The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
With the limited release of the BETA version of the BBC iPlayer, it seems some Internet Service Provider's (ISP's for short) are complaining that such services will cause a gridlock and eventual price hikes for our broadband services, because services like the iPlayer, Sky Anytime, 4OD, YouTube, etc will eat up more bandwidth than is currently available.
Currently it seems Sky, Channel 4, YouTube, etc, have been able to use this system of distribution without any real concern, but the moment the old BEEB step in, there is suddenly going to be a problem? Could this have been a coincidence, a long time coming, or perhaps a sign that the BBC iPlayer is expected to be a huge success in terms of user numbers (and hence bandwidth usage)?
Sky customers have to subscribe, and Channel customers have to pay for some content, and go through the effort of installing the software, which in itself is perhaps a rather large barrier, but Sky do have 8 million customers, of which a large majority could suddenly decide, "yeah, I'll give that Anytime a go" ... so wouldn't this be something ISP's would have thought about much sooner?
But then the BBC are probably the largest player in the game of broadcasting, with many 1000's of hours worth of content to place on to the iPlayer distribution system, which anyone in the UK could download at any given time, without having to subscribe to or pay per download! Perhaps the wide availability and lack of additional fee's of the iPlayer may attract enough users to cause ISP's problems?
But would they? Millions sit in front of their TV to watch Eastenders, Doctor Who and what not, and I can't really envision too many people wanting to change that for the sake of change, because the telly does that just fine ... doesn't it?
I can fully understand the argument that the Internet "wasn't set up to be used as a TV download system" or wasn't "expected to take the place of standard television broadcasts", and hence the networks weren't really built for such a thing, but then the net wasn't designed for commercial web sites selling goods, people blogging, downloading MP3's or hosting photos, yet the companies who provided Internet access seemed to be able to keep up with such a demand, and many actively advertise that fact. Then, all of a sudden, there's no room?
YouTube is probably the best example of a Video site with many millions of videos being viewed per week, maybe even per day, and the net hasn't collapsed under the pressure. But then, YouTube videos are generally short clips of low quality, whereas the video on the BBC iPlayer (as well as Sky Anytime, 4OD, etc) will be much longer (full programmes, films, etc) and of a far superior visual quality - so maybe once these become popular, we'll see these bandwidth issues slow down our Internet access on a permanent basis?
Also, as the BBC iPlayer, and 4OD in part, are designed as a catch up service, allowing access to programmes 7 days after broadcast, it gives a much smaller window for people to get those shows, and so many people will likely be downloading at once.
Perhaps I'm rambling now, so I'll bring this to a close.
So, when the iPlayer fully launches and becomes available on a variety of hardware platforms (along with other such video or bandwidth heavy services), are we going to see letters through the post about price rises, slower speeds, or other things that effect the price we pay for our Internet services?
Or, is it all hot air, and simply ploy by ISP's like Tiscali, trying to rain on the parade of other video content providers to protect their own TV / Video on demand services? After all, they probably don't want other companies using their infrastructure to compete against their own profitable products?
Or maybe it's a problem that won't come about. Thousands may download the iPlayer, use it once or twice, get bored with it once they've seen a couple of shows, and just go back to watching it on the telly, or using good old Sky+. After all, isn't television full of "crap" and "bloody endless repeats" anyway?
Has anybody else seen these reports lately, and got any thoughts of their own?
Links:
ISPs warning to streaming TV via p2p (from Think Broadband).
Net firm warns on web video costs (from BBC News).
ISPs hijack BBC in tiered services push (from The Register).
Currently it seems Sky, Channel 4, YouTube, etc, have been able to use this system of distribution without any real concern, but the moment the old BEEB step in, there is suddenly going to be a problem? Could this have been a coincidence, a long time coming, or perhaps a sign that the BBC iPlayer is expected to be a huge success in terms of user numbers (and hence bandwidth usage)?
Sky customers have to subscribe, and Channel customers have to pay for some content, and go through the effort of installing the software, which in itself is perhaps a rather large barrier, but Sky do have 8 million customers, of which a large majority could suddenly decide, "yeah, I'll give that Anytime a go" ... so wouldn't this be something ISP's would have thought about much sooner?
But then the BBC are probably the largest player in the game of broadcasting, with many 1000's of hours worth of content to place on to the iPlayer distribution system, which anyone in the UK could download at any given time, without having to subscribe to or pay per download! Perhaps the wide availability and lack of additional fee's of the iPlayer may attract enough users to cause ISP's problems?
