01 May 2008
The BBC managed to upset ISPs recently by launching what has turned out to be an incredibly popular service - the BBC iPlayer.
ISPs are unhappy for the simple reason that usage is starting to clog their networks, and have suggested that the BBC should pay to offset this congestion. Despite some use of P2P by the BBC, it is merely doing what YouTube does, only at a higher quality and more bandwidth-intensive level.
With YouTube, everyone cried “hurrah”, but the BBC is apparently not playing cricket.
The most plausible argument from the ISPs is that the BBC has always paid to broadcast to people, and should do so in this case. The ISPs’ threat is that they will start “traffic-shaping” (code for deliberately slowing) iPlayer traffic unless the BBC pays for premium access to its customers.
Let’s try for a moment to see it from the point of view of the ISP. They are on such poor margins that they cannot afford the infrastructure upgrades needed to cope with iPlayer.
They have sold “unlimited” connections to people on the understanding that they will not use them much (an arrangement called “fair use”), and the BBC has broken that agreement.
Another headache for ISPs is next-generation access. The demand for faster broadband access is unclear. If they do invest in faster connections to the home, there is no clear reason to believe that customers will use them. It is high risk for the ISPs, particularly in a regulatory environment where customers’ rights are unfairly prioritised.
The poor ISPs are also being asked to police the internet. How can they be asked to monitor user connections and intervene? That would be totally impractical. On the other hand, a bunch of lunatics ranting about privacy are trying to prevent ISPs from monitoring user connections, profiling them and then intervening by serving advertising.
Do they not understand that the ISPs are simply trying to improve the customer experience? The extra revenue would be spent on much-needed infrastructure upgrades.
This may sound like a bitter rant against ISPs, but I am just pointing out the lunacy of the arguments. I am more sympathetic to the plight of the ISP. It is true that they are in a tough commercial environment, and the smaller ones, in particular, are struggling. However, these disputes are trying to dodge the fundamental problems with the internet access market.
The underlying issue is how do we realistically pay for our internet connections in the future?
The only certainty is that the current business model is pretty messed up. My hope is that we can minimise the pain, particularly for the public, as we move to a model with a bit more sanity built in. Viva fair access for all. Viva net neutrality. Viva an honest living for the ISPs. Viva a sensible balance between all three. Viva 3.5G mobile data... oh wait, no.
David Evans is public engagement manager for the BCS.
You suggest ISPs might protest because "They have sold 'unlimited' connections to people on the understanding that they will not use them much (an arrangement called 'fair use'), and the BBC has broken that agreement."
I'm sorry?! The BBC has broken that agreement? The unrealistically priced ISP offerings only made business sense because the average majority user would not know how to access the more 'technical' bandwidth draining services such as online gaming and movie downloads (pirate or otherwise).
Now a well-known brand has entered the market and made it easy for the ordinary, non-technical, user to access the sort of material the Internet evangelists (included these bottom-end ISPs) have long promised - material that could make the Internet as pervasive as the TV.
These cheap ISPs have gone 'lunatic' because their flawed business models have been shown up to be entirely unsustainable in the world that they actually promised!
Posted by: Adrian S 07 May 2008
"A bunch of lunatics ranting about privacy are trying to prevent ISPs from monitoring user connections, profiling them and then intervening by serving advertising.
Do they not understand that the ISPs are simply trying to improve the customer experience? The extra revenue would be spent on much-needed infrastructure upgrades."
I sincerely doubt the ISPs are trying to improve the customer experience.
As far as I recall, Phorm - the company at the heart of this reference - are working with a couple of ISPs with a product that will use deep packet inspection to intercept and read your personal traffic between you and the websites you are reaching (Which is itself of questionable legality)
The company promises faithfully that it will ignore personal data and just extract keywords which will be used to provide targeted advertising.
Now, one has to simply trust this company.
Of course, if such a company were involved in - say - adware deployment or perhaps rootkits, one may take a different view. Please use your journalistic abilities to research the history of Phorm and its predecessor identity as Media121. I doubt you will like what you find.
The simple analogy often quoted is to ask how you would feel if your all your personal mail was opened, scanned, resealed and the data used by the postman to select which advertising flyers to put through your mailbox.
Now, of course, the postman promises he won't actually read anything.
Then you find out he's been a particularly unpleasant investigative journalist.
Of course, it's all OK; he did promise he's be good, didn't he.
Then, later on, there's no chance he'll sell out to someone even less reputable.
Do you really think it's lunacy to be concerned?
Posted by: John K 05 May 2008
i just want to alert you to the fact your ISP editorial is being taken out of context to boost Phorm shares by a self proclaimed Phorm shareholder here.
would you care to comment on this here for all to see and clarify this growing practice please david?
brettypoos said:
http://www.iii.co.uk/ investment/detail/?display=discussion&code=cotn%3APHRM.L&it=le&action=detail&id=4018249
brachaloch found the real subject matter and linked to this page to clarify the out of context quoting
http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail/
?display=discussion&code=cotn%3APHRM.L&it=le&action=detail&id=4018482
Posted by: david 04 May 2008
The only bunch of lunatics are the ISPs. They have oversold their services to customers. The market is so competitive they fear increasing prices.
So they want to sell their customers privacy to spyware vendors instead.
Using what value proposition? Simply steal valuable content from the content creators.
Smart plan.
Or at least, it would be if you can get away with it.
When ISPs start stealing content, and abusing that content to entice people away to competitors, content providers will start getting a bit annoyed.
When that happens you'll see net neutrality has two sides. Not to mention commercial and legal disputes.
Pete.
Posted by: Pete 03 May 2008
Have your say on this article
Newsletters
Latest stories from Ecommerce
Latest videos
You may also like
Ecommerce jobs
Technology Patent Wars
Case studies from large organisations across all sectors
... And rich media, and flexible working, and peaks in traffic ...
Upcoming Events
Join us for this Computing web seminar, in which the Head of BI at the Co-operative Group Nick Colebourn will be explaining just how he reigned in the Group’s sprawling database estate and how significant savings were realised and data quality improved as a result.
Date: 31 May 2012
Time: 11:00 AM
Live June 13th 11:00am: Register now. During this web seminar we will be looking at the sorts of incidents that can bring data centres grinding to a halt and what can be done about them.
Date: 13 Jun 2012
Time: 11:00 am
Receive the latest jobs direct to your inbox
Are you being paid what you are worth?
