No.

Possibly, sort of like it's possible that someone in another country has the same phone number as me. An additional layer can accommodate these sorts of collisions.

If I type in google.com I get redirected to google.se

Right, but it's a distributed database. It's not like every DNS request ends up at the root nameservers, or at Verisign for .com. It depends on design of course, but my guess is the cost is roughly linear as you scale up, probably with a small negative slope. I'll say with confidence the marginal cost is closer to 0 than to $7.
It doesn't matter. There's nothing that forces anybody to use the ICANN root nameservers. You can use whatever you want.

opendns provides DNS lookups. They use the ICANN root nameservers. They are operating at a different level. This is not ICANN competition.

Yes, if you setup your own root nameservers you can map names to IPs any way you want.

There is a free market in the DNS business. Nobody is stopping you from using whatever root nameservers you want, or going into the root nameserver business. Everybody is happy to pay the ICANN / Verisign tax though because the confusion that would be caused by having competing root nameservers isn't worth it.

I'd guess that's done in http, not in DNS.

Well, you keep saying it's a real free market but then I keep coming across things that state the opposite.


Like I said earlier, between 1999 and now 2009 the prices Verisign charges for .com seem to have lowered when adjusted for inflation. So there is a downward pressure. Couple that with the fact that the internet started out in the hands of universities and departments of defense, meaning that the first mover advantage was huge. And that you can now get a .com domain for a year for $10 retail (that is less than 3 cents a day), I really fail to see what the problem is.

Nothing you've found states the opposite.

Nobody is stopping you from using the root nameservers you like. Nobody is stopping you from creating your own root nameservers. Both of these are essentially free. But, there's one player in the space who has the whole market and takes a nice tax on each domain that is registered.

Your quote refers to IP assignment which is a different story.

It went down from $50 because competition in retail registrations was introduced. Wholesale prices have remained fixed because there's only one wholesaler for .com.

If there was competition for maintaining the .com database, you'd probably pay $1/yr. That's your harm.

The marginal cost of many pictures I take is ~$0 it doesnt mean i charge no money for the picture.... thats the power of me not being a ****ing idiot.

I once heard somebody say that in an efficient market, the price tends to the marginal cost.

Here we have a price that is nowhere near the marginal cost. I think the difference is the power of the monopoly.

Recall that when Verisign/Network Solutions had the retail monopoly on .com, the price was $50, which we can take as $6 wholesale and $44 retail. When they lost the retail monopoly, the price fell to $7 which was $6 wholesale / $1 retail.

That person isnt thinking straight IMO. The price = marginal cost +how much the buyer values the purchase. cf Lois Vuitton purse

Looks like governments are forcing trademark and other issues onto ISPs/DNS providers.

http://blog.mises.org/archives/001344.asp
http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=323

FYP. And a "perfectly competitive" market is something that can only exist in theory, obviously. The theory illustrates the effect of competition on prices (which approach MC as competition increases) and profits (which approