Re: the tiny domain business, not a utility, was Parler
> By comparison, that's about what Google makes every 10 days or what > Apple makes every week. Verisign is a highly profitable fish in a tiny > pool. by a very late stage capitalism definition of 'tiny' randy
Re: the tiny domain business, not a utility, was Parler
In article <695823102.10322.1610397074140.javamail.zim...@cluecentral.net>, Sabri Berisha wrote: >> "The DNS is a natural monopoly. ... >There is also money being made in DNS. A lot of money is being made in DNS. > >According to Verisign(1) Q3 of 2020 closed with 370.7 million new >registrations. That's total registrations across all TLDs, not new registrations. Verisign is by far the largest registry with about 115M in .COM and 15M in .NET. I agree that the total annual revenue of the domain biz, add up everything from Verisign and Godaddy on down, is in the ballpark of $5 billion/year. By comparison, that's about what Google makes every 10 days or what Apple makes every week. Verisign is a highly profitable fish in a tiny pool. -- Regards, John Levine, jo...@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
Re: not a utility, was Parler
On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 4:23 AM Rod Beck wrote: > Declare Facebook a public utility and eliminate advertising by replacing > with a fee or what you call a tariff. Breaking up does not always work. > Facebook is like a natural monopoly - people want one site to connect with > all their 'friends'. No one is going to use several Facebooks as social > media platform. They want one. > > Regards, > > Roderick. > I think you would quickly find that Facebook became a much emptier place the moment you started charging standardized tariffs to access the service. How many people here would shell out $10/month to scroll endlessly through their timeline, or wall, or whatever facebook calls it these days? I don't even use Facebook for free these days; charging a tariff? Yeah, that's going to result in a ghost town pretty quickly. People want one *free* site to connect to all their friends. They've already learned that it's a non-starter trying to get their friends to join them on a platform that charges a monthly tariff. It's only a natural monopoly because the advertising is subsidizing the free nature of it. Take away the free aspect, and suddenly it's not a very natural monopoly at all. Matt
Re: not a utility, was Parler
- On Jan 11, 2021, at 4:46 AM, Karl Auer ka...@biplane.com.au wrote: Hi, > "The DNS is a natural monopoly. People want one resolver so they can > connect with all their 'sites'. No one is going to use several > nameservers for domain name resolution. They want one." > > Nah. The DNS is a natural distributed database, with authoritative data > held by those with the most interest in its accuracy. But unlike DNS > data, there is money in collecting all the facebooky things - IF you > are allowed to sell them. Stop that, and Facebook is a natural > distributed database too. There is also money being made in DNS. A lot of money is being made in DNS. According to Verisign(1) Q3 of 2020 closed with 370.7 million new registrations. At an average of $15 per domain(2), that equals a market of $5.5 billion dollars. Now, that's of course pocket change compared to Facebook's $21.4 billion Q3 revenue(3), but still. And that's without all those alt-root con schemes. Thanks, Sabri (1) https://www.verisign.com/en_US/domain-names/dnib/index.xhtml (2) https://www.websitebuilderexpert.com/building-websites/domain-name-cost/ (3) https://investor.fb.com/investor-events/event-details/2020/Facebook-Q3-2020-Earnings/default.aspx
Re: not a utility, was Parler
On Mon, 2021-01-11 at 12:19 +, Rod Beck wrote: > Declare Facebook a public utility and eliminate advertising by > replacing with a fee or what you call a tariff. Breaking up does not > always work. Facebook is like a natural monopoly - people want one > site to connect with all their 'friends'. No one is going to use > several Facebooks as social media platform. They want one. "The DNS is a natural monopoly. People want one resolver so they can connect with all their 'sites'. No one is going to use several nameservers for domain name resolution. They want one." Nah. The DNS is a natural distributed database, with authoritative data held by those with the most interest in its accuracy. But unlike DNS data, there is money in collecting all the facebooky things - IF you are allowed to sell them. Stop that, and Facebook is a natural distributed database too. But how to stop it - that is the question... Regards, K. -- ~~~ Karl Auer (ka...@biplane.com.au) http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer GPG fingerprint: 2561 E9EC D868 E73C 8AF1 49CF EE50 4B1D CCA1 5170 Old fingerprint: 8D08 9CAA 649A AFEF E862 062A 2E97 42D4 A2A0 616D
Re: not a utility, was Parler
Declare Facebook a public utility and eliminate advertising by replacing with a fee or what you call a tariff. Breaking up does not always work. Facebook is like a natural monopoly - people want one site to connect with all their 'friends'. No one is going to use several Facebooks as social media platform. They want one. Regards, Roderick. From: John Levine Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2021 11:57 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Cc: Rod Beck Subject: Re: not a utility, was Parler In article you write: >-=-=-=-=-=- >Unless the courts rule or the legislators enact legislation making them a >public utility. In legal circles there is a theory that >platforms like Facebook, messaging services, etc. might achieve such >importance to public life and discourse as to merit regulation >under the grounds they are an essential utility. I am neutral regarding this >idea - I have not studied it and also realize that Amazon >is not strictly speaking a social media. So my point is tangential. That is a dream of some factions, but it is not realistic. You can certainly make an argument that Google and Facebook are monopolies, but the remedies for that are to break them up or to require them to provide access to their competitors to some of their internal facilities, e.g., allow other ad networks to bid on and provide the ads that show up with your Google search or Facebook page. Utilities have tariffs under which everyone who orders the same kind of service gets the same service at the same price. I understand how to apply that to a railroad or a power company or a telephone company, but I do not understand how to apply it to a search engine or social media provider or online megastore and neither does anyone else. R's, John
Re: not a utility, was Parler
In article you write: >-=-=-=-=-=- >Unless the courts rule or the legislators enact legislation making them a >public utility. In legal circles there is a theory that >platforms like Facebook, messaging services, etc. might achieve such >importance to public life and discourse as to merit regulation >under the grounds they are an essential utility. I am neutral regarding this >idea - I have not studied it and also realize that Amazon >is not strictly speaking a social media. So my point is tangential. That is a dream of some factions, but it is not realistic. You can certainly make an argument that Google and Facebook are monopolies, but the remedies for that are to break them up or to require them to provide access to their competitors to some of their internal facilities, e.g., allow other ad networks to bid on and provide the ads that show up with your Google search or Facebook page. Utilities have tariffs under which everyone who orders the same kind of service gets the same service at the same price. I understand how to apply that to a railroad or a power company or a telephone company, but I do not understand how to apply it to a search engine or social media provider or online megastore and neither does anyone else. R's, John
