Kara Swisher

Recent Posts by Kara Swisher

BoomTown in D.C. to Say Happy 25th Birthday to .Com and Wary Hello to Broadband Plan

Last night, I jetted east to Washington, D.C., for an unusual confluence of events: The 25th anniversary of the .com Internet domain name and the Federal Communications Commission’s release of the much anticipated National Broadband Plan.

Both are set for tomorrow in the nation’s capital and both concern the impact of the Web on the United States in the past and the future.

Incredibly, .com was almost .cor, for corporate.

And the first .com address handed out–Symbolics.com–belonged to a now-defunct Massachusetts computer company.

(It signed up via the domain registrar, Network Solutions, which was bought by VeriSign in 2000. The Symbolics.com domain was sold in 2009 to Missouri-based XF.com, which “operates commercial real estate and premium domain properties.”)

In honor of the anniversary, VeriSign (VRSN), which administers the .com registry, is hosting a policy forum in D.C. It includes a keynote address by former President Bill Clinton, as well as some panels.

I will be moderating the one in the afternoon titled “The Next Generation.” The panelists, looking to the future, include, among others: Arianna Huffington of the Huffington Post; Aneesh Chopra, Federal CTO of the U.S.; and Fred Wilson of Union Square Ventures.

There will be another gala event to honor Internet innovators in San Francisco in late May.

While the growth of .com was slow until the browser became popularized–numbering under 15,000 in 1992–there are now close to 85 million .com domains. This commercial one is clearly the most important of the designations, both financially and perceptually.

Still, despite how much impact the Internet has had globally, spurred mostly by innovation in the U.S., this country still remains woefully behind in high-speed access to the Web.

While it is easy–and fun–to blame the greedy telcos and cable companies (and they do deserve some of the blame), the lack of a federal imperative has been the most appalling explanation.

It is as if the federal government had decided dirt roads were preferable to the highway system or tin cans and string were better than universal telephone access.

Will making broadband access easy, fast and cheap for most people in the U.S. be the end result of the National Broadband Plan, to be officially unveiled by the FCC tomorrow?

As I wrote last week:

“The two key questions about the effort to get the United States up to speed, so to speak, with decent digital access: Will it be toothless or not and will there be any money to pay for it, given the cash-strapped federal government?”

A possible highlight of the plan concerns whether spectrum should be allocated for a free or inexpensive high-speed wireless service, as well as restoration of some regulations lifted in the previous Republican administration.

But the main focus will be that the U.S. needs high-speed access to improve dramatically across the nation, especially for poorer citizens and in rural areas.

After a quarter-century of .com, the growth of a trillion-dollar industry from one punctuation mark and three letters, and badillions of page views, you would think this would be glaringly obvious to our federal government.

You should think it would.


comments so far. Add yours.

  • http://blog.macb.net macbeach

    Long on generalities, short on specifics.

    The FCC chairman is described as a great guy who is the doting father of three children. I'm sure the same words were used to describe Bernie Madoff at some time or another.

    is there a place for public funding of technology? I think most people would agree that there is. But what role will the government play in directing this money to the most deserving activities? Will we end up with bridges to nowhere? or bridges built without consideration to maintaining them in the long run?

    I figure for as much as I use my home phone I am paying about $5 per call. Most of that consists of cryptic “fees”, “tariffs” and “taxes”. The service would be quite affordable were it not for all these add-ons which I'm pretty sure have something to do with big government, not greedy companies.

    The government did not invent the Internet, but it sure wants to get its hands around it for some reason. I remain skeptical.

    Just as individual cheer each new government spending program and “know” that they will be getting something for free while the “other” guy has to pay for it, so many of our big corporations anticipate windfalls that will help them and hurt there competition, until it suddenly works out the other way around. You can be sure that such companies are busy, not just lobbying, but inserting their own “doting fathers” into congressional staffs and the White House “corPs” of special interest czars.

    I'd much rather think that investors, venture capitalist and so on would compete on a level playing field with a variety of new ideas and let the best ideas prevail. That vast game has actually been playing itself out, though not unfettered by existing government meddling. I just hope a sudden lurch to fast track government solutions doesn't lock us into systems that work well for those with influence, but not so well for everyone else.

    Thanks to the FCC I went from several free over the air TV stations to none. Should I expect the same from “Internet2″?

  • http://blog.macb.net macbeach

    PS: WSJ editrial hits a home run:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/.....487…

    -quote- “Instead of risking a split vote among the five regulators on approving the plan,” reports National Journal, “Genachowski is seeking consensus on a joint statement, which sources said would provide him with some political cover for the controversies that are certain to be triggered by some of the plan's recommendations.”

    The FCC chairman and his staff have spent the better part of a year preparing a major report while keeping his colleagues largely in the dark. What happened to the Obama Administration's promise to be open and transparent? -close quote-

  • liliag

    It's still hard for me to believe that the .com has been around for over 25 years. I was looking at the availability of .com domain names and I realize that there are 88.712.138 active domains, not to mention the ones deleted, expired or transfered.

Dive Into Media

Latest Video

View all videos »

Search »

Nothing wrong with MySpace price. Just our totally screwing up every way. Agree Facebook revenues will zoom, but still Apple cheap.

— – Rupert Murdoch, via Twitter