The BBC managed to upset ISPs recently by launching what has turned out to be an incredibly popular service ­- the BBC iPlayer.

ISPs are unhappy for the simple reason that usage is starting to clog their networks, and have suggested that the BBC should pay to offset this congestion. Despite some use of P2P by the BBC, it is merely doing what YouTube does, only at a higher quality and more bandwidth-intensive level.

With YouTube, everyone cried “hurrah”, but the BBC is apparently not playing cricket.

The most plausible argument from the ISPs is that the BBC has always paid to broadcast to people, and should do so in this case. The ISPs’ threat is that they will start “traffic-shaping” (code for deliberately slowing) iPlayer traffic unless the BBC pays for premium access to its customers.

Let’s try for a moment to see it from the point of view of the ISP. They are on such poor margins that they cannot afford the infrastructure upgrades needed to cope with iPlayer.

They have sold “unlimited” connections to people on the understanding that they will not use them much (an arrangement called “fair use”), and the BBC has broken that agreement.

Another headache for ISPs is next-generation access. The demand for faster broadband access is unclear. If they do invest in faster connections to the home, there is no clear reason to believe that customers will use them. It is high risk for the ISPs, particularly in a regulatory environment where customers’ rights are unfairly prioritised.

The poor ISPs are also being asked to police the internet. How can they be asked to monitor user connections and intervene? That would be totally impractical. On the other hand, a bunch of lunatics ranting about privacy are trying to prevent ISPs from monitoring user connections, profiling them and then intervening by serving advertising.

Do they not understand that the ISPs are simply trying to improve the customer experience? The extra revenue would be spent on much-needed infrastructure upgrades.

This may sound like a bitter rant against ISPs, but I am just pointing out the lunacy of the arguments. I am more sympathetic to the plight of the ISP. It is true that they are in a tough commercial environment, and the smaller ones, in particular, are struggling. However, these disputes are trying to dodge the fundamental problems with the internet access market.

The underlying issue is how do we realistically pay for our internet connections in the future?

The only certainty is that the current business model is pretty messed up. My hope is that we can minimise the pain, particularly for the public, as we move to a model with a bit more sanity built in. Viva fair access for all. Viva net neutrality. Viva an honest living for the ISPs. Viva a sensible balance between all three. Viva 3.5G mobile data... oh wait, no.

David Evans is public engagement manager for the BCS.