 meg, 10 meg, and as high as 120 meg service but only can offer max speed to 50-80% of its customers at full load.
i have 5 meg now, i think 10 meg is about all i would ever need. even now i can download a 3 dvd linux iso in no time. netflix streams just fine. i have 2 computers on the network and when both stream videos it still works just fine.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 18. June 2009 @ 13:52
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
kuyhfg
Newbie
|
19. June 2009 @ 07:38 |
Link to this message
|
|
Greedy bastards at BT. Always the last to drop their prices & always quick to complain about it. I'm sure if they just did their job (like talktalk) and got on with it they'd be a far bigger company, after all they had the monopoly on broadband in the UK but were so bloody greedy (and still are). Switch to talktalk, they're brilliant and tons cheaper than the greedy griping bastards at BT.
|
