The BBC Is Destroying The Internet

[Admiral Valdemar]

BBC iPlayer 'risks overloading the internet'

Dan Sabbagh, Media Editor

The success of the BBC's iPlayer is putting the internet under severe strain and threatening to bring the network to a halt, internet service providers claimed yesterday.

They want the corporation to share the cost of upgrading the network — estimated at £831 million — to cope with the increased workload. Viewers are now watching more than one million BBC programmes online each week.

The BBC said yesterday that its iPlayer service, an archive of programmes shown over the previous seven days (How progressive the tech is. Certainly beats, say, a VCR or DVR that can record and keep shows indefinitely. And don't bother if you have Linux or a Mac. Windoze DRM abound)
-AV), was accounting for between 3 and 5 per cent of all internet traffic in Britain, with the first episode of The Apprentice watched more than 100,000 times via a computer.

At the same time, the corporation is trying to increase the scope of the service. It is making its iPlayer service available via the Nintendo Wii, allowing owners who are unable to stop playing in time for their favourite programmes to catch up with them later.

Tiscali, the internet service provider, said that the BBC and other broadcasters should “share the costs” of increasing internet capacity to prevent the network coming under strain.

Ashley Highfield, the BBC's director of future media and technology, said: “We are having an impact, but we don't believe it is a great one - and it would be a unique way of using licence fee-payers' money to help internet service providers with their business model.”

However, a spokesman for Tiscali said that the BBC was deliberately underplaying the problem, arguing that internet providers had to “overbuild capacity in our networks” because they could predict how many people would want to watch television via the internet. “This cost would then be passed on to our customers — in effect a BBC tax levied on top of the licence fee,” the company added.

The problem for Tiscali, though, is that its concerns are not widely shared in the industry. BT, which provides a key part of the UK's internet infrastructure, said that the problem, “while real”, could be solved. It said that the key was not speeding up connections to people's homes, but through improvements in “backhaul and core networks” — the links that operate up and down the country.

The iPlayer service has rapidly become a hit after it was introduced at Christmas, even though it involves either watching a programme on a computer screen or finding a way to link the computer to the television. There were 17.2 million requests to watch programmes last month, an increase of 25 per cent on February.

The Nintendo Wii tie-up means that all BBC programmes transmitted over the last seven days will be available to 2.5 million homes with a Wii —- but similar tie-ups with Sony, maker of the PlayStation, and Microsoft, maker of the XBox 360, appear unlikely. It is already possible to watch BBC programmes transmitted in the past week to a PC or Apple Mac, but the corporation was keen to work with Nintendo. Erik Huggers, group controller at the BBC's future media and technology division, said: “Nintendo has helped to reach a broader range of people with the Wii.”

Most watched

1 The Apprentice - BBC One 26/03/2008

2 Louis Theroux: Behind Bars - BBC Two 13/01/2008

3 Ashes to Ashes - BBC One 07/02/2008

4 Torchwood - BBC Three 21/03/2008

5 Dawn . . . Gets Naked - BBC Three 14/02/2008

6 Torchwood - BBC Two 16/01/2008

7 Doctor Who: Voyage of the Damned - BBC One 25/12/2007

8 Torchwood - BBC Three 20/02/2008

9 Gavin and Stacey - BBC Three 23/03/2008

10 Dawn . . . Goes Lesbian - BBC Three 21/02/2008

I knew this whole "Teh intarwebs can supply EVERYTHINK!!1!" movement wasn't going to end well. You can cram only so much down so many..,. tubes before the thing grinds to a halt. Either rates go up to accommodate these new data intensive applications (and digging up roads to put in new fibre-optics is expensive), or we get caps. And then you get the Internet class argument again.

[Dartzap]

Didn't some government minister say they were thinking of fibre opterfiring the country? Admittedly that's going to cost a few billion, but it might help with such things, especially if they kick BT hard enough up the arse to do it.

[Big Orange]

I had a feeling that this was going to happen and my house is still dependent on the obsolete copper wiring (that renders my wireless box useless without a cable).

