Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bowdon]

BT says families should only be able to watch ONE video at a time online as they resist Government call for minimum broadband speeds

BT has warned families should only be able to stream one movie at a time from a single device if the government pushes through plans for minimum broadband speeds.

The company was responding to a call by the government to improve internet access across the country and especially in rural area.

The government is considering giving each family in Britain a legal right to minimum broadband speeds, no matter where they live. Although this proposal is being resisted by the telecoms giant.

Families should only be able to watch one video online at a time under 'universal' broadband, BT suggests

Families should only be able to watch one video at a time on their smart-phones, tablets and computers under Government plans for "minimum" broadband speeds, BT has suggested.

The telecoms giant has revealed in response to a consultation that it is resisting the Government's plans to give every family in the UK a legal right to fast internet connections.

It has questioned whether households should expect their broadband to be fast enough for them to to watch "multiple video streams" at the same time or view films at the "highest quality" available, suggesting that most households in Britain only use a single device at a time.

[Bowdon]

I'm afraid these kinds of comments are playing right in to the hands of people who want Openreach seperated.

BT shouldn't be giving these sort of opinions out. Talk about damaging their own case.

[Black Sheep]

Or ............ it could be newspaper sensationalism. 

It'[s a well-known fact with media that 'A spokesman for the company' (without mention of a name), is a load of old b0llocks.

[renluop]

Maybe! Yet somehow I also think that the I-want-it-all-now folk need to get off their selfish high horses, especially whilst others can get far less then they. Seems to me that some reality is being suggested.

[ejs]

because broadband is increasingly not a nice-to-have but a necessity

Apparently it's a necessity then for everyone to watch high quality videos at the same time. What happens if they've got a particularly large family, does that mean someone else or everyone else will have to pay for them to have a fatter Internet connection?

[ejs]

I think the newspaper articles are merely an interpretation of BT's response to http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/consultations/broadband-USO-CFI/

[WWWombat]

It'[s a well-known fact with media that 'A spokesman for the company' (without mention of a name), is a load of old b0llocks.

This is what the Telegraph reports attributed to a BT spokesman:

A spokesman for BT said: "We have never said that households should not be able to access multiple video streams at once.

"What we have said is that a future USO needs to consider this requirement in the light of technical advances that reduce the bandwidth needed to watch such videos.”

Or ............ it could be newspaper sensationalism. 

Funnily enough, if you read the appropriate section of BT's response (from @ejs' link), you'll find that the section querying what the technical specifications should be is perfectly rational. It puts forward exactly the kind of questions that Ofcom should be asking, highlights some of the issues, and then (really notably) doesn't force an answer.

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/broadband-USO-CFI/responses/BT.pdf

Almost the exact opposite of the newspapers' sensationalist approach.

[gt94sss2]

Also, worth noting that its not just BT - if you look at Virgin Media's response they even question the need for a Broadband USO at all

In addition, on page 6, Virgin also conclude that its not necessary for any USO to cover 4k video on the basis that "Incremental value of higher definition (requiring higher bandwidth) is likely minimal" and not provide any Social/Econ externalities.

I'm sure their view applies to the need to view multiple streams at the same time

[forceware]

I don't understand why virgin media would worry about a USO. As far as I'm aware their basic package is 50mb down?

[Weaver]

BT can't know what the user needs. Users' circumstances vary. There are such things as families. I might be in the middle of watching a streaming video on Netflix or Amazon (can't even download from Netflix to save money by doing so when it's cheap rate with AA's 'units' tariff, or to allow later viewing when offline) and then Mrs Weaver finds everything has gone frustratingly sluggish while she's trying to get some work done on the web. Or Janet unknowingly starts a YouTube video and mucks up my streaming. And then one of us either is confused and starts debugging, or one of us realises the cause and then curses the other.

And we don't even have any kids.

BT needs to be aware that the requirement is for multiple users to be able to get reasonable small things done. Routers in future need to be able to ring-fence bandwidth, either temporarily of permanently, for certain services and protocols. Users ought to be able to pay (a lot, even) more per month for additional service levels. This can be done effectively, by buying multiple physical connections.

From A & A (AAISP), for example, an additional ADSL2+ line costs £12 per month, more if you, like me, choose BTW “premium” option priority traffic, when using the units-based tariff. FTTC or FTTP links cost more. Other services have totally different pricing models.

BT really ought to guarantee where reasonably possible that users can pay them for multiple physical links or higher grades of service by some other magic, because there's no one-size-fits-all.

And I haven't even thought about very small local businesses with a few employees, which desperately need various grades of upstream bandwidth. Tiny businesses round here can't afford thousands of pounds per month for an unimpressive Ethernet WAN pipe.

[GigabitEthernet]

BT always know best, don't they

The thing that frustrates me is that BT, once again threatening to hold the infrastructure to ransom.

[WWWombat]

I don't understand why virgin media would worry about a USO. As far as I'm aware their basic package is 50mb down?

I think VM worry about having to fund it (at least share the funding), to find the money is handed to their main rival and used to expand that rival's network, and build that "monopoly".

VM is also against BDUK, and thinks public subsidy should be stopped.

The problem for the last few % of the country is that all the major operators want to hold it to ransom - mostly as some form of leverage within the % that is competitive. But most don't want to touch it with a bargepole.

Read the Ofcom summary, and note how many are worried about how the USO will distort markets. This is a measure that, when it cuts in, will apply to 2-3% ... The ones who need it most, and no-one wants to supply.

[Weaver]

[rant]The people who need help the most desperately need a czar / champion, someone whose sole job is to make it happen for the <1 Mbps, <10 Mbps and <30 Mbps users. That person needs a terrifying amount of clout, and legislation's backing. These giant companies are making millions and they are not to be allowed to come to the banqueting table without sorting out the difficult cases, and doing so properly.

Distance-related services are arbitrary, unfair and ridiculous, and invariably not future-proof. Shared services like long range wireless are bad news, simply because they are shared and so completely unpredictable, uselessly so, totally unsuitable for businesses especially, useless for time-critical services. A pig in a poke: users pay, but can have no idea what they will get for the money.[/rant]

[Chrysalis]

4g would be good solution with a couple of issues.

1 - All 4G providers for whatever reason only support usage that would be suitable for usage patterns 2 decades ago, ie. browsing text only websites and nothing else.  I am not convinced this is down to technical limitations of the technology but more believe its down to wanting to preserve historical lucrative revenue earners such as charging a premium per meg of data.
2 - 4G is not so good on latency and in particular would affect gamers.  My personal opinion is tho it works reasonably well for things like streaming and file downloads.  Web browsing definitely is more laggy but at the same time it is noticeably better than 3G so mobile internet is heading in the right direction.

[ejs]

I guess I must be completely out of touch for not considering it a "necessity" to watch those streaming videos at the same time as doing all sorts of other things online. Perhaps I should go watch some videos that explain what a "necessity" is.