It is amazing how the connectivity systems within a mobile network (Backhaul/Transport) have evolved over the last two decades – from 2G voice only services to our modern LTE world where even voice could be served through a packet switched network. Such evolution is always haphazard, driven by real-time traffic demands and ends up making the network messier and messier over time.
Sometimes thoughts on history can give us an “Aha!” moment.. not just new things! At-least for me, reminiscing on a forgotten memory and getting back the thought in all its glory gave me the same high!
Yesterday, during my self-learning hour, I was perplexed by a problem…
I recently read an article on Services in the context Enterprise Networks. The article put the size of the market at a figure that was at-least two times the size of Services for Carrier Networks. This obviously meant one of two things – the world-wide Enterprise Networks are several times larger than public carrier networks or Enterprise Networks are far more complex consuming more Services for its upkeep than that for Carriers.
Without being judgmental about these two points, there is no denying the fact that the Enterprise Networks Market is larger than that for Carriers.
As is my wont – started day dreaming ( 🙂 ) about the following terminology: Over the Top Network and Operator Agnostic Network.
I was reading the “Idea Watch” article on the latest issue of HBR, an article on Social Media based Marketing and the misconceptions about “Influencers”. The article goes on to describe Marketing in a B2C scenario and describes at a high level the difference between correlation and causation – and how correlated behaviour may not have changed an apriori tendency and hence not considered to be an “Influencer”.
This led me to wonder about influencers in other contexts, including that about a scandal that has rocked my favourite cricket team…
An organisation exists to make profits for its shareholders. I don’t think many people would contest this line today. However, whatever is presupposed with this statement is that the organisation indulges in a socially useful activity governed by the laws of the land and moral & ethical standards of the society.
All illegal organisations and mafias too work for maximising profits for their shareholders; however they operate outside law and have immoral & unethical activities.
All businesses we come across in our daily life work for maximising profits, are expected to be governed by law (nowadays) and perhaps are no worse off than the rest of the society in their mores and ethics.
But have some of them become greedy?
One of my friends was talking about her child’s communication service preferences, which made an interesting conversation. She was talking about how her child, a teenager, chooses her plan, about the importance of SMS and data plan in their world. All these checked out logically – if I were a teenager in this era, I could visualise where these capabilities could come in handy (having two teenaged kids of my own).
However, the most irrational part happened when she started talking about how recently her child had changed operators. Apparently, there were no obvious benefits that could be gleaned out until it was found out that her child’s friends too had switched!
Of course, we laughed it out calling it peer pressure, along with the usual expression of concerns about imagined bad choices made under peer pressure. But it made me think…
Going over my curated feeds to check out on what opinions prevail about communication services, I came up on two seemingly unconnected news items. For me, it appeared like both the news items were about one common reality – your operator who has runs your mobile network is becoming less and less your mobile service provider!
Unless the operators take some drastic measures, they are likely to cease being addressed by the term “Service Providers” and would be referred to as “Carriers” only, in the future.
Let me explain why…