http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7336940.stm
In that article on the bbc web site it is quite plain the BBC have no intention of paying ISP any money. I have to say I agree with the BBC.
Why should the BBC pay for ISP negligence? The ISP's should have and should now do upgrade their networks to cope with demand. They surely saw the rise in on-line videos. Youtube is one such that delivers video's to users but I never heard the ISP's asking them for money so why now ask the BBC for money so the ISP's can upgrade their networks?
The rise of on-line video entertainment has been with us since before youtube existed. Youtube came along and that started a slight strain on ISP networks. Did they, the ISP's upgrade their pipes to cope? No. They let that one slide. Then the BBC opens its IPlayer service and people started using it. Apparently it is, unsurprisingly, popular. Suddenly the ISP's are faced with network overload. Is it the ISP's or the BBC who should pay for the network upgrades? Think about this for a minute.
You pay for network access.
The BBC pay for providing you with all their web sites.
Focus on that last one. As a content provider the BBC pay for Internet access just like or you and I do. Except the BBC pays millions a year for the privilege of serving you with the content which includes the IPlayer service.
Now focus on that first one. You pay for Internet access. Just like the BBC.
Google has many applications that make them a content provider. YouTube is a content provider. There are many such content providers out there but the greedy ISP's have never asked any single one for money to prop up their failing networks. Suddenly the BBC, a public content portal paid for with the TV license money overs a streaming service and suddenly they ISP networks are creaking so they automatically assume that because the BBC gets millions every year from the TV license that the BBC should pay, again, the ISP for allowing such services on their failing pipes.
In short. The BBC pay for the privilege of serving up their content which includes the BBC IPlayer. You, the user, pay your ISP for Internet access which includes the BBC web site which includes the BBC IPlayer. The ISP's want the BBC to pay them again for you, who have already paid for Internet access to access the BBC web site which includes the BBC IPlayer service who already pay for access which allows them to serve up content. So, the BBC end up paying twice and you, the user, once. Clear?
Quite how the ISP's expect even more money from the BBC is beyond comprehension.
For those using Karoo you may be pleased to know that while not unexpected they are at the forefront of the shouting at the BBC for more money. Not unexpected because Karoo are a greedy company who have some of the highest prices for ADSL in the U.K.
In that article on the bbc web site it is quite plain the BBC have no intention of paying ISP any money. I have to say I agree with the BBC.
Why should the BBC pay for ISP negligence? The ISP's should have and should now do upgrade their networks to cope with demand. They surely saw the rise in on-line videos. Youtube is one such that delivers video's to users but I never heard the ISP's asking them for money so why now ask the BBC for money so the ISP's can upgrade their networks?
The rise of on-line video entertainment has been with us since before youtube existed. Youtube came along and that started a slight strain on ISP networks. Did they, the ISP's upgrade their pipes to cope? No. They let that one slide. Then the BBC opens its IPlayer service and people started using it. Apparently it is, unsurprisingly, popular. Suddenly the ISP's are faced with network overload. Is it the ISP's or the BBC who should pay for the network upgrades? Think about this for a minute.
You pay for network access.
The BBC pay for providing you with all their web sites.
Focus on that last one. As a content provider the BBC pay for Internet access just like or you and I do. Except the BBC pays millions a year for the privilege of serving you with the content which includes the IPlayer service.
Now focus on that first one. You pay for Internet access. Just like the BBC.
Google has many applications that make them a content provider. YouTube is a content provider. There are many such content providers out there but the greedy ISP's have never asked any single one for money to prop up their failing networks. Suddenly the BBC, a public content portal paid for with the TV license money overs a streaming service and suddenly they ISP networks are creaking so they automatically assume that because the BBC gets millions every year from the TV license that the BBC should pay, again, the ISP for allowing such services on their failing pipes.
In short. The BBC pay for the privilege of serving up their content which includes the BBC IPlayer. You, the user, pay your ISP for Internet access which includes the BBC web site which includes the BBC IPlayer. The ISP's want the BBC to pay them again for you, who have already paid for Internet access to access the BBC web site which includes the BBC IPlayer service who already pay for access which allows them to serve up content. So, the BBC end up paying twice and you, the user, once. Clear?
Quite how the ISP's expect even more money from the BBC is beyond comprehension.
For those using Karoo you may be pleased to know that while not unexpected they are at the forefront of the shouting at the BBC for more money. Not unexpected because Karoo are a greedy company who have some of the highest prices for ADSL in the U.K.
No comments:
Post a Comment