Started last night?

[Dopamine]

you can't have small and sweet friendly, and huge capacity, it does not go hand in hand,

Why not? IDNet need only provide sufficient capacity for their users, whether that number is 10 or 100,000.

Personally, I'm sick of moaning ISPs (and it's not just IDNet) complaining about iPlayer. It always used to be that ISPs blamed BT for problems and BT blamed ISPs. Now everyone has something else to blame; iPlayer. It's about as stupid as if BT had turned around years ago and said: "Sorry, our phone lines weren't designed for this new fangled internet thing, so you'll just have to put up with slow speeds".

[Inactive]

yes that would make them really popular with users wouldn't it  , if a small ISP has not got the capacity so be it that's because they are a small ISP if you want to watch iplayer you need too re-model your usage and what ISP best serves you, that simple, don't blame the small ISP, you can't have small, friendly and huge capacity, it does not go hand in hand, and saying ban something that is only going to get more popular as other platforms similar to the iPlayer take off is ridiculous.

I am not blaming any ISP, I am blaming the BBC and others for providing a service that serves no real purpose over and above existing technology, for which it pays nothing to ISP's to provide.

I have no problem with subscription services where the customer pays directly for a service, I do object to the BBC and others leeching off of ISP's with a free content service that is freely available to non licence fee payers, with no effective control.

[Dopamine]

This past week has proved conclusively that iPlayer does serve a very real purpose over and above existing technology. If it didn't, we wouldn't have seen it being used so heavily.

I don't use iPlayer much, but I think it's a wonderful thing. My children, sadly none of whom are into sport, have viewed most of the Olympics in small doses at times that have suited their lives. Had iPlayer not been available they would have missed out, and despite some people's view that the Olympics are a waste of time, I'm pleased that mine and others' children have had this opportunity to expand their horizons.

[Inactive]

This past week has proved conclusively that iPlayer does serve a very real purpose over and above existing technology. If it didn't, we wouldn't have seen it being used so heavily.

Mainly, I suspect by people watching it on works computers, the companies involved will in all probability not have TV Licences, nor will many of the companies even know that their employees are using their computers in this way.

[vitriol]

Is the eclipse an LLU or BT connection?

BT connection steve, there is no LLU at our exchange.

[Steve]

Sorry cannot be much further help but if you assume that you both follow a similar pathway on to BT ipstream I would have thought that you would get similar results, as once the games have quietened down I get very reasonable download speeds from idnet and I know that exchange congestion is something I suffer from.

I presume you have looked at your own hardware, I know from a previous post that your sync is full and so was your profile so a poor throughput is often down to congestion. I suppose if your number of CRC 's is high and/or your connection MTU/RWIN settings not optimised that this would effect throughput.If however your using vista the default dynamic control of MTU/RWIN works well for me. Lastly software firewalls produce very strange results on my machine so I always turn it off prior to a speedtest

[Rik]

Two speed tests done within a minute of each other,

Mine (IDNET)

My Friend (Eclipse)

I live approx 400 metres from the exchange, he lives about 800.  Can anyone offer an explaination, or is it just a capacity issue?

Without knowing the line stats, there are two obvious variables, ISP and VP at the exchange. We know IDNet has suffered from congestion, we don't know if there is congestion on your VP but not your friend's.

[Gary]

Mainly, I suspect by people watching it on works computers, the companies involved will in all probability not have TV Licences, nor will many of the companies even know that their employees are using their computers in this way.

I suspect its watched by kids in their bedrooms, people just catching up on an episode of a program they have missed or to check out a new show that a friend may recommend, as far as I can see the BBC bleed us enough already so having a free service on the net is great in my view.

[Rik]

The problem for me, Gary, is that the BBC usually pay for the cost of transmitting their programmes. With iPlayer, they are asking ISPs and their customers to pay instead. It's not, therefore, a free service but an additional cost over and above the licence fee. Not only that, but the costs they do incur in making iPlayer available are borne by everyone, but the service is only available to some.

[Gary]

Why not? IDNet need only provide sufficient capacity for their users, whether that number is 10 or 100,000.

Personally, I'm sick of moaning ISPs (and it's not just IDNet) complaining about iPlayer. It always used to be that ISPs blamed BT for problems and BT blamed ISPs. Now everyone has something else to blame; iPlayer. It's about as stupid as if BT had turned around years ago and said: "Sorry, our phone lines weren't designed for this new fangled internet thing, so you'll just have to put up with slow speeds".

For IDNet to provide that kind of capacity I suspect they would have to have many more customers Dopamine, then your 5 ring answer at IDNet towers will vanish as they get swamped, they are a small ISP and they are good at what they do, but to purchase greater capacity may beyond what they want up to a point, as a company gets bigger you lose the personal touch, have to employ more people, so costs go up, or failing that you will be charged more for that greater capacity, that's what I was suggesting.

[Inactive]

The problem for me, Gary, is that the BBC usually pay for the cost of transmitting their programmes. With iPlayer, they are asking ISPs and their customers to pay instead. It's not, therefore, a free service but an additional cost over and above the licence fee. Not only that, but the costs they do incur in making iPlayer available are borne by everyone, but the service is only available to some.

Exactly Rik, I couldn't agree more, it actually encourages people to avoid paying a licence fee IMO, so self defeating.

[Gary]

The problem for me, Gary, is that the BBC usually pay for the cost of transmitting their programmes. With iPlayer, they are asking ISPs and their customers to pay instead. It's not, therefore, a free service but an additional cost over and above the licence fee. Not only that, but the costs they do incur in making iPlayer available are borne by everyone, but the service is only available to some.

I can see your point of view Rik, but the BBC are between a rock and a hard place, if they charge it will fail, people will just say "we pay enough already" and surely as the Internet's media transmissions expand providers will have too take that into consideration, the iPlayer is not he only bandwidth hungry application and I am sure many more will appear as time goes on as demand for all in one media solutions grow

[Rik]

The BBC don't give away free DVDs if you missed a programme, Gary, so why should they give away the iPlayer?

[Inactive]

Indeed, I have no problem with iPlayer as long as it is subscription based, not free to all and sundry.

[Gary]

Exactly Rik, I couldn't agree more, it actually encourages people to avoid paying a licence fee IMO, so self defeating.

I really doubt that In, its an enhancement and I do not think people think "Oh great I can watch a limited number or shows online therefore I shall not pay my license fee" It does not really work as live TV, just a recap mostly. Considering the BBC's limited appeal in good entertainment imho these days, I think we deserve more innovation.

[Steve]

Surely its not only iplayer, should you wish look at the number of live video feeds on here http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/olympics/live_action/7578005.stm You can grind everything to a halt without iplayer.

[Gary]

The BBC don't give away free DVDs if you missed a programme, Gary, so why should they give away the iPlayer?

Because they charge us enough already in my view Rik. What about all the music video sites, you could use that same analogy there.

[Inactive]

I really doubt that In, its an enhancement and I do not think people think "Oh great I can watch a limited number or shows online therefore I shall not pay my license fee" It does not really work as live TV, just a recap mostly. Considering the BBC's limited appeal in good entertainment imho these days, I think we deserve more innovation.

I think you are wrong Gary, how many companies do you think own a TV Licence?...clearly the use of the iPlayer has been at work places throughout the Olympics.

If the BBC stopped wasting funding on this so called " innovation " then they may well have enough money to make some decent programmes.

[Rik]

Because they charge us enough already in my view Rik. What about all the music video sites, you could use that same analogy there.

I don't use them, Gary, so can't comment. All I'm saying is that I believe a 'net based catchup service to be unnecessary with all the PVRs around and that it should be self-funding if it is provided.

[psp83]

Simple solution to all this!

Give everyone a line like mine and they wont be able to watch anything 

[Rik]

BT are trying, Paul.

[Inactive]

Very.

[David]

Why are BT trying Paul,this is grossly unfair,we have courts for this and he should get a fair trial at least 

[psp83]

They are trying my patience 

Still stuck with 160kbps downstream 

[Rik]

Hey, it's better than a 56k modem, Paul.