It's a bit late for the ISPs to moan, as Ofcom and the BBC have spent two years consulting!
The BBC Trust approval noted: "3.16 Broadband costs One industry stakeholder raised concern about the impact of the BBC's proposals on broadband networks and costs. It was said that the PVT "barely considered" these issues. However they were very clearly referred to in the provisional conclusions. We repeat that we considered all the views expressed in the MIA and PVA. We concluded that any potential capacity constraints should be only a medium term issue in a competitive broadband market, as capacity increases in response to rising consumer demand for broadband services. Further, it is anticipated that the BBC content will represent only a relatively small proportion of the total available content as the market for audio and video over the internet continues to expand. How the networks adjust and how the costs are met is ultimately a matter for the market. Undoubtedly, the BBC Executive may be involved in discussions with ISPs and network providers but we do not consider it appropriate to issue any directions to management on this issue in this approval." http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/consult/decisions/on_demand/decision.pdf and Ofcom said: If it is assumed that ISPs do not wish to degrade the service that end users currently enjoy, the introduction of iPlayer (and other data intensive services) will require ISPs using IPStream to provision more BT Central capacity. Based on the numbers of hours of catch up TV iPlayer users are expected to download each month and knowing the current rental cost of BT Central capacity the additional capacity costs required to support catch up on the internet can be calculated: • Assumed average number of programs downloaded each month = 13 • Assumed average duration of programs = 40 minutes • Assumed average encoding bit rate = 800kbps A3.20 Based on the above, the iPlayer related data downloaded by an average iPlayer user is 3.1 GBytes/month82. A3.21 If the download of this data were spread evenly throughout the month it would require approximately 10kbps of additional BT central capacity per iPlayer user. Using the current BT Central rate card price (approx £26k/month for120 mbps) this equates to an incremental cost to the ISP of £2.10 per month per iPlayer user (or 24p/hour of video downloaded). A3.22 In reality, and as shown in the results of the BBC trial, P2P traffic throughout the day has a profile similar to other internet activity i.e. it peaks in the evenings. The peak to mean ratio for traffic throughout the day is typically in the order of 2:1 and ISPs provision capacity to cover peak demand. In the case of the iPlayer this 82 This estimate is consistent with the Analysys report commission by BBC Management BBC new on demand proposals 131 implies that BT Central capacity costs per iPlayer user could be as much as 4.20 per month (50p /hour of video downloaded). A3.23 The estimates above assume that all iPlayer related data is incremental to other internet traffic, however this is unlikely to be the case. To the extent that iPlayer diverts users away from other internet-base services, the incremental impact would be reduced. Using the figures from our quantitative analysis, we estimate that around 50% of the traffic would be incremental and hence incremental monthly costs relating to iPlayer are estimated to be in the range of £1 to £2 per month per iPlayer user. A3.24 This level of impact assumes that iPlayer P2P traffic will have a similar profile to other internet traffic. ISPs may choose to de-prioritise and drop P2P traffic to avoid increased demand at peak times (but reduce the iPlayer user experience). However, for those ISP who cannot (because they lack the necessary technology), or choose not to, filter out P2P traffic at peak times the estimates set out above are indicative of the additional costs ISPs will incur if service to end users is not to be degraded. A3.25 A potential way to avoid these increased costs is for the BBC to introduce additional features into the iPlayer that allow users to request an overnight download. Combined with ISPs offering retail pricing structures which favour off peak downloads end users may be incentivised to download outside of peak hours, more efficient use of ISP backhaul capacity could then be achieved and incremental costs avoided. A3.26 It should be noted that ISPs using IPStream will face similar pressures to increase BT Central backhaul capacity as more video based services are introduced and achieve mass appeal. For example, Sky, Channel 4 and Five already offer internet download services and ITV have announced plans to introduce services within the next few