[Uraniun235]

I knew this whole "Teh intarwebs can supply EVERYTHINK!!1!" movement wasn't going to end well. You can cram only so much down so many..,. tubes before the thing grinds to a halt. Either rates go up to accommodate these new data intensive applications (and digging up roads to put in new fibre-optics is expensive), or we get caps.

You do realize that you're basically saying "welp, either the internet is as fast as it's going to get, or we'll have to pay to increase capacity", right?

Of course the current network is insufficient to coping with massive proliferation of video content, and of course the ISPs are whining that they can't just "set up the internet" and then rake in money with the same equipment forever. But then Britain seems to be second only to Australia among the industrialized with regard to their view of the internet as a nuisance. (Places like Sweden - with lore of 100 megabit residential connections being affordable and prolific - surely are the holy land of the Internet.)

Besides which, increased capacity doesn't always require new fiber - sometimes it's a much simpler operation of replacing the equipment at both ends of the fiber. Why add another strand of fiber when you can buy a machine that will blink the laser twice as fast, eh?

[Uraniun235]

(addendum: not that British or Australian members of the public regard the Internet as a nuisance, but that corporate/government elites do)

[aerius]

So that's the plan for British World Domination, crash the internet and start a public uprising when everyone's deprived of porn and pirated music.

[Admiral Valdemar]

You do realize that you're basically saying "welp, either the internet is as fast as it's going to get, or we'll have to pay to increase capacity", right?

Uh, yeah. That was kind of the intention.

Of course the current network is insufficient to coping with massive proliferation of video content, and of course the ISPs are whining that they can't just "set up the internet" and then rake in money with the same equipment forever.

Actually, only Tiscali is making a big deal of this. The rest of the industry is happy for this kind of thing to continue, within reason, so long as they aren't expected to fork out for all the upgrades and get fines off the regulators for not meeting their customer obligations

But then Britain seems to be second only to Australia among the industrialized with regard to their view of the internet as a nuisance. (Places like Sweden - with lore of 100 megabit residential connections being affordable and prolific - surely are the holy land of the Internet.)

What a load of bollocks. The UK has one of the fastest growing broadband networks in the world and Wi-Fi is more common in my county than in most major population spots in the US. If anything, it is your country that sees the Internet as a nuisance, or at least, as something to be handed out sparingly. I can quite happily get broadband speeds most in the US can only dream of and for a fraction of the price. And I can get that on my mobile phone with unlimited data too.

If you can't afford or access broadband in this country then you're either a) a hobo or b) a dead hobo. I don't think even elderly snobs ignore the Intarwebs any more. Not when money can be made from this virtual lark, what what.

Besides which, increased capacity doesn't always require new fiber - sometimes it's a much simpler operation of replacing the equipment at both ends of the fiber. Why add another strand of fiber when you can buy a machine that will blink the laser twice as fast, eh?

Which is mentioned in the article, if you look. The point is, you can only tweak the system so far with better efficiency before you need to lay more cables or at least get the current ones upgraded for higher load bearing. This stuff needs to be addressed before any cracks appear in the system, because the lead times can be immense if the likes of a city need redoing to allow business and personal home users to enjoy the standards they have now. The bulk of this problem is down to relying on copper wiring still in many areas, unlike in Japan, for instance, where they don't have such old infrastructure and can go about getting straight to the more capable modern stuff.

Or we go South Africa's route and try and be wireless. Digging up roads is common enough here as it is.

[phongn]

The point is, you can only tweak the system so far with better efficiency before you need to lay more cables or at least get the current ones upgraded for higher load bearing.

Fortunately, we do have technology like DWDM to let you push huge amounts of data on fibre lines without actually doing anything but change the endpoint (and maybe amplifier) equipment.

The bulk of this problem is down to relying on copper wiring still in many areas, unlike in Japan, for instance, where they don't have such old infrastructure and can go about getting straight to the more capable modern stuff.

Except the issue at large is that the ISPs and backbone providers are feeling the pinch due to greatly increased demand. They don't use copper.

