Link Building Blog, News and Articles - Textlinkbrokers.com/blog

Blog Homepage : Category - Miscellaneous

I recently read an article explaining how, if telcos get their way, those web properties that pay for the right will load faster than their competitors.

To me this goes against the very nature of the web.

In this article I look at the implications of this proposal and what it could mean to the web.

Originally I was going to provide an analysis of the various ranking tools out there, but I felt this was a more pressing issue – one which needs to be addressed soon.

In this article on the Washington Post the author explains that telephone companies are pressing for the right to throttle some sites, or give preference to others based on whether they have paid the company.

In other words, the article claims, Yahoo! could load faster than Google if Yahoo! paid the telco to do so.

While many of the search engines and other e-businesses are lobbying hard against such a proposal it nonetheless opens up a whole can of e-worms.

First let’s look at the implications

It should seem pretty obvious – if Microsoft wants to pay AT&T or BellSouth, then the companies would allow MSN to load more quickly than Google.  That means that over time, people would likely switch search results providers to MSN because of the speed factor.

Before you go saying “I don’t think I’d ever switch, nor do I know anyone that would” consider AOL’s current plight:  User’s dropping AOL dial-up in droves to go for the higher speed broadband connections.

Granted this isn’t an apples to apples comparison – there is a noticeable difference between dial-up and broadband, but what if the speed of returned search results was noticeable?  Would you consider switching then?

This smacks of two-tiered Internet more than any other proposal I’ve heard.  And it forces all websites to pay to level the playing field.

And really, what kind of “mom and pop” e-commerce sites can really afford to pay like Amazon or Yahoo! Stores?

The good thing is, as I’ve mentioned, many web properties are behind lobbyists groups fighting just such a proposal through a proposed “network neutrality” law which basically forces big communications companies to leave the playing field level.

Now for the Telco’s story

While you may think this is just another money grabbing scheme, consider that less “traditional” companies such as Comcast and other cable companies own over ˝ the broadband market.

As people switch from the dial-up accounts that AT&T offers to the broadband offered by Comcast, AT&T takes a direct hit to their bottom line.

In effect, if people continue to switch as quickly as they have in the past, there will be no dial-up Internet in the coming years.

And since dial-up has been a staple of companies like BellSouth and AT&T it becomes harder for them to compete for Internet access accounts.

Which means they need to build parallel broadband networks in order to compete and that takes lots and lots of money.

Sure you can say “well they should have thought of that and planned for it” but the truth is, while they have been building a broadband network slowly, they haven’t been able to keep pace with more aggressive competition.

Further, they’ve had to maintain the dial-up service for existing customers which puts even more strain on the companies.

So why is this an issue now?

Simple – the US Congress is considering re-writing portions of the 1996 Telecommunications Act and is in fact considering proposals like this from the major telecommunications companies.

And from a purely business perspective – why can’t telco’s do just such a thing?  After all, they own the network.  Why can’t they regulate the traffic which flows on it?

I think the analogy used by AT&T Chairman Edward E. Whitacre Jr. does help explain their point of view.  Leaving the system like it is now is akin to offering open seating on an airline.

In other words, the first person on the plane gets a first class seat without paying for it.

You see, offering certain online services “preferred” status is similar to people paying for a first class ticket and getting the perks that come with it.

At least that’s how the telcos see it.

Personally I think this is a bad move.  Such a change would turn back the evolution of the Internet and could actually harm these companies.

I would like to see unlimited and unregulated Internet access from my ISP – and if my ISP tried such a thing I’d switch in a heartbeat.

You see, the thing these guys haven’t considered is that it takes about as long to switch communications carriers as it does browser home pages.

I recently dropped my “land line” and have been using my wireless phone exclusively for about 3 years now because I was upset with my telephone provider.  If my ISP did something similar, I have options and I wouldn’t be afraid to exercise them.

And that is the message these big telecommunications companies seem to be missing.  Perhaps people are switching to Comcast and others for reasons other than connection speed.

Rob Sullivan is a SEO Consultant and Writer for Textlinkbrokers.com