months. The issues identified above must therefore be addressed irrespective of whether the BBC launches catch up over the internet and it could be argued that this increased demand on capacity will provide the driver for increased investment in next generation technologies. A3.27 The analysis above considers the potential costs that ISPs using IPStream may incur as a result of the iPlayer. Another short term impact is at the retail level where many consumers are purchasing broadband products which include a cap on monthly download. For example, BT's Option 1 broadband product retails at £17.99/month and is limited to 2GBytes of download each month. End users who currently use this product and subsequently become regularly users of the BBC catch up service will need to upgrade to BT Option 2 which has a 6 GByte download limit and costs an additional £5/month. Whilst other ISPs have different retail offerings, all ISPs using BT wholesale products will be subject to the same underlying costs and hence may need to adjust their retail offerings as service such as BBC catch up become more popular. http://www.ofcom.org.uk/research/tv/bbcmias/ondemand/bbc_ondemand/bbc_ondemand.pdf On 16/08/07, Christopher Woods <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Because of the nature of how the iPlayer CDN works though, it's going to > have that disproportionately-big effect on bandwidth and network usage for > the ISPs which has already been highlighted in stories on El Reg and > ArsTechnica. > > ...Which leads me to ask: have any of the ISPs actually contacted the BBC > and asked for cold, hard cash yet? I just had to laugh so much when I first > read that the service providers were getting into a hissy fit about the > potential uptake of iPlayer and all the extra bandwidth they'd need to find, > but then I started to worry a little because you know what'll happen is that > they'll just QoS prioritise anything BUT p2p iPlayer traffic, bunging it > alongside bittorrent, and they'll cap our bandwidth usage to buggery (like > they already do on VM). I know that when my connection gets capped on VM > after using iPlayer on it, I'll be ringing Virgin and raising HELL about it! > > Maybe the BBC can finally effect some much-needed change in the ISPs' > attitude towards bandwidth and service provisioning? Because most UK service > providers have been stalling on that front for years, desperately trying to > reallocate and apportion out an insufficient amount of available bandwidth > whilst obtaining more and more customers... And they wonder why their churn > rate is so high... > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Jason Cartwright [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > *Sent:* 16 August 2007 11:05 > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [backstage] BBC iPlayer Protest tommorow, Tuesday 14th, > 10:30AM, White City > > > > That will be the fact that less than 1% of the planet's population > lives in the UK? > > YouTube has almost as much UK traffic as bbc.co.uk [1]. bbc.co.uk content > is used/marketed/referred to overseas by BBC Worldwide and the World Service > [2]. > > My point was that iPlayer's impact on media delivery system market shares > is probably quite small when compared to the plethora on video sites out > there (of which YouTube is the biggest). > > J > > > [1] > http://weblogs.hitwise.com/heather-hopkins/2007/06/youtube_to_overtake_bbc_in_uk_1.html > [2] Example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/arabic/news/, or go to the homepage > and click ' International version'. > > On 16/8/07 10:34, "Brian Butterworth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 16/08/07, *Jason Cartwright* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Does iPlayer contain Silverlight? I've not seen anything to suggest it > does. > > What the hell does all this matter anyhow, there is no lock in. The tech > is > just being used to deliver the content as per spec, which it seems to be > doing. Nothing is stopping the BBC ditching MS products for iPlayer at any > time with a simple (automatically installed?) patch, right? > > Seems the anti-DRM protests are misdirected. Why is the yellow jump-suit > brigade talking to the people who actually have the power to change it? > The > rights holders. We've seen rights-cleared videos being released without > DRM > on bbc.co.uk <http://bbc.co.uk> <http://bbc.co.uk/> for years. I don't > see anyone hassling Apple - but plenty of > people are hassling record labels, and they have gone on to do something > about it. > > > Good point. They should talk to http://www.pact.co.uk/ but I guess it's > the old "everyone has to pay the licence fee" issue and all the > touchy-freely