I, Cringely . The Pulpit . Just Say No | PBS
This article is touting one man’s plan to change the Internet. Technical, social, and political problems aside, the transition plan sounds like the ill-fated “AB Switch” for switching between a broadcast and cable signal (before cable operators were required to carry broadcast signals).
Inet would operate its own DNS system parallel to the one run by ICANN. That’s not really such a big deal, you know. Certainly a different DNS with different rules would not be hard to build from a technical or even a financial standpoint, and it could exist on the current network right alongside the current DNS system. The big question is why people would use it. They wouldn’t at first, because without traffic and participating servers such a DNS would be useless, and that’s why David proposes an Inet DNS filter as a crossover between the old/evil system the new/good one.
A free browser patch would install a virtual switch. Click on the switch, and you route your calls through the Inet DNS Filter, and if appropriate, Inet’s own DNS system.
From the Turner Broadcasting v. FCC (520 U.S. 180) decision:
The second alternative appellants urge is the use of input selector or “A/B” switches, which, in combination with antennas, would permit viewers to switch between cable and broadcast input, allowing cable subscribers to watch broadcast programs not carried on cable. Congress examined the use of A/B switches as an alternative to must carry and concluded it was “not an enduring or feasible method of distribution and . . . not in the public interest.”
While a browser AB Switch wouldn’t suffer from the same kinds of technical problems, attempting to exert greater control over content on the Internet through naming seems a bit far-fetched.