But would they? Millions sit in front of their TV to watch Eastenders, Doctor Who and what not, and I can't really envision too many people wanting to change that for the sake of change, because the telly does that just fine ... doesn't it?
I can fully understand the argument that the Internet "wasn't set up to be used as a TV download system" or wasn't "expected to take the place of standard television broadcasts", and hence the networks weren't really built for such a thing, but then the net wasn't designed for commercial web sites selling goods, people blogging, downloading MP3's or hosting photos, yet the companies who provided Internet access seemed to be able to keep up with such a demand, and many actively advertise that fact. Then, all of a sudden, there's no room?
YouTube is probably the best example of a Video site with many millions of videos being viewed per week, maybe even per day, and the net hasn't collapsed under the pressure. But then, YouTube videos are generally short clips of low quality, whereas the video on the BBC iPlayer (as well as Sky Anytime, 4OD, etc) will be much longer (full programmes, films, etc) and of a far superior visual quality - so maybe once these become popular, we'll see these bandwidth issues slow down our Internet access on a permanent basis?
Also, as the BBC iPlayer, and 4OD in part, are designed as a catch up service, allowing access to programmes 7 days after broadcast, it gives a much smaller window for people to get those shows, and so many people will likely be downloading at once.
Perhaps I'm rambling now, so I'll bring this to a close.
So, when the iPlayer fully launches and becomes available on a variety of hardware platforms (along with other such video or bandwidth heavy services), are we going to see letters through the post about price rises, slower speeds, or other things that effect the price we pay for our Internet services?
Or, is it all hot air, and simply ploy by ISP's like Tiscali, trying to rain on the parade of other video content providers to protect their own TV / Video on demand services? After all, they probably don't want other companies using their infrastructure to compete against their own profitable products?
Or maybe it's a problem that won't come about. Thousands may download the iPlayer, use it once or twice, get bored with it once they've seen a couple of shows, and just go back to watching it on the telly, or using good old Sky+. After all, isn't television full of "crap" and "bloody endless repeats" anyway?
Has anybody else seen these reports lately, and got any thoughts of their own?
Links:
ISPs warning to streaming TV via p2p (from Think Broadband).
Net firm warns on web video costs (from BBC News).
ISPs hijack BBC in tiered services push (from The Register).
With the limited release of the BETA version of the BBC iPlayer, it seems some Internet Service Provider's (ISP's for short) are complaining that such services will cause a gridlock and eventual price hikes for our broadband services, because services like the iPlayer, Sky Anytime, 4OD, YouTube, etc will eat up more bandwidth than is currently available.
Currently it seems Sky, Channel 4, YouTube, etc, have been able to use this system of distribution without any real concern, but the moment the old BEEB step in, there is suddenly going to be a problem? Could this have been a coincidence, a long time coming, or perhaps a sign that the BBC iPlayer is expected to be a huge success in terms of user numbers (and hence bandwidth usage)?
Sky customers have to subscribe, and Channel customers have to pay for some content, and go through the effort of installing the software, which in itself is perhaps a rather large barrier, but Sky do have 8 million customers, of which a large majority could suddenly decide, "yeah, I'll give that Anytime a go" ... so wouldn't this be something ISP's would have thought about much sooner?
But then the BBC are probably the largest player in the game of broadcasting, with many 1000's of hours worth of content to place on to the iPlayer distribution system, which anyone in the UK could download at any given time, without having to subscribe to or pay per download! Perhaps the wide availability and lack of additional fee's of the iPlayer may attract enough users to cause ISP's problems?
But would they? Millions sit in front of their TV to watch Eastenders, Doctor Who and what not, and I can't really envision too many people wanting to change that for the sake of change, because the telly does that just fine ... doesn't it?
I can fully understand the argument that the Internet "wasn't set up to be used as a TV download system" or wasn't "expected to take the place of standard television broadcasts", and hence the networks weren't really built for such a thing, but then the net wasn't designed for commercial web sites selling goods, people blogging, downloading MP3's or hosting photos, yet the companies who provided Internet access seemed to be able to keep up with such a demand, and many actively advertise that fact. Then, all of a sudden, there's no room?
YouTube is probably the best example of a Video site with many millions of videos being viewed per week, maybe even per day, and the net hasn't collapsed under the pressure. But then, YouTube videos are generally short clips of low quality, whereas the video on the BBC iPlayer (as well as Sky Anytime, 4OD, etc) will be much longer (full programmes, films, etc) and of a far superior visual quality - so maybe once these become popular, we'll see these bandwidth issues slow down our Internet access on a permanent basis?
