Row over iPlayer highlights need for fibre

The UK’s creaky internet infrastructure has brought the BBC and ISPs to blows

Have you used Aunty Beeb’s streaming TV programme service, the iPlayer, yet? I hadn’t until I came to write this column. What’s all the fuss about, I thought, it’s only a streaming media player used to access “time-bombed” BBC programme content. Hold on a minute ­ time-bombed? You mean I can only watch old BBC content for a limited period before it “expires”?

Well, if you think about it, there are some pretty obvious commercial reasons for this. First, the BBC is doing just fine serving up a diet of repeats as part of its programme schedules, and second, unlimited online access to old content would hit a very nice BBC revenue stream in the form of all those DVD box sets that we all buy for our retired relatives come Christmas.

Anyway, there are two modes for running iPlayer. The first is streaming mode, where a connection is set up to the Beeb’s media server and you watch the programme as it is delivered directly to the iPlayer installed on your PC. The other mode is to download the whole content in one big chunk and then play it at your leisure ­ until the preset time-limit kicks in and automatically deletes the content from your system.

It seems the streaming mode now has internet service providers (ISPs) up in arms. When many subscribers all start streaming popular shows like Dr Who simultaneously, it puts a strain on their networks. The problem is that ISPs have built their networks based on typical web-browsing habits, which result in brief, irregular bursts of traffic.

The backhaul network of most ISPs is just not designed to cope with a situation where everyone is continually maxing out their alloted bandwidth. Tiscali has complained that the BBC seems to be shifting its distribution costs onto ISPs. In other words, it and other broadband suppliers are being forced to install extra capacity to support the BBC’s new service. Why, you might ask, hasn’t Google’s YouTube service been tarred with the same brush? Is it that the Beeb’s content is higher quality?

And is Tiscali’s argument that the Beeb should divvy up some cash to pay for network upgrades a valid one? Should you penalise somebody because their content is popular? Would ISPs really “bandwidth throttle” iPlayer content, as they have threatened to? I’m sure they wouldn’t if it led to customers switching to more BBC-friendly ISPs.

The whole argument is a bit ironic considering the discussions that have been going on over the past couple of years regarding residential optical fibre rollouts. Those who appear happy with the status quo argue that there just isn’t the demand for fibre, nor any killer application requiring such high bandwidth. The growing furore over iPlayer would suggest otherwise.

These people also contend that customers just wouldn’t be prepared to pay the extra cost. There’s no doubt that rolling out fibre across the country would be a hugely expensive exercise involving a lot of digging up of roads. If ISPs are left to foot the bill for this, most consumers would find the cost of any subsequent fibre-based services to be prohibitively expensive.

So once again we’re back to whether the UK government should bite the bullet and stump up public funds to finance a country-wide fibre rollout. Given the credit crunch and related economic uncertainty currently sweeping the globe, this would be a bold, forward-looking move ­ not something the current government has been accused of lately.