Remember Sitefinder? I still have my notes from a session four years ago that was led by Steve Crocker. VeriSign (the registry operator for .com and .net) introduced a change in the way .com/.net operated. A misstyped domain would return the address of a host that was one of VeriSign’s own instead of an error message. There was considerable pushback from the community. VeriSign quickly suspended the service.
The generic name for what VeriSign was doing was a “wildcard.” Before SiteFinder was implemented, if you typed the name of a nonexistent .com domain (say, scrrawford.com hadn’t been registered), you’d receive back a “name not found” answer. After SiteFinder, if you typed a nonexistent domain you’d receive back a referral to a server controlled by VeriSign. VeriSign claimed that they weren’t retaining or collecting any data in connection with this service, and pointed out that other registries (mostly country code top level domains) also used wildcards. (Internet Explorer does something similar. If you misstype a domain, you’ll get a page of suggestions. There’s money to be made from confusion.)
What was the point of SiteFinder? To send confused users to a potentially “useful” page — a page that would have (eventually) been populated with links to advertisements and other relevant materials. In the end, had the service stayed in place, VeriSign would have been able to monetize this confusion – making money from the pay-per-click advertisers that populated the potentially “useful” page.
Why was there uproar? Because not all domain record requests are made in connection with hunting for web pages – spam filtering email services got hung up on the wildcard service. There’s a commonly-used spam filtering rule that rejects messages with envelope sender addresses that do not resolve, and other protocol (non-web) requests didn’t react well to the redirection. Sitefinder didn’t break the internet, but it did cause a number of small problems for applications that rely on domain name queries. The DNS infrastructure is very sensitive to change, and SiteFinder was viewed as a “system expectation violation.” The plumbing was getting uppity, and that wasn’t appreciated.
In recent years, the market has filled with “parked” pages. If you misstype a domain name, chances are you’ll go to a page that someone has registered and has populated with a bunch of (somewhat) relevant links. Again, the aim is advertising revenue.
Over the last few days, Verizon has reportedly been doing something similar to its DSL and FiOS subscribers. According to ConsumerAffairs.com:
“When users misstype a web site address, they get redirected to Verizon’s own search engine page — even if they don’t have Verizon’s search page set as their default.”
One more time, the goal here is to make money from confusion. Verizon doesn’t want to be treated like plumbing – they’re anxious to make money from their users’ navigation failures. In order to get away from the Verizon default page, you’ll need to reset your DNS settings. Not something that the average user wants to cope with.
You can imagine this as a layered fight over confusion. First the DNS registry itself – VeriSign – tried to make money from misstyped domains. Then DNS registrants – the people who build parked pages – tried to get in on the value chain. Meanwhile, edge applications (like the browser) were doing the same thing. Now the ISP is inserting itself, trying to override the parked page and browser efforts.
Is this a violation of net neutrality? It certainly is a “system expectation violation.” We don’t expect ISPs to be filtering our web browsing requests and inserting themselves into the conversation. There’s some concern that the ISP could be doing more than presenting a response page, as we’ve seen from the Comcast flap. Although in a larger sense it’s just what all the other players in the chain want to do – make money from disorder – we want to avoid having the plumbing, the transport, do this without a user’s acquiescence.
I have a feeling that Verizon’s actions here will cause as much upset as VeriSign’s.
(Say “Verizon/VeriSign” quickly a few times.)
======One ICANN Owner/Director said…
“You can imagine this as a layered fight…. First the DNS registry itself – VeriSign – tried to make money…. Then DNS registrants…tried to get in on the value chain.”
======
Why is it that you fail to mention how your ICANN “lawyer” company has imposed itself in the so-called “value chain” ??
What value does ICANN provide for $250,000,000 per year ?
Is that the same as a “quarter-billion dollars” ?
Also, could it be that ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY, created by your ICANN company,
is partly responsible for the existing and growing DNS mess ?
What do you plan to do when the new CPE-DNS is rolled into user’s homes
because THEY like it, and it gives them what they want ?
Are you going to run around to all of the houses and play Net Nanny ?
There’s a huge difference between the outcry over VeriSign Sitefinder and Verizon: Everyone everywhere was affected by VeriSign’s messing with DNS; but only a few people, generally only at their home, are affected by Verizon messing with DNS.
By the way, I use and recommend OpenDNS, http://www.opendns.com, which does a similar thing with bad requests, but it seems to do it intelligently. And I am a Verizon home DSL customer.
I use Earthlink for access and DNS service. Typing a malformed URL (e.g., scrfrd.net) brings up an Earthlink search page similar to the Verizon one described above. That page steers me into Yahoo searches on terms derived from the URL i supplied.
Chuck
A third of all US high-speed internet access subscribers use Verizon. Mike, you’re an enlightened guy. I agree that the scale of VerizonFinder is different from the scale of SiteFinder – but it’s still a big group of people that has been affected.
Susan
Here’s another wrinkle — Verizon is a founding member of a advocacy group called the Coalition Against Domain Name Abuse (CADNA.org) which takes the position that running relevant ads against a typo of a trademark – let’s say hotel and travel-related ads against Hilllton.com – constitutes “cybersquatting” and trademark infringement, even if there’s no attempt by the registrant to masquerade as the TM holder.
But when Verizon runs similar ads against the same typo entered by its ISP customers it suddenly ceases to become infringement and is instead magically transformed into helpful customer service. And, not coincidentally, if CADNA’s TM views were to become law there would be millions more nonexistent web addresses for Verizon to help out with.
To my mind, the key difference is that if you don’t like the way your ISP does something, such as handle DNS queries, you can go get a new ISP. You can’t select a new registry operator: ICANN does that for you. So whil Verizon’s “service” causes the same problems as Verisign’s, users can vote against it by moving their service.
Bret