[Dartzap]

Yeah, we might like to bash ourselves about the infrastructure (We are Briish, after all) but the speeds we are getting are damn good and Wifi spots are literally bursting out everywhere. A certain pub chain is now offering it in most of their branches. Post offices are introducing them, as are library's, schools, colleges, university's, large businesses...

Or we go South Africa's route and try and be wireless. Digging up roads is common enough here as it is.

Local councils have now been given powers where they can make utility companies do everything in the same hole at the same time now, which is quite good if they reduce the time those bloody stop.go signs are up.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Fortunately, we do have technology like DWDM to let you push huge amounts of data on fibre lines without actually doing anything but change the endpoint (and maybe amplifier) equipment.

My local telephone exchange was upgraded a few years ago to allow for increased bandwidth that way, but only for business users, IIRC.

Except the issue at large is that the ISPs and backbone providers are feeling the pinch due to greatly increased demand. They don't use copper.

They can deal with that easier than laying new lines, though. The limiting factor is at their end for now, but in the future you're going to get more such services and people on the current network, which will need investment too. If the likes of Tiscali, BT, Virgin and TalkTalk can't afford to increase their server capacity, then I'd love to know how they can meet any future growth.

They, or just Tiscali for now, want anyone who uses such demanding services to pay their way. Fair enough, I suppose, so long as they don't split customers up with radically different price plans.

[phongn]

My local telephone exchange was upgraded a few years ago to allow for increased bandwidth that way, but only for business users, IIRC.

It depends on the provisioning, but if a CO gets more bandwidth allocated, it'll probably affect everyone hooked up to it, even if the last-mile speeds don't change. In particular, the oversubscription ratio may improve.

They can deal with that easier than laying new lines, though. The limiting factor is at their end for now, but in the future you're going to get more such services and people on the current network, which will need investment too. If the likes of Tiscali, BT, Virgin and TalkTalk can't afford to increase their server capacity, then I'd love to know how they can meet any future growth.

What does server capacity have anything to with the bandwidth issues that the ISPs are concerned with? As for bandwidth capacity --- that's been the trend for decades. They'll have to raise prices if they're having so much trouble with capacity

[Uraniun235]

You do realize that you're basically saying "welp, either the internet is as fast as it's going to get, or we'll have to pay to increase capacity", right?

Uh, yeah. That was kind of the intention.

Uh, well, that's basically been the case since forever. I'm not sure how that's insightful in any way.

But then Britain seems to be second only to Australia among the industrialized with regard to their view of the internet as a nuisance. (Places like Sweden - with lore of 100 megabit residential connections being affordable and prolific - surely are the holy land of the Internet.)

What a load of bollocks. The UK has one of the fastest growing broadband networks in the world and Wi-Fi is more common in my county than in most major population spots in the US. If anything, it is your country that sees the Internet as a nuisance, or at least, as something to be handed out sparingly. I can quite happily get broadband speeds most in the US can only dream of and for a fraction of the price. And I can get that on my mobile phone with unlimited data too.

If you can't afford or access broadband in this country then you're either a) a hobo or b) a dead hobo. I don't think even elderly snobs ignore the Intarwebs any more. Not when money can be made from this virtual lark, what what.

Oh? I was under the impression that download quotas/caps were in widespread use in Britain, and that they're relatively uncommon in the US. I may have been mistaken about that. But I'm looking at the BT website and I'm not seeing anything I can "only dream of" with regard to internet bandwidth and access.

[Uraniun235]

That said, I am in a fortunate area, and I do wish that the US had a much better broadband infrastructure. Or even a much better infrastructure overall.

[Rye]

Good on the ISPs for not telling customers they actually can't sustain the services they offer, hah. I had tiscali for a good while and they were fuckers for advertising one speed then throttling the shit out of it.

[phongn]

Good on the ISPs for not telling customers they actually can't sustain the services they offer, hah. I had tiscali for a good while and they were fuckers for advertising one speed then throttling the shit out of it.

Their website does inform you that throttling occurs, and advertised speed almost always refers to last mile connectivity and not end-to-end speed. As ISPs being able to deliver full bandwidth to every customer? Not going to happen with standard residential/consumer products.

