[IP] Loss of the Internet
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A31115-2003Oct1.html
/
Not The Public's Domain
By Jonathan Krim
Thursday, October 2, 2003; Page E01
Perhaps you've noticed something a little different lately if you
accidentally typed in an incorrect ".com" or ".net" Web address.
If so, you're witness not just to what some are calling the Great Internet
Hijacking of 2003 but also to a raging battle over how cyberspace should be
governed.
Used to be, you probably got an error page if the address you typed in
didn't belong to someone else. Now, you might get sent to
<http://www.sitefinder.com>www.sitefinder.com, a Web page full of links to
vendors who have paid to be placed there to attract your attention and your
business.
This page is brought to you by VeriSign Inc., the Silicon Valley company
that has exclusive rights to manage the Internet code that routes your
personal computer's Web browser to .com and .net addresses.
VeriSign had the idea that it could use that power to automatically steer
large amounts of errant traffic -- an estimated 1.5 million visitors per
day -- to a commercial site, where a pile of money could be made.
By tweaking the way Internet traffic is marked and routed, VeriSign's move
had broad impact beyond where bad typists end up. It grabbed traffic away
from other companies, such as Microsoft Corp., whose Internet browser often
performs a similar task. It caused some spam filters to stop working. It
led to an angry and frantic scramble by some code writers to nullify it.
Lawsuits soon followed.
Most important, though, is that VeriSign's action is the latest reminder
that anyone still clinging to the idea that the Internet is a public
enterprise should forget it.
That was a romantic notion in the good old days of, say, 1996, when
everything seemed possible.
With nothing but a computer, a modem and a phone line, the smallest fry
could compete with the biggest corporate dragons by reaching millions of
people at little cost. Information and entertainment could flow freely.
Closed and oppressive societies would be opened.
The order of the day also was to avoid turning the Net into a public
utility, subject to the kinds of rules and regulations that govern
telephones and electricity. The Internet's global reach was one major
reason; who would have jurisdiction? Government involvement also would
squelch innovation and growth, people feared.
Still, the smart technologists knew that the very architecture of the
Internet, the digital design of how information got from point A to point
B, would be a controlling influence.
So a loose confederation of technology groups formed to be code writers and
arbiters. One of these, to determine Web addressing, evolved into the
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, which gave the
contract for .com management to VeriSign.
Today, more and more Internet functions are controlled by fewer and fewer
players. High-speed connections are controlled by a handful of large
companies, for example. Standards for security, and how or whether
different systems should work together, are largely corporate battlegrounds.
Major entertainment companies, worried about piracy of copyrighted works,
are pushing hard to put file-sharing networks out of business.
Despite the uproar over VeriSign's move, this trend is unlikely to change.
Indeed, the company thumbed its nose at ICANN when the organization asked
VeriSign to suspend <http://www.sitefinder.com>www.sitefinder.com until the
issue was debated.
ICANN is scheduled to hold a hearing on the move next Tuesday in Washington.
Even major companies have drawn little support when they advocate limited
regulatory principles to guide the Internet's development.
The most significant of these is a push by Microsoft, Amazon.com Inc., Walt
Disney Co. and others to get the Federal Communications Commission to
guarantee the notion of "network neutrality."
What they fear is that Internet carriers, such as the cable and phone
companies, could potentially pick and choose what content could move over
their systems.
Imagine, for example, what happens when using the Internet to deliver
telephone calls gains serious traction as an alternative to standard phone
lines. Might the telephone companies that also provide broadband have a
problem with that?
Or might Time Warner's America Online division give electronic preference
to Time Warner entertainment?
Although FCC Chairman Michael K. Powell said yesterday that the agency
would look at the issue, there is so far no indication that a majority of
commission members considers this worth addressing until there is a
demonstrated problem.
The Net is evolving in the image of its largely free heritage, something
that many cheer.
For those who see the need for something closer to a public utility, more
ground is falling away beneath you every day.
Jonathan Krim can be reached at krimj@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/