BBC Proposes Higher ISP Pricing for use of its iPlayer Service

[vBComments]

BBC Proposes Higher ISP Pricing for use of its iPlayer Service - Poster MarkJ (Tuesday, December 23 2008)

Link To News Item

[Bob2002]

If it is 7% of peak traffic now, and they may virtually double from 800Kbits to 1.5Mbits streaming in three months, I'd say it is a significant bandwidth hog. I sort of hope they do start charging for the service (I don't use it much anyway - what do people think PVRs are for ?) because it would show that the BBC could sell itself as a subscription service online.

[boggits]

The BBC are advocating that ISP's charge end users for the content to cover the costs of transport, rather than the BBC charging for access

[Kits]

I hardly use it if to use it would increase my monthly charge then I can live fine without it, I would refuse to pay to just have access to something I might use once every couple of months.

[akbray]

So the BBC are effectively saying they don't believe in net neutrality.

Originally Posted by bob2002

because it would show that the BBC could sell itself as a subscription service online.

Why do u want that?

Why is cable and LLU so cheap compared to BTs I-stream? Surely this is the question we should all be asking? I'll answer for you. BT's product is an absolute rip off. Get rid of that and there wont be a problem

[akbray]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Why is cable and LLU so cheap compared to BTs I-stream? Surely this is the question we should all be asking? I'll answer for you. BT's product is an absolute rip off. Get rid of that and there wont be a problem

There are still an awful lot of people for whom IP-Stream is the only option, so you can't just get rid of it as you suggest. Neither cable nor LLU have 100% coverage or anything like it. They probably never will either.

There are also a lot of people who would rather chew their own hand off than use Virgin too, given their throttling/traffic shaping. I am one of those (but I do have LLU available, so its not so bad for me).

Not all LLU suppliers really help either. Some of them have an awful reputation, so LLU is not automativally a better choice than IP-Stream.

[Mark.J]

Except for the millions that aren't covered by LLU and cable services being left without broadband you mean . Don't forget that BT, unlike cable and unbundled providers, are required to sell their services in areas where it doesn't always make economic sense to do so. That makes their network a lot more costly to operate, although by how much is difficult to answer but I would call it a significant factor.

[Bob2002]

Originally Posted by boggits

The BBC are advocating that ISP's charge end users for the content to cover the costs of transport, rather than the BBC charging for access

I know, but it would show that people are actually prepared to subscribe (albeit indirectly) to BBC content as opposed to the licence fee which is effectively a poll tax. Perhaps one day BBC streaming could become a subscription only service.

Originally Posted by akbray

Why do u want that?

Because any service which undermines, in some way/principle, the licence fee has to be a good thing.

[akbray]

Originally Posted by Bob2002

I know, but it would show that people are actually prepared to subscribe (albeit indirectly) to BBC content as opposed to the licence fee which is effectively a poll tax. Perhaps one day BBC streaming could become a subscription only service.

I have no issue with BBC online/streaming being subscription only. But I think the ISPs would use it is an excuse to increasing pricing for everyone.

Originally Posted by Bob2002

Because any service which undermines, in some way/principle, the licence fee has to be a good thing.

Actually, I support the license, and I support the fact that it all goes to the BBC and not ITV/C4 etc.

As things stand, the BBC is required to broadcast a lot of local/specialist programs that almost certainly are not profitable and would never get on to ITV.

If you turned the BBC into another channel 4 /5 /ITV it would end up being just another Friends-repeats-with-Big-Brother-in-the-Jungle-on-ice channel with 3 minute breaks every 15 minutes (is that "I am a PC" ad the most annoying ad ever?).

And for the sake of less than £2.70/week, I think they do a pretty good job.

Of course there's loads of programs that I don't have the slightest interest in (Corrie being the prime example) but no channel can be all things to all people, and I think the beeb does broadcast some very good shows (Top Gear, Rome, State Within, QI, Newsnight, Dragons Den, Mock the Week and the News are just a few, not to mention cbeebies, since I have a 4-year-old son who loves it).

I use their news & sport website regularly too.

It is by no means perfect, but given the choice of it becoming just another ad-riddled populist lowest-common-denominator channel or keeping the fee and forcing a wider range of content as a result, I'd rather have the license fee.

We have plenty of commercial TV as it is - ITV / C4 / C5 are virtually indistinguishable half the time and Sky really is 90%+ dross with few decent programs.