On Sun, 24 Nov 2002 Valdis(_dot_)Kletnieks(_at_)vt(_dot_)edu wrote:
On Sun, 24 Nov 2002 10:56:51 EST, Joe Baptista said:
No - and I can confirm that non exists or at least i have not seen any in
the public arena.
So there's *NO* public data to back it up that you know of.. They claim to
have several times more customers/users/whatever than even AOL, and *there is
no data* to back that up?
I accept their claim. Much like I accept most data I get on the net -
including my own. Basically I feel most data - including public - can be
challenged. Postel once described the net as a very big space. And i
feel the "space" is very hard to quantify. I've seen many attempts and
i'm not that confident of their accuracy - at best the methodologies
employed show trends.
If I had time i'd investigate the claim myself. But if you go to their
web page you will see the isp's who they pay to carry their part of the
namespace universe - which see www.new.net. There are some big names
there and i'm sure a poll of those companies on their user bases can
validate or invalidate new.net's claims.
The truly interesting question would be: How much of their traffic is
"value-added", and not just acting as a caching name server for the current
root? If they have 150M users, but only 379 of them use it as anything other
than a cache for the existing root, they're no more interesting than any
of the other alt.roots that you label "peanuts".
Exactly. I'm in 100% agreement overall here. The .god and .satan top
level domain registries have over 8,000 domains registered this past year.
And most of them are parked. They have been paid for but only a few
hundred resolve. And this considering we have over 1000 users and a
majority of domains are registered to two bulk users.
And much of the same applies to most of the domains in the alt.root
universes. alot of domains at namespace seem to be attached to something
- usually a web site - but most of those are web spaces set up by
namespace or namespace friends.
But I doubt we'll get any hard data of *that* detail when they haven't even
quantified how many users they have.
Well the one thing that really bother me about new.net is that they don't
do more. OK - so let say their 156 M figure is bullshit. I can live with
that. But still whatever figure it is - I still think it's significant.
Even if they just have a 10% market share - it's still significant.
But the users of these ISP's are mainly ignorant of the fact that these
additional namespace options exist. I find it surprising they have not
effectively marketed themselves through their existing user population.
Maybe i'm missing something here. 156 M people could easily start a
trend.
But I would not discount new.net's claims. I'm sure they can support
their claims. At the very least they do have market share in root server
operations irrespective of the means used to calculate it.
No data, but they want you to believe them anyhow.
It's called "Snake Oil", Joe....
it's all snake oil Valdis. I see no difference between the ICANN or
new.net snake oil. it's simply a snake oil of a different colour.
regards
joe baptista