[Starglider]

Tiscali is a shitty bottom-of-the-barrel ISP that makes money by selling ultra-cheap 'unlimited access' plans and either not mentioning the caps and restrictions at all or burying them in small print. They're bitching and whining because while they can get away with throttling bittorrent, they can't get away with it for live video and oh noes the customers might actually be demanding what they were promised. I have exactly zero symapthy for Tiscali. They are essentially saying 'changes in access patterns may make our (dishonest) business model unsustainable', and the answer to that is of course 'good riddance to bad rubbish, let's all switch to better ISPs'.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Uh, well, that's basically been the case since forever. I'm not sure how that's insightful in any way.

Which obviously needs restating since we're still in this situation. Or they can just shut-up and get used to it. A company that has to invest to stay ahead of the game? Who knew?

Oh? I was under the impression that download quotas/caps were in widespread use in Britain, and that they're relatively uncommon in the US. I may have been mistaken about that. But I'm looking at the BT website and I'm not seeing anything I can "only dream of" with regard to internet bandwidth and access.

Problem found. Don't go looking for amazing offers from the recently voted worst ISP winner, kthnxbye.

What does server capacity have anything to with the bandwidth issues that the ISPs are concerned with? As for bandwidth capacity --- that's been the trend for decades. They'll have to raise prices if they're having so much trouble with capacity

I thought you were getting at they had problems with meeting demands for dealing with requests there, not so much the bandwidth, which we all know will never be optimal so long as people want more.

Tiscali is a shitty bottom-of-the-barrel ISP that makes money by selling ultra-cheap 'unlimited access' plans and either not mentioning the caps and restrictions at all or burying them in small print. They're bitching and whining because while they can get away with throttling bittorrent, they can't get away with it for live video and oh noes the customers might actually be demanding what they were promised. I have exactly zero symapthy for Tiscali. They are essentially saying 'changes in access patterns may make our (dishonest) business model unsustainable', and the answer to that is of course 'good riddance to bad rubbish, let's all switch to better ISPs'.

I have to say that, while there are horror stories over Tiscali and their pissy nature in public is annoying, I've never had any problems with them. I get near my 8 Mbit/s connection speed and have never had throttling, but then that's because I don't download huge friggin' torrents at peak times. Unlike some.

[Rye]

Their website does inform you that throttling occurs, and advertised speed almost always refers to last mile connectivity and not end-to-end speed. As ISPs being able to deliver full bandwidth to every customer? Not going to happen with standard residential/consumer products.

I know this, but seriously, between virgin, BT and Tiscali, Tiscali were easily the worst for it by far. I assume BT does it too to some extent, but I've never really bothered about it. Tiscali frequently gave me maybe 10k/s on normal downloads (and obviously bittorrent was blocked altogether), which isn't on for the 2 or 5 meg connection they were supposedly offering. They also had absolutely retarded tech support who tried to claim one of my many connection issues at the time were down to the router I was using, and after an hour-long phonecall finally told me the local exchange was down. Of course, that was the first thing I asked when I phoned them, but I wasn't allowed to circumvent the process like that.

I hope they go out of business.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I know this, but seriously, between virgin, BT and Tiscali, Tiscali were easily the worst for it by far. I assume BT does it too to some extent, but I've never really bothered about it. Tiscali frequently gave me maybe 10k/s on normal downloads (and obviously bittorrent was blocked altogether),

The fuck? Even on my 2 Mbit/s connection at my parents', I got to download files direct from FTP sites at a couple of hundred kbps if the site allowed it. Bittorrent was easily getting 60 kbps on average and more if the torrent was well seeded. You got anally molested, mate.

which isn't on for the 2 or 5 meg connection they were supposedly offering. They also had absolutely retarded tech support who tried to claim one of my many connection issues at the time were down to the router I was using, and after an hour-long phonecall finally told me the local exchange was down. Of course, that was the first thing I asked when I phoned them, but I wasn't allowed to circumvent the process like that.

I hope they go out of business.

