4 ms·

I suppose that will end up giving ISPs the right to charge the BBC for handling their video stream traffic. Which effectively means private companies siphoning

I suppose that will end up giving ISPs the right to charge the BBC for handling their video stream traffic. Which effectively means private companies siphoning off BBC license revenue for their own pockets. I really hope that if they go ahead with this that they clear all barriers to allow the BBC to run it's own ISP, and compete on selection of netural traffic. At least that way, people get a choice how many times they pay for the same content. What good is video content streaming from a public broadcaster if you have to pay private organisations again to see that content you've already paid the BBC for?

frou_dh 16y ago
The TV license is currently only required for watching traditional TV, live, isn't it? I haven't paid it for years, and exclusively use the on-demand BBC iPlayer website every so often.
- konad 16y ago
  you're right but they want to change that
- gjm11 16y ago
  This appears to be correct, though it's not guaranteed to remain so: see http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/01/iplayer_does_not_require_a_tv_1.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/01/iplayer_does_... and http://iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.uk/help/playing_tv_progs/tvlicence http://iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.uk/help/playing_tv_progs/... . [EDITED to add: But if you watch a programme at the same time as it's being broadcast, you do need a licence.]
- axod 16y ago
  Don't you feel like you should get a license? Regardless of wether you're legally supposed to. The sheer quality of programming they put out. Buy a license.
  - frou_dh 16y ago
    I don't watch often enough. I'd consider microtransactions in the iPlayer, but not a flat £145 per year.
    - eftpotrm 16y ago
      Which is from memory less than Sky charges for content that includes adverts and is (IMHO) of vastly lower quality. Certainly far less of Sky's content is original productions.
      - frou_dh 16y ago
        I'd never get Sky. In fact I convinced a family member to cancel theirs becuase they were getting little value from it.
rodh 16y ago
An interesting question I'm starting to ask myself is whether giving the ISPs this option might finally give them the incentive to make multicasting a paid-for service for broadcasters, potentially driving down the net cost to broadcasters. Hmmm... (Disclaimer: these views are my own, etc.)
gaius 16y ago
Which effectively means private companies siphoning off BBC license revenue for their own pockets Then you don't know much about the BBC, it's been farming work out to private companies for a lloooonng time. Do you think it currently gets its bandwidth for free? Or provided by another government department?
- Leynos 16y ago
  In those instances, the BBC is paying for a product. In the case being discussed here, the BBC is being shaken down.
  - gaius 16y ago
    It's "paying" someone to operate its antennas too, you know.
crnflke 16y ago
The thing is - if the BBC pay they're being utterly stupid "Your ISP doesn't support the BBC IPlayer - please let them know about it here" strikes me as a pretty obvious marketing tool. In exactly the same way, not providing access to youtube would probably be the most moronic thing most ISPs could do. If the BBC pay anybody else beyond their own bandwidth costs, the top brass should be sacked.
- eftpotrm 16y ago
  But.... that only works for the big boys. Imagine how YouTube would've got going if this rule had been around in 2005 - they'd have been strangled at birth by individual ISPs each demanding their own contract and their own payment. What we have here is fundamentally ISPs trying to run a private toll booth by claiming that 'others are profiting from their network'. Not at all true. The BBC, YouTube, whoever, all pay their outgoing bandwidth bills to their network provided. I pay my incoming bandwidth bill to my network provider (and outgoing, for that matter, when I put my content provider hat on and legally upload to various sites). All parties are getting correctly paid in proportion to the value of the services that they are delivering, but the ISPs know they are a critical man-in-the-middle and can potentially extract value from this proposition in exactly the same way that rebel armies set up 'checkpoints' in territories they control. ISPs should be ashamed that they're trying it. The Conservative Party should be utterly ashamed that they think it's a good idea and I plan to write to my local (Conservative) MP to inform him of this.

frou_dh 16y ago

The TV license is currently only required for watching traditional TV, live, isn't it? I haven't paid it for years, and exclusively use the on-demand BBC iPlayer website every so often.

konad 16y ago
you're right but they want to change that
gjm11 16y ago
This appears to be correct, though it's not guaranteed to remain so: see http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/01/iplayer_does_not_require_a_tv_1.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/01/iplayer_does_... and http://iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.uk/help/playing_tv_progs/tvlicence http://iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.uk/help/playing_tv_progs/... . [EDITED to add: But if you watch a programme at the same time as it's being broadcast, you do need a licence.]
axod 16y ago
Don't you feel like you should get a license? Regardless of wether you're legally supposed to. The sheer quality of programming they put out. Buy a license.
- frou_dh 16y ago
  I don't watch often enough. I'd consider microtransactions in the iPlayer, but not a flat £145 per year.
  - eftpotrm 16y ago
    Which is from memory less than Sky charges for content that includes adverts and is (IMHO) of vastly lower quality. Certainly far less of Sky's content is original productions.
    - frou_dh 16y ago
      I'd never get Sky. In fact I convinced a family member to cancel theirs becuase they were getting little value from it.

rodh 16y ago

An interesting question I'm starting to ask myself is whether giving the ISPs this option might finally give them the incentive to make multicasting a paid-for service for broadcasters, potentially driving down the net cost to broadcasters. Hmmm... (Disclaimer: these views are my own, etc.)

gaius 16y ago

Which effectively means private companies siphoning off BBC license revenue for their own pockets Then you don't know much about the BBC, it's been farming work out to private companies for a lloooonng time. Do you think it currently gets its bandwidth for free? Or provided by another government department?

Leynos 16y ago
In those instances, the BBC is paying for a product. In the case being discussed here, the BBC is being shaken down.
- gaius 16y ago
  It's "paying" someone to operate its antennas too, you know.

crnflke 16y ago

The thing is - if the BBC pay they're being utterly stupid "Your ISP doesn't support the BBC IPlayer - please let them know about it here" strikes me as a pretty obvious marketing tool. In exactly the same way, not providing access to youtube would probably be the most moronic thing most ISPs could do. If the BBC pay anybody else beyond their own bandwidth costs, the top brass should be sacked.

eftpotrm 16y ago
But.... that only works for the big boys. Imagine how YouTube would've got going if this rule had been around in 2005 - they'd have been strangled at birth by individual ISPs each demanding their own contract and their own payment. What we have here is fundamentally ISPs trying to run a private toll booth by claiming that 'others are profiting from their network'. Not at all true. The BBC, YouTube, whoever, all pay their outgoing bandwidth bills to their network provided. I pay my incoming bandwidth bill to my network provider (and outgoing, for that matter, when I put my content provider hat on and legally upload to various sites). All parties are getting correctly paid in proportion to the value of the services that they are delivering, but the ISPs know they are a critical man-in-the-middle and can potentially extract value from this proposition in exactly the same way that rebel armies set up 'checkpoints' in territories they control. ISPs should be ashamed that they're trying it. The Conservative Party should be utterly ashamed that they think it's a good idea and I plan to write to my local (Conservative) MP to inform him of this.