Exmoor Technology

Figures published by the BBC this week have indicated a distinct discrepancy between the broadband speeds received by razor edged urbanites, and those received by our carrot crunching rural relations.

Swinging London’s hipsters and media moguls receive, on average, download speeds of 4460 Kbps. The country cousins in East Anglia are only getting 3090 Kbps at best.

Bottom of the pile is Northern Ireland, where average download speeds are a paltry 2258 Kbps. Wales fares little better at 2587 Kbps, and residents of the South West are getting only 2869 Kbps to fire up their broadband driven stoves and mangles.

So who deserves a speedier service the most, town or country?

I have split loyalties having been born a country boy but raised a city dweller. My heart says businesses and residential properties in the country have just as much claim to a superior broadband service as those in any given metropolis, but my head knows it makes sense to give a cluster of commerce in a large town priority.

Not wishing to contradict myself too much, but high profile industries that relocated to rural areas (Barclaycard in Northamptonshire, Amazon in Buckinghamshire, Abbey in West Yorkshire) must feel the effects of these slow speeds the most. If ever there was an argument for improving rural services, then this is it in my opinion.

The nucleus of progress is more often than not located in towns and cities though, London in particular. With all due respect to rural residents, it’s the instant access to entertainment and amenities (Chinese food at 4am, early previews of big films, 24 hour dry cleaning etc.) that draws people to London, and these people wouldn’t stand for anything less than top dollar top speed broadband services.

However, to paraphrase the Waitrose ad, everyone deserves good broadband.

  The ‘Adrian Chiles Effect’

Those of you up to speed with the latest superfast broadband happenings will be aware of two things:

(1)   The BBC’s iplayer service is an incredible tool, but it spanks your download limit into oblivion, particularly if you’re on a starter or low-user package. Even those with an ‘unlimited download’ agreement aren’t safe. ISPs have reported a significant increase in traffic and capacity problems since the iplayer was launched.

(2)   Despite an unremitting campaign by Tiscali to have the BBC make a financial contribution to help upgrade the UK’s creaking and overloaded broadband networks, Ofcom has ruled the BBC should not be held financially liable for this.

Well, you can hear the sigh of relief at Broadcasting House from here (although I will confess to being sat in an office less than a mile from Broadcasting House. If anyone living in Arbroath heard the sigh then leave a comment underneath. It’ll give the piece more resonance).

Last time I checked, my TV license (yes, you guessed it, I’m going down that road) cost £139.50. Apparently, you can still get black and white TV licenses for only £47, but who (outside of Leicestershire) owns a black and white TV these days? So those of us with a colour set are paying 38p a day for the following:

•  My Family – As funny as having all your vital organs removed and sold on e-bay by rogue Lithuanian surgeons.

• Adrian Chiles – All of a sudden, drawing on your eyeball with a rusty needle doesn’t seem like such a bad idea.

• BBC News – So far behind they’re still reporting on the Cuban missile crisis.

• Jools Holland – Try playing another note for heaven’s sake.

• Neighbours – Nope, that’s gone to Five.

Turnover generated by the BBC through TV license fees rose to £3.1 billion last year; upgrading the broadband network would cost in the region of £830 million. Wouldn’t you prefer to see your license fee pumped into a project that will vastly improve every facet of your broadband connection, rather than criminally unfunny sitcoms? Although unintentional, there’s no denying the advent of iplayer has strained the broadband network, to the extent that non-iplayer users are experiencing knock-on effects such as speed caps and overstretched customer service centres.

Potential solutions include a content-led exclusivity tariff, where ISPs do deals with content providers to ensure their products run more smoothly across that particular ISP’s network. Hence you could see Orange sign a deal with the BBC, and as a result iplayer would run glitch free using minimal bandwidth on Orange only, with the other ISPs having to settle for standard, bulky iplayer traffic.

In terms of trying to persuade the BBC to chip in, was the wrong ISP doing the chasing? Perusing the list of customer reviews on Broadband Choices, it becomes apparent Tiscali haven’t quite had their house in order since traffic shaping problems and LLU mishaps blighted their service earlier this year. Perhaps Virgin Media, with their Samuel L. Jackson fronted ghetto mentality, would have been better placed to storm Broadcasting House and ‘wup some corporation ass’ (or some such other generic action movie colloquialism)?

So, who’s accountable for upgrading the broadband network to the point that it can cope with iplayer-style applications?

Is it the responsibility of the ISP to get busy, the content provider to box clever, or the consumer to download sensibly?

Ladies and Gentlemen, it’s over to you.