Who Should Pay For Our Online Future?

Posted by: Gareth - 25/11/2009

Almost a year ago the music and film industry complained that their material was being illegally downloaded by millions of users costing their respective industries hundreds of millions of pounds. One Internet Service Provider in particular (Virgin Media) decided to tackle this issue head on. They said they would identify and restrict users whom they considered to be performing what they deemed excessive downloading. To this day they haven’t provided any clarification on their definition of excessive, but they made it clear that they mean a minority of customers whom they believe to be downloading full length movies and music albums (illegally).

Identifying these users wouldn’t just come down to an educated guess but based on the amount of data that the said customer has downloaded in a given period of time i.e. a month. The average user who uses the internet to check their e-mails, Facebook profiles, buying online and research will not download anywhere near as much data than a user who downloads a single film. Virgin Media said before they take any action they would be issuing letters to all of these identified customers stating their case, giving the customer a chance to respond rather than just placing restrictions on their service. Other ISP’s have taken a different approach and made it clear that their customers are paying for a certain amount of bandwidth, e.g. 2GB download allowance / month. Once the user has used up their allotted 2GB for that month they will not be able to get online until the following month or until they upgrade to say 4GB/month.

Well since then the online landscape has changed a lot, presenting Internet Service Providers with the same problem only this time it’s all legal – the birth of the BBC iPlayer. For those of you unacquainted with the iPlayer, it’s basically an online service provided by the BBC where you can watch programmes that you may have missed, ending the days of having to be home in time to watch Eastenders. All very well but if I’ve been on holiday and return wanting to watch Top Gear and Eastenders (not too unreasonable), this alone could be enough to use up my download allowance for the month. Does it put me on Virgin Media’s radar for possible excessive usage? The technology that we have available in the UK cannot handle every household to be continuously watching the iPlayer. You may say fair enough be patient, but if you can’t watch a programme because there are too many people with the same idea at the same time (and it will happen), then the service isn’t meeting the objective that it was designed for in the first place, convenience.

So here’s where the argument comes in. Who should pay to upgrade our technology to bring it to a level where meeting this fresh demand is more than catered for? Well the BBC says that ISP’s should pay for it. The ISP’s on the other hand insist that the BBC should pay for it. We’re talking here of a figure in the region of £900m possibly double. All during the worst global recession since the 1930’s, so it’s understandable why nobody seems eager to pay for it.

So let’s look at this in basic terms. The iPlayer is a truly brilliant service, but its future is very uncertain if the ISP’s collectively hold firm and refuse to upgrade their technology. So whilst being brilliant it is still a long distance off being a polished service. I’ve even read of suggestions that central Government should pay for this upgrade.

From a neutral point of view I strongly believe that ISP’s, BBC and central Government should share the cost. But I’d like to point out when I say BBC I also mean to include ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5 and BSkyB as they also have their own versions of the iPlayer. ISP’s should pay towards the final cost because they are already behind their counterparts in Europe, America and most of Asia and because it will mean they can deliver a much better service to their customers. The TV companies should pay because it would expose their services to a much wider audience meaning it would be easier to sell more advertising at higher prices. This wouldn’t benefit the BBC in financial terms however, their success is judged on ratings and not profit, so it would certainly enable them to deliver that objective without any trouble. I believe that central Government should contribute to the final cost because the economic future relies greatly on the internet, it’s in the public interest to do so and it would create more jobs reducing unemployment.

Go straight to the article you want...

Hanging for Charity at Old Trafford? - 27/03/2010

Who Should Pay For Our Online Future? - 25/11/2009