http://www.buys...svideogames.com

During that time, to continue to develop IPTV and VOD, we need to make the smartest use of available bandwidth and existing Internet infrastructures, to decrease the cost of video delivery (this cost being assumed by the ISP or the consumer, no matter).

We can do that for instance by using “smart & legal P2P” like Joost and others are beginning to do, or even by using very basic “scheduled overnight FTP downloads”…

If we decide to do that, and to transfer this cost reduction to the consumer, then the consumer will benefit of very low-cost, thus very attractive, VOD and IPTV services… so the market will grow rapidly: this good for our entire ecosystem, including video providers and ISPs!

This issue really isn’t that difficult. The ISPs are selling broadband connections to their customers. The customers are using the connections they paid for.
If the ISP can’t deliver service to the customer, at the rate the customer was sold that service, then they shouldn’t sell it at that rate. It’s not like the ISP was forced to sell connections to customers at those rates.

I object to the notion that the BBC, YouTube or any other online video service is getting a “free ride”. Without digital music and video acting as a main driver for broadband take-up, then many of these ISPs wouldn’t be in business in the first place. In part, ISPs indirectly sell customers access to the content sitting on the network, which in-turn, most web sites provide for free, paid-for through selling advertising. The symbiotic relationship between content and network providers has existed for years.

Also see my earlier post: Will ISPs spoil the online video party?

So, if you’re unhappy with the current state of broadband in the US, don’t blame the telcos or the cable companies…they’re just trying to make a buck and not end up like the fords/gms/chryslers of the world.

The idea that anyone MUST lease a part of that which they own as mandated by law to ensure fair competition is a joke.

We have the Clinton Adminstration’s pressure regarding competition in telecommunications to partially thank for this happy state of affairs. Too bad they didn’t take Kantor’s (then USTR) advice to heart for the US.

Now why should I subscribe and pay for any of these extended ISP TV services (”triple play”). IF I can get my TV programming for free from Joost or some other content providers which offer IPTV? IF you consider the fact that the Internet has the possibility to offer you thousands of different channels, as opposed to a handful from the TV providers (cable, DSL-TV).

I live in Germany and I have no interest in waiting x-months up to years until local stations have synconized tv shows which run in the US, and are of my interest. IF I could pay for shows like Battlestar Galactica and watch them a day after their US release, I would not even subscribe to cabel TV anymore. I would love to have access to National geographic in english over the internet without having to pay a premium price for a TV package that includes all other sorts of garbage.

You just have to look at South Korea to see where the TV market is going.

Über die Zukunft von IPTV bin ich mir momentan noch nicht so ganz klar. Andere anscheinend auch nicht. Da liest man, dass die Dienste das normale TV verdrängen werden oder aber auch, dass das Internet noch gar nicht bereit dafür wär…

If Verizon were kicking up a storm about a HBO VOD service would you call them North American despite the fact that Canadians couldn’t possibly access that service any way? Thats what we have here, Italians are under a different wing of the company and can’t access the BBC iPlayer anyway.

Year’s ago it was clearly evident that the internet would need to handle huge volumes of media. I completely blame the telco’s for not properly planning for this.

Don’t they have teams devoted to researching these things..

I believe BBC should be able to build there application, even if it consumes huge amounts of bandwidth, that’s not there fault. There building the application to deliver a particular user experience.

And if it isn’t Joost or BBC it will be another company. Yep this is all about how the telco’s get compensated for the excessive bandwidth use of there infrastructure.

In the end us users will pay for it!

IP TV would probably kill the already slow Internet in Australia faster than anything…

“As of 30th June 2007, Tiscali had 3.3 million active users in Italy and the UK”. I said European to include Italy.

Regardless of the specifics surrounding the Japanese v. U.S. transfer rates, Japan ISPs have embraced IPTV http://www.tvov...eo+Headend.aspx

We’re not as packed in here (~80 people per sq mile) as you are in the UK (~630 people per sq mile).

It’s a slightly larger country all the way around. Maybe you’ve noticed?

“European ISPs are up in arms over the BBC’s new online TV player, iPlayer.”

I like this site, and subscribe on RSS and its generally well written. But seriously European ISPs? This is ridiculously lazy reporting. What buisness to European ISPs have with the BBC?

Europe is NOT ONE COUNTRY.

Replace ‘usually’ with ‘all’ and you have got it spot on!

More converage from El Reg: http://www.ther...yer_neutrality/

The problem is not access link speed. It is congestion in the metro-backhaul and the routers attaching to the Internet backbone. Stating that Japan has 100Mbps full-duplex from an Ethernet switch in a 300 unit apartment building served by a single fiber link to a congested backbone is a STUPID comparison to a single family residence served by DSL, cable of FiOS. The network in Japan is designed to provide megabits for milliseconds, not sustained throughput. Burst capacity is great for gaming and HTML, not for continuous video. Every country’s metro infrastructure chokes on large amounts of SD video.