Also, as the BBC iPlayer, and 4OD in part, are designed as a catch up service, allowing access to programmes 7 days after broadcast, it gives a much smaller window for people to get those shows, and so many people will likely be downloading at once.
Perhaps I'm rambling now, so I'll bring this to a close.
So, when the iPlayer fully launches and becomes available on a variety of hardware platforms (along with other such video or bandwidth heavy services), are we going to see letters through the post about price rises, slower speeds, or other things that effect the price we pay for our Internet services?
Or, is it all hot air, and simply ploy by ISP's like Tiscali, trying to rain on the parade of other video content providers to protect their own TV / Video on demand services? After all, they probably don't want other companies using their infrastructure to compete against their own profitable products?
Or maybe it's a problem that won't come about. Thousands may download the iPlayer, use it once or twice, get bored with it once they've seen a couple of shows, and just go back to watching it on the telly, or using good old Sky+. After all, isn't television full of "crap" and "bloody endless repeats" anyway?
Has anybody else seen these reports lately, and got any thoughts of their own?
Links:
ISPs warning to streaming TV via p2p (from Think Broadband).
Net firm warns on web video costs (from BBC News).
ISPs hijack BBC in tiered services push (from The Register).
Currently it seems Sky, Channel 4, YouTube, etc, have been able to use this system of distribution without any real concern, but the moment the old BEEB step in, there is suddenly going to be a problem? Could this have been a coincidence, a long time coming, or perhaps a sign that the BBC iPlayer is expected to be a huge success in terms of user numbers (and hence bandwidth usage)?
Sky customers have to subscribe, and Channel customers have to pay for some content, and go through the effort of installing the software, which in itself is perhaps a rather large barrier, but Sky do have 8 million customers, of which a large majority could suddenly decide, "yeah, I'll give that Anytime a go" ... so wouldn't this be something ISP's would have thought about much sooner?
But then the BBC are probably the largest player in the game of broadcasting, with many 1000's of hours worth of content to place on to the iPlayer distribution system, which anyone in the UK could download at any given time, without having to subscribe to or pay per download! Perhaps the wide availability and lack of additional fee's of the iPlayer may attract enough users to cause ISP's problems?
But would they? Millions sit in front of their TV to watch Eastenders, Doctor Who and what not, and I can't really envision too many people wanting to change that for the sake of change, because the telly does that just fine ... doesn't it?
I can fully understand the argument that the Internet "wasn't set up to be used as a TV download system" or wasn't "expected to take the place of standard television broadcasts", and hence the networks weren't really built for such a thing, but then the net wasn't designed for commercial web sites selling goods, people blogging, downloading MP3's or hosting photos, yet the companies who provided Internet access seemed to be able to keep up with such a demand, and many actively advertise that fact. Then, all of a sudden, there's no room?
YouTube is probably the best example of a Video site with many millions of videos being viewed per week, maybe even per day, and the net hasn't collapsed under the pressure. But then, YouTube videos are generally short clips of low quality, whereas the video on the BBC iPlayer (as well as Sky Anytime, 4OD, etc) will be much longer (full programmes, films, etc) and of a far superior visual quality - so maybe once these become popular, we'll see these bandwidth issues slow down our Internet access on a permanent basis?
Also, as the BBC iPlayer, and 4OD in part, are designed as a catch up service, allowing access to programmes 7 days after broadcast, it gives a much smaller window for people to get those shows, and so many people will likely be downloading at once.
Perhaps I'm rambling now, so I'll bring this to a close.
So, when the iPlayer fully launches and becomes available on a variety of hardware platforms (along with other such video or bandwidth heavy services), are we going to see letters through the post about price rises, slower speeds, or other things that effect the price we pay for our Internet services?
Or, is it all hot air, and simply ploy by ISP's like Tiscali, trying to rain on the parade of other video content providers to protect their own TV / Video on demand services? After all, they probably don't want other companies using their infrastructure to compete against their own profitable products?
Or maybe it's a problem that won't come about. Thousands may download the iPlayer, use it once or twice, get bored with it once they've seen a couple of shows, and just go back to watching it on the telly, or using good old Sky+. After all, isn't television full of "crap" and "bloody endless repeats" anyway?
Has anybody else seen these reports lately, and got any thoughts of their own?
Links:
ISPs warning to streaming TV via p2p (from Think Broadband).
Net firm warns on web video costs (from BBC News).
