The assumption in maritime communications is generally that more bandwidth is better than less. That this argument is made mostly by the suppliers of the bandwidth is not surprising, but it has helped to overturn another assumption: that the bandwidth available at sea would never catch up with that onshore.
Thanks to changes in the way we consume data, this argument may be less relevant in future than it was. What remains true is that broadband satellite services at sea are expensive compared with those on land.
A common complaint of welfare organisations is that seafarers cannot have the ‘Starbucks’ experience at sea. It is not a helpful comparison.
Using only the simplest comparisons, the router installed at a Starbucks may cost $50 and the store might pay its Internet service provider $100 per month. And the Wi-Fi is free (for the price of the metadata). A VSAT (very small aperture terminal) equivalent would require $50,000 of hardware and $2,000 or more per month for the service.
What we can be certain of is that crew demand for reliable, private connectivity is strong and will continue to grow. For those who are recruiting crew — particularly officer cadets — communications is an increasingly important part of the offer.
Numerous technologies are available to help owners meet the demand for Internet access but it needs to be understood what Internet access actually means.
It should be obvious that there is a huge difference between Internet access and browsing the world wide web but in the user’s mind the terminology is interchangeable.
Compared to web browsing, where the user generally receives information, social media is far more engaged. Send-and-receive traffic flow on social networks is closer to 50:50 but the data volume required is much lower than browsing. App use falls somewhere in between.
Selecting the right system for the user’s needs depends on understanding not just the available options — including 4G connectivity — but how crew are likely to use it.
Examples recorded via the Globecomm Portal indicate that crew usage on a megabyte-per-month basis will be reasonably consistent, whether the service is provided free or paid for.
Of course, there is a limit to what seafarers will pay, just as there are differences in usage patterns among a fleet of similar ships, owned and crewed by the same company. Given the distinction between web browsing, apps and social media, what service providers must help owners understand is which service is better for which applications.
While it is obviously true that a crew with access to VSAT will show higher usage, crew communications is not all about the high end. L-band services can provide crew with very acceptable access to social networks and specific apps.
Our evidence suggests the vast majority of crew are happy to pay a reasonable price for the service. They are not particularly sensitive to price per megabyte but how much they are prepared to spend depends on whether the connectivity is of sufficient quality for them to use and, crucially, how easy it is to access, using their smartphones and in privacy.
Using their own devices, crews can use onboard data services to make calls, text and chat, as well as consuming news, music, video and social content. The issue for owners and managers is that this is much harder for them to control.
It might be fairly easy to prevent access to certain apps over a ship’s network but seafarers are endlessly creative people. They will be able to access all the feeds, websites and sources they want — and to some, the presence of security or constraints is a challenge, not a deterrent.
The big question is why shipmanagers seem to want to exert so much control over their staff and limit their access to communications by making it expensive or difficult. A similar level of intrusion into the working lives of land-based workers would rightly be considered intolerable.
Just like the bandwidth, the options are growing. But with maritime budgets under pressure, demonstrating value remains as important as ever.