You rang an ISP's tech support centre? Good LAWD, man, what were you thinking?! That's how they steal your monies and immortal soul and then force your brains out of every orifice you have with the most amazingly dumb "fixes". I sent an e-mail once to ask about something and that's about as far as I ever go. It's easier to just get the hell out of there and transfer to another provider.

Preferably not BT and their hilarious download caps.

[Rye]

Actually, even changing ISP sucked ass with Tiscali, they charged us for a quarter when we weren't even with them any more. I've also not had any problem with download caps and the fact the connection isn't fucked every 2 weeks is great. But yes, Tiscali was tentacle monster surprise sex of the lowest order.

[Starglider]

I'm not saying Tiscali shouldn't throttle. Throttling is fine when it's spelled out in the T&Cs. I'm saying that they shouldn't be able to engage in dishonest advertising that hides how oversubscribed their network capacity is (compared to their competitors) and then expect somebody else to bail them out when it backfires (e.g. get the BBC and by extension the general public) to pay for upgrades to their network to make them competitive now that they have to compete honestly). Doing so would be corporate welfare of the worst kind.

[Zac Naloen]

Their website does inform you that throttling occurs, and advertised speed almost always refers to last mile connectivity and not end-to-end speed. As ISPs being able to deliver full bandwidth to every customer? Not going to happen with standard residential/consumer products.

I know this, but seriously, between virgin, BT and Tiscali, Tiscali were easily the worst for it by far. I assume BT does it too to some extent, but I've never really bothered about it. Tiscali frequently gave me maybe 10k/s on normal downloads (and obviously bittorrent was blocked altogether), which isn't on for the 2 or 5 meg connection they were supposedly offering. They also had absolutely retarded tech support who tried to claim one of my many connection issues at the time were down to the router I was using, and after an hour-long phonecall finally told me the local exchange was down. Of course, that was the first thing I asked when I phoned them, but I wasn't allowed to circumvent the process like that.

I hope they go out of business.

Virgin aren't that bad.

I pay for 20 meg download and I get 20 meg download most of the time.

They do have some areas which are oversubscribed though. They are doing work to fix it all, the problem is that the company is riddled with debt from all the buyouts they've had.

I'd need to download 3gigs of data during the hours of 9-4 for it to get throttled in anyway.

They are upgrading everything to docsis 3.0 at the moment and rolling out 50meg download either early next year or late this year.

Amusingly in the "vote for the best service" polls people rated Tesco at the top and Virgin adsl somewhere near the bottom. It's the same service

Having used BT, Bulldog, Tiscali etc in the past. I'd say Virgin have been the best of the bunch in terms of consistency and speed.

[DaveJB]

You rang an ISP's tech support centre? Good LAWD, man, what were you thinking?! That's how they steal your monies and immortal soul and then force your brains out of every orifice you have with the most amazingly dumb "fixes". I sent an e-mail once to ask about something and that's about as far as I ever go.

That's fine and dandy until your connection stops working altogether. Then you ring up the support line... first time you end up on hold for half an hour, then hang up out of sheer frustration. Second time you get someone who refuses to admit that there might be any possible problem at their end, walks you through every possible setting on your computer, then tells you to buy a new computer and hangs up on you. Third time of trying, you finally get someone who admits that there's something wrong... and promises that it'll be fixed within the next 10 working days.

Fortunately, I haven't had to do that for many years, but when broadband was in its infancy, we were doing it every few months.

[His Divine Shadow]

I knew this whole "Teh intarwebs can supply EVERYTHINK!!1!" movement wasn't going to end well. You can cram only so much down so many..,. tubes before the thing grinds to a halt. Either rates go up to accommodate these new data intensive applications (and digging up roads to put in new fibre-optics is expensive), or we get caps. And then you get the Internet class argument again.

I know this engineer who goes on about fiber cables, he says the fibers themselves are nowhere near capacity, not even a little, the issue is the equipment on both sides of the fiber cables.

[His Divine Shadow]

Oh I was a bit too fast on the submit button, anyway the point was, stop postponing building fiber, it's going to pay off in the long run.