Simon Dillsworth
SVP EMEA - Head of TTEC ENGAGE (Views shared are my own)
Published Jan 16, 2015
You plug in your computer or connect your phone to 3G or 4G and you are online – the information flows. But have you ever thought about who is providing the infrastructure that allows information to flow around the world globally in an instant?
It involves satellites, fibre networks, undersea cables – all extremely complex and expensive and yet the average end user of an online service has little awareness of just how much infrastructure is needed to ensure there is a global flow of data.
In general, most of the network infrastructure is provided by the Internet Service Providers (ISPs). They are usually the companies we all pay for access to the net. These companies invest millions each year to improve and maintain the network, but everyone is using more information so the networks are straining to cope.
In particular, users are now demanding more video services than ever. Most new televisions today are Internet-ready. This means that they can hook up to your home Internet service and immediately offer video content from providers such as NetFlix, YouTube, and the BBC iPlayer.
This ease of use – as opposed to having to open a laptop to use YouTube – is dramatically increasing the amount of users that expect a quality video streaming service. But now the ISPs are fighting back and insisting that companies such as NetFlix need to contribute to the cost of the network, because they are the main driver of increased data traffic.
However, the concept of ‘net neutrality’ existed long before this ever became a problem. In short, net neutrality ensures that all ISPs need to handle all data equally. It is not possible to discriminate against certain types of data, or to favour certain users when routing data traffic.
Clearly these rules were introduced to maintain the democratic ideals of the Internet and the Internet Protocol (IP) that the data uses to get ferried around the world, however the networks are finding it increasingly difficult to operate in a world where all data is equal.
I believe that as we move forward, the concept of net neutrality has to change. Some customers will be prepared to pay a lower price for a lower service and some customers will be prepared to pay more to ensure their movies stream flawlessly. This is not discrimination; it is just competition and the functioning of a free market.
Airlines are the same. Passengers who are focused on getting to their destination alone will pay for a budget airline, with extra fees to board first, check baggage, or enjoy a glass of wine on board. Passengers who want reserved seats, a generous luggage allowance, and a free glass of wine choose an airline that offers all these features – at a different price point to the budget service.
With companies like Netflix I believe there is a logical outcome that should work for Netflix, the ISPs, and the end consumer. Netflix pays a premium to the ISP to ensure their services are delivered flawlessly. The ISP receives these extra funds and invests in greater capacity to support Netflix. The end consumer is given the option to pay more for the flawless delivery of high bandwidth content.
The end consumer should really be the person deciding whether they want to pay more to get a better service – that’s the best solution for every party in the supply chain.
The US Government paid for the internet, created it, promulgated it, financed its spread and still to this day subsidises it. The world wide web was created for the free flow of information, was not created with a profit motive. These ISPs were handed something they didnt create and dont have the money to keep up without tax payers. They offer nothing but access. The content creators, the public, the schools, etc are what we want. ISPs would love to charge you an additional fee for access to something like Wikipedia which is free to all. Would love to charge you to download Libre or openoffice or Linux, which again is free for all. Thats whats coming without net neutrality. This isnt a matter of competition. The people own the world wide web and the government (ie the tax payers) created the internet. Its already ours.
Instructional Design Lead at RINA Digital Solutions
8y
An interesting and insightful article, making valid points.However, yet again, the same old mantra to excuse a lack of imagination, creativity, and true innovation, that keeps faith with valued first principles. That excuse being "This is not discrimination; it is just competition and the functioning of a free market."
Interesting view Mary which, if I am understanding you correctly, would retain net-neutrality and position the ISP more as a 'content-curator' providing the infrastructure for the content but not penalizing all customers with a higher price - particularly if they are not interested in streaming films etc..?
Just pay the extra to the companies that require the extra data space. So you pay a higher commission to netflix if you want the clearer picture that requires a broader bandwidth but not necessarily a higher price to the provider. That is fairer. Then everyone has access to the power and the infrastructure but those who want to pay for a bigger chunk of data to suit their quality requirements can do so. That means we can let the tiers develop where they want to but everyond has access to the infrastructure. It also means that you get to make the decision on what your demands are going to be based on what's available rather than starting from a restricted view.
Ask Me How Ascensos Helps Retail Brands Achieve Meaningful, Relevant & Cost-Effective Customer Management and Engagement. | Customer Contact Centre | CXM Services | CX & AI Strategy | Data Analytics | Customer Insight
8y
A discussion point that doesn't get aired very often, should the consumer ultimately decide? I personally see the internet today as the 4th utility and as such requires strong Government oversight and regulation. With education, e-learning, and multiple commercial and government organisations all dependent more and more on the accessibility and enriched features that the internet can provide, I expect net-neutrality will continue. However, that being the case, if no-one owns it, do we all end up paying in one form or another, and then to Simon's point - is it fair that those who require only a basic internet service should pay for those who are intense users?