stuff from the BBC management and BBC Trust (in the vein of > "it's your BBC") which confuses people. There is clearly a problem now as > the Trust supports the management, not the licence-fee payers! > > I guess people read things like this > http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2006/09_september/28/microsoft.shtml > <http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2006/09_september/28/microsoft.shtml><http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2006/09_september/28/microsoft.shtml> > and put 10 and 10 together and get 101 (binary joke!). > > > > > iPlayer installation numbers will be tiny compared to Flash installations > - > you know YouTube gets many, many more visitors that bbc.co.uk > <http://bbc.co.uk> <http://bbc.co.uk/> ? > > > > That will be the fact that less than 1% of the planet's population lives > in the UK? > > > J > > > On 15/8/07 20:15, "Dave Crossland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL > PROTECTED]><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > > On 14/08/07, Jason Cartwright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> The irony is that it probably doesn't matter now. They could now > download it > >> using their Windows XP machine in DRMed Windows Media Format. > >> > >> All thanks to our new overlord Bill, and his maniacal scheme to take > over > >> the BBC from the inside. > > > > Adobe currently has web video locked down; Apple, Real, Java, Xiph, > > and of course Microsoft are all in very niche use compared to Adobe > > Flash. Adobe Apollo is a direct competitor to Microsoft Silverlight, > > and with the inertia of Flash video and a large group of web designers > > already familiar with Flash, plus cheaper a licensing model than > > Microsoft, it looks like its in with a chance. The typical Microsoft > > response to fair competition is to compete unfairly. > > > > iPlayer, and a number of other high profile 2007 BBC projects, are > > based on Silverlight technology. Highfield's reponse on the Backstage > > blog points at the other proprietary technologies the BBC foists on > > the public, but these are based on previous technology decisions; the > > new stuff is all Silverlight based. > > > > 100,000 iPlayer sign-ups in a week, Martin? That's 100,000 more > > Silverlight installations. Given Microsoft's other major play to > > deploy Silverlight is Vista, and we all know how well that's working > > out for them this year, its outrageous to me that the BBC has paid > > Microsoft _anything_ for forcing license fee payers to install this > > key piece of strategic technology for them. Then UK is, afterall, one > > of the most broadband-saturated and media-consuming audiences, leading > > the way for other nations - Is the BBC likely to open up a > > non-zero-price iPlayer to international viewers at somepoint? So this > > is a big win for Microsoft's bid to control the next stage of web > > development with Silverlight. > > > > The BBC is committed to shipping a cross-platform iPlayer, and its a > > shame that this becomes the sole focus of the reporting on this issue. > > An iPlayer for 3 or 4 platforms is 3 or 4 times as worse as an XP-only > > iPlayer, because it is imposing DRM on even more people, and implying > > that DRM is acceptable. > > > > When it does ship a cross-platform iPlayer, I expect it will be based > > on Novell's Mono Moonlight for GNU/Linux, probably doing the media > > codec stuff with the GStreamer framework given that Fluendo, its > > sponsor, sells Windows Media Codecs already - > > https://shop.fluendo.com/product_info.php?products_id=45 < > https://shop.fluendo.com/product_info.php?products_id=45> - and the Mac > > OS X one might be Mono or Microsoft based. > > > > That's going to really help the widespread adoption of Silverlight as > > the Rich Internet Application platform of choice. > > > > In 2007, Google has maintained the dominant position for monetising > > search and advertising - of the text web. Their purchase of YouTube > > suggested they were serious about monetising the emerging video web, > > but the DRM aspects of Silverlight video delivery mean that their > > ability to provide search and advertising for web video is going to be > > undermined. > > > > So the BBC hasn't just helped Microsoft pull a Adobe-killer, it's also > > helping Microsoft pull a Google-killer. > > - > Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk > <http://backstage.bbc.co.uk><http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/> discussion group. > To unsubscribe, please visit > http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial > list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ > > > > > -- Brian Butterworth www.ukfree.tv