ISPs hijack BBC in tiered services push (from The Register).
Hi cjh, I don't think you said if you are using iPlayer yourself (sorry if I missed it).
I received my 'invite' from the BBC just after their so called 27th July Launch. I say "so called" launch as it wasn't really a product launch but just a more official notice that you could ask to try the beta software. I didn't think it was a good way to start...
After installing the software I started to look at numerous security warnings and firewall alerts. The culprit seemed to mostly be a Windows service called kontiki - a quick Google on kontiki bbc iplayer shows lots and lots of background to this - just about all bad.
I hadn't realised up until this point that the service was P2P - which isn't something I want to use. So after a bit more reading - again mostly horror stories, which were backed up from what I was seeing - ActiveX trying to run all over the shop, firewall etc. asking for numerous permissions and my router maxing itself out - I decided to remove the application.
The BBC introduction and installation instructions were miles apart from the actual reality of it. Perhaps things will improve with time. Using P2P to deliver this service will, I'm sure cause people on small monthly ISP allowances to go over their limit.
Is it just that i'm a P2P newbie - is anyone else here using iPlayer?
Search Freeola Chat
I received my 'invite' from the BBC just after their so called 27th July Launch. I say "so called" launch as it wasn't really a product launch but just a more official notice that you could ask to try the beta software. I didn't think it was a good way to start...
After installing the software I started to look at numerous security warnings and firewall alerts. The culprit seemed to mostly be a Windows service called kontiki - a quick Google on kontiki bbc iplayer shows lots and lots of background to this - just about all bad.
I hadn't realised up until this point that the service was P2P - which isn't something I want to use. So after a bit more reading - again mostly horror stories, which were backed up from what I was seeing - ActiveX trying to run all over the shop, firewall etc. asking for numerous permissions and my router maxing itself out - I decided to remove the application.
The BBC introduction and installation instructions were miles apart from the actual reality of it. Perhaps things will improve with time. Using P2P to deliver this service will, I'm sure cause people on small monthly ISP allowances to go over their limit.
Is it just that i'm a P2P newbie - is anyone else here using iPlayer?
Search Freeola Chat
I think there are lots of problems with the iPlayer at the moment. The obvious ones are that it's XP only and a bandwidth hog. If you prevent it uploading and then close it down it doesn't close but rather leaves a service running in the background that then proceeds to send data again! It all seems very poorly thought out. On the other hand the BBC's Set top Box trial seems very good and works well, but we're not meant to talk about that!
Hmmm... wrote:
> After installing the software I started to look at numerous
> security warnings and firewall alerts. The culprit seemed to
> mostly be a Windows service called kontiki - a quick
> Google on kontiki bbc iplayer shows lots and lots of
> background to this - just about all bad.
Kontiki is quite popular for this sort of thing it seems, Sky Anytime uses it as well. Consequently it didnt last long on my system at all. In principle I've nothing against them using p2p to do this, I dont think a free service like this is sustainable otherwise. What annoyed me was Sky's clandestine approach to it. Never told you they were installing it, always running, no control over its bandwidth usage and no easy way to uninstall it (although I think this has changed now).
> After installing the software I started to look at numerous
> security warnings and firewall alerts. The culprit seemed to
> mostly be a Windows service called kontiki - a quick
> Google on kontiki bbc iplayer shows lots and lots of
> background to this - just about all bad.
Kontiki is quite popular for this sort of thing it seems, Sky Anytime uses it as well. Consequently it didnt last long on my system at all. In principle I've nothing against them using p2p to do this, I dont think a free service like this is sustainable otherwise. What annoyed me was Sky's clandestine approach to it. Never told you they were installing it, always running, no control over its bandwidth usage and no easy way to uninstall it (although I think this has changed now).
That's what I found, Kontiki seems to be used by most of the new 'on demand' services.
After installing BBC software, to then see security questions relating to Kontiki, which doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere by the BBC. It's not really what I would call a quality implementation.
I was looking forward to the iPlayer as well! Makes you wonder how some of these companies run their 'professional' IT services.
Search Freeola Chat
After installing BBC software, to then see security questions relating to Kontiki, which doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere by the BBC. It's not really what I would call a quality implementation.
I was looking forward to the iPlayer as well! Makes you wonder how some of these companies run their 'professional' IT services.
Search Freeola Chat
I haven't downloaded it myself, although previously had wanted to when it was announced, but since it's still in BETA, uses P2P, and reading some negatives about it, I think I'll give it a miss for the moment.