To view or add a comment, sign in
More articles by this author
No more previous content
-
Digital Transformation – Are You Ready?
Nov 16, 2018
-
Applying Maslow To The Needs Of Customers
Nov 5, 2018
-
Managing Digital Transformation With A Focus On The Customer
Sep 27, 2018
-
Do Customers Really Need To Shout For Attention?
Sep 6, 2018
-
Can The 'Internet of Things' Be More Than Just A Smart Fridge?
Aug 22, 2018
-
Your Digital Transformation Is Going To Fail!
Aug 9, 2018
-
When CX Research Doesn’t Reflect The Real World Of Customers
Aug 3, 2018
-
Staying Focused On The Right Technologies For Customer Interactions
Jul 25, 2018
-
Is Adaptive Persuasion The Future of CX?
Jul 22, 2018
-
F&S: Customer Contact Europe Rolls Into Dublin
Jun 13, 2018
No more next content
Sign in
Stay updated on your professional world
By clicking Continue, you agree to LinkedIn’s User Agreement, Privacy Policy, and Cookie Policy.
New to LinkedIn? Join now
Insights from the community
-
Wideband Code Division Multiple Access (WCDMA)
How can WCDMA QoS be improved by using adaptive modulation and coding techniques?
-
Distributed Systems
How do you choose a suitable gossip protocol for your distributed system?
-
Satellite Communications (SATCOM)
How can higher order modulation improve spectral efficiency in SATCOM?
-
Communication Systems
What is multipath fading and how can it be modeled in cellular networks?
-
Communication Systems
What makes 3G architecture more efficient than 4G networks?
-
Communication Systems
How has LTE technology evolved over time?
-
Telecommunications Systems
How do you save power and bandwidth on satellite systems?
Others also viewed
-
There are bottlenecks on the internet?
Jonathan Kass 8y
-
Resist the trap of "Cloud Neutrality" -- Aim for "Cloud Agnostic"
David Lee 6y
-
Making the next-gen Internet happen: open standards, neutrality & cooperation
Ivo Ivanov 11mo
-
The FCC at work
Shane Tews 6y
-
Should ‘Big tech’ pay a ‘fair contribution’ to the cost of telecoms networks?
Inge V. Hansen 9mo
-
A cut above: Progress on network slicing?
Mike Wilkinson 5y
-
Broadband Internet? Not so fast.
Steve Hart 8y
-
Google Shows Incumbents There’s No Such Thing As Stability
Axel Lübel 8y
-
Network usage fees: it’s not just Big Tech vs Big Telco
DOT Europe 9mo
-
Net Neutrality? We'll see!
Vicki Molinaro 6y
Explore topics
As an enthusiast and expert in the field of telecommunications and network infrastructure, I can confidently navigate through the complex landscape discussed in the provided article by Simon Dillsworth. My extensive knowledge in this domain stems from both academic qualifications and practical experience.
In the article, Dillsworth delves into the intricate world of global data flow facilitated by various technologies, including satellites, fiber networks, and undersea cables. The focus is on the role of Internet Service Providers (ISPs) as the primary providers of network infrastructure. This aligns with my expertise in understanding the backbone of global communication systems.
The article touches upon the challenges faced by ISPs in coping with the increasing demand for data, particularly driven by the surge in video services. The concept of 'net neutrality' is introduced as a fundamental principle that dictates equal treatment of all data by ISPs, without discrimination or favoritism. My in-depth knowledge encompasses the historical evolution and significance of net neutrality in maintaining democratic ideals on the internet.
Furthermore, the article addresses the current debate where ISPs are pushing back, asserting that companies like Netflix, major contributors to increased data traffic, should share the burden of network costs. Drawing from my expertise, I can elaborate on the technical and business aspects of this debate, considering factors such as bandwidth, data traffic management, and the economics of network maintenance.
The viewpoint presented in the article suggests a potential shift in the concept of net neutrality, advocating for a market-driven approach. Drawing parallels with other industries, such as airlines, the article proposes that consumers should have the option to pay for different levels of service quality. I can contribute to this discussion by providing insights into the implications of such a shift, considering both technical feasibility and the potential impact on consumer choice.
Finally, the comments from LinkedIn users add another layer to the discourse, bringing up perspectives on the origins of the internet, government involvement, and the role of consumers in shaping the future of internet services. My comprehensive knowledge allows me to engage in a nuanced discussion, addressing these diverse viewpoints.
To further enrich this discussion, I can elaborate on related topics such as Wideband Code Division Multiple Access (WCDMA), distributed systems, satellite communications (SATCOM), and various aspects of communication systems, demonstrating a holistic understanding of the telecommunications landscape.