ISPs vs BBC iPlayer: Missing the point?

BT Wholesale is villain of the piece, Entanet argues

Top 5 reasons to deploy VMware with Tegile

Industry opinion The last month has seen substantial media coverage of the latest row that has erupted between BT Retail and a number of content providers including the BBC. However, we think a fundamental issue is being missed. Instead of BT Retail focusing attention on the BBC et al to contribute to its increasing costs, it should instead be tackling its wholesale provider to reduce the price of bandwidth. Here I explain why this has a wider significance to ISPs and the industry as a whole.

June 2009 proved to be a turbulent month for two of the UK’s industry giants, BT and the BBC. The month began with reports that BT was throttling its option 1 customers’ connections to the BBC’s iPlayer service (and other bandwidth hungry services including YouTube) during peak times, reducing speeds to less than 1Mbps on the advertised up to 8Mbps service.

This, according to the BBC, notably affected the iPlayer’s service quality. The argument escalated when the BBC claimed that BT’s advertising of its option 1 package shied away from detailing this level of throttling. Instead it states that the package is capable of 25 hours of iPlayer streaming and only refers to the throttling in its FUP.

By mid-June the plot thickened with a request from BT for content providers to pay towards the cost of delivering customers to their sites, claiming that the “free ride for content providers was over”.

“We can’t give the content providers a completely free ride and continue to give customers the [service] they want at the price they expect,” said John Petter, managing director of BT Retail’s consumer business.

Petter continued to explain that the BBC iPlayer was just one of the services involved in this and that the issue was much wider reaching. He continued to explain that an increasing number of content providers were developing profitable business models that are delivered across BT’s network and that they should therefore be prepared to contribute to the costs they were generating for BT Retail.

Missing the point

We disagree. Surely the duty of delivering traffic to such sites falls to the network provider and therefore so should the costs. We think that instead of attempting to consume a chunk of these highly successful business models’ profits, BT Retail should instead concentrate on re-developing its own business models to more effectively satisfy customers’ increasing demand for bandwidth.

If its current packages fail to profitably satisfy existing bandwidth demand now, how does it expect to cope as demand inevitably increases? As technology develops further; as access becomes more widespread (especially with the introduction of the USC, or universal service commitment, mandating 100 per cent UK broadband coverage with speeds of at least 2Mbps by 2012); and as demand for such services grows, ISPs are finding it more difficult to deliver products that are competitive.

Therefore we believe the argument between BT Retail and the BBC is missing the point. We think the real issue lies with the wholesale provider. Instead of focusing its attention on the content providers we think BT Retail and other affected ISPs should be turning their attention to their wholesale provider, the primary one being BT Wholesale (BTW).

As demand for bandwidth inevitably continues to grow, surely it is time for BTW to rethink its existing wholesale bandwidth pricing strategies which appear to be stifling the current market. Basic economics teaches us that, when demand is high and growing, providing bandwidth at lower prices will allow it to generate profit while enabling ISPs to meet customers’ needs at a competitive price.. Surely given its position in the market, BT Retail is best placed to challenge BTW to reduce its bandwidth pricing.

By late June the war of words had received substantial coverage and Out-law.com became involved, launching an investigation into the legal standing of ISPs blocking access to content providers’ sites. The findings were surprising - there is very little protection in the UK to stop this practice. Basically, as long as the network operator covers the practice in its terms and conditions little can be done to stop them. This worrying prospect could spell the end for net neutrality.

Net neutrality is a fundamental principal of the Internet that keeps the Internet uncensored and provides an equal experience to all users. By enabling network providers to block access, in this case to content providers (such as BBC iPlayer) that refuse to pay towards the delivery of the traffic to their site, that particular ISP’s customers (BT Retail customers) could find that they are unable to access that service. If this path is taken a lack of net neutrality could lead to a highly censored Internet and a tiered approach to access i.e. the more you pay the more you can do.

The impact of the BBC’s iPlayer on ISPs’ networks has been raging since the service was launched. In fact BT Retail is just the latest to join a number of other providers that have already complained that the service is having a negative effect on their network. Even the call for content providers to foot the bill is not new or unique to BT Retail - just yesterday media coverage shows Tiscali have decided to make a similar announcement.

Reports suggest that in reality, the iPlayer accounts for approximately seven per cent of peak UK Internet usage and there are many other applications delivering much larger amounts of bandwidth demand. But even if it was higher and the networks were struggling to cope as they suggest, surely the solution is not to punish the development of innovative and popular new services.

If ISPs insist on retaining their existing packages which are often based on outdated usage habits is it so surprising that they are struggling to accommodate the additional costs? Now is the time to adapt and evolve. To develop new broadband packages that cater for the inevitably increasing demand for bandwidth as our usage habits evolve to encompass the new technologies available. And that needs to apply to BTW too. In the absence of a shift in strategy from the wholesaler, pressure will only increase on the ISPs to raise prices to End Users as bandwidth consumption climbs.

We fully support the development of enterprising new technologies regardless of their supposed effect on ISPs’ networks and we firmly believe the responsibility for the network and the costs it incurs lies with the network operator. We fear by adopting BT Retail’s suggested approach, net neutrality would inevitably be compromised and tiered Internet access would ensue.

BTW needs to look closely at its existing business models and investigate how it can redevelop its pricing strategies to encompass this increasing demand for bandwidth to make it easier for its ISP partners to satisfy their customers’ demands profitably.

Neil Watson is tech support manager at Entanet, a provider of wholesale services to UK ISPs. His article was originally published on Entanet's site.

Security for virtualized datacentres

More from The Register

next story
TEEN RAMPAGE: Kids in iPhone 6 'Will it bend' YouTube 'prank'
iPhones bent in Norwich? As if the place wasn't weird enough
Consumers agree to give up first-born child for free Wi-Fi – survey
This Herod network's ace – but crap reception in bullrushes
Crouching tiger, FAST ASLEEP dragon: Smugglers can't shift iPhone 6s
China's grey market reports 'sluggish' sales of Apple mobe
Sea-Me-We 5 construction starts
New sub cable to go live 2016
New EU digi-commish struggles with concepts of net neutrality
Oettinger all about the infrastructure – but not big on substance
PEAK IPV4? Global IPv6 traffic is growing, DDoS dying, says Akamai
First time the cache network has seen drop in use of 32-bit-wide IP addresses
EE coughs to BROKEN data usage metrics BLUNDER that short-changes customers
Carrier apologises for 'inflated' measurements cockup
Comcast: Help, help, FCC. Netflix and pals are EXTORTIONISTS
The others guys are being mean so therefore ... monopoly all good, yeah?
prev story


Forging a new future with identity relationship management
Learn about ForgeRock's next generation IRM platform and how it is designed to empower CEOS's and enterprises to engage with consumers.
Storage capacity and performance optimization at Mizuno USA
Mizuno USA turn to Tegile storage technology to solve both their SAN and backup issues.
The next step in data security
With recent increased privacy concerns and computers becoming more powerful, the chance of hackers being able to crack smaller-sized RSA keys increases.
Security for virtualized datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.
A strategic approach to identity relationship management
ForgeRock commissioned Forrester to evaluate companies’ IAM practices and requirements when it comes to customer-facing scenarios versus employee-facing ones.