Companies such as AT&T, Comcast and other high-speed providers argue that Internet companies that need more bandwidth should pay for it, particularly companies offering bandwidth-hogging video and phone applications. As AT&T Chairman Edward Whitacre noted in a Business Week interview in November, for "anybody to expect to use these pipes (for) free is nuts!"
Multi-billion-dollar companies like Google suggesting that consumers should pay more for the bandwidth required to receive better services is sure to rankle many people. But industry analysts say no matter which side gets its way, any additional costs will be passed along to consumers.
"It's just a matter of who's bill you end up seeing this on," Joe Laszlow, analyst for JupiterResarch, said.
For the last couple of years, broadband providers have been offering multi-tiered pricing for high-speed service, with introductory prices as low as $13 a month. While broadband service in general isn't expected to cost much more, cable operators and telephone companies will certainly be charging more for accessing the services moving over their pipes. What ever they don't get from Internet companies would certainly be wrapped into customers' bills.
"One way or another, it's going to get pushed out to the consumer," Erik Keith, analyst for Current Analysis, said. "Revenue generation is going to have to come from the end user."
Subsea cable alternatives can provide a level of comfort for those concerned about disruptions. Realistically, they will continue to play a small, but critical role in the short term.
Maintaining existing network infrastructures often incurs huge technical debt before newer technologies are adopted over time.
Amid ongoing regional uncertainties, telecom infrastructure in the Middle East has expand to include terrestrial low-latency network infrastructure, which offers resilience and agility in navigating political complexities without relying solely on undersea networks.
