Interesting Stuff 2009-06-03
| 15:12 UK time, Wednesday, 3 June 2009
Rory Cellan-Jones' news story and post on dot life "iPlayer: BT v Â鶹Éç" has raised again the question of "traffic shaping". Natural Yoghort :
Â鶹Éç iPlayer uses an awful lot of bandwidth and is an inefficient use of the network that everyone pays for.
Meanwhile The Daily Telegraph .
Geek.com
I can only guess that the Â鶹Éç want a partner who can provide a solid infrastructure and backbone for the video service in most countries. They also need a simple way to introduce advertising. Google can provide both of those solutions.
has a thought provoking personal view from Andrew Burke: "
Nick Reynolds is editor, Â鶹Éç Internet blog
Comment number 1.
At 3rd Jun 2009, cyberdoyle wrote:Natural Yoghurt should stick to being friendly bacteria, the internet is immense and should be available to all, what passes for infrastructure in this country is in reality a legacy copper network which was not designed to carry massive amounts of data. It is the network that is inefficient, not the content. Â鶹Éç Iplayer is actually quite good at delivering content at a fraction of the size of other film media. Geek com talk about infrastructure but the real problem is the physical infrastructure in the UK. It desperately needs upgrading to cope with the next generation of content. At the moment it is dying on its feet and that is why ISPs have to use capping and throttling to keep it going. You can't hold back progress in the content sector. Government in this country is holding back because it has believed that BT were delivering a service. The latest round of research from the Beeb, thinkbroadband and samknows has proved otherwise. They will now have to decide whether to invest or to watch the last thing we were good at disappear down the pan, along with all the other industries.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 12th May 2010, U14460911 wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)