<<< Date Index >>>     <<< Thread Index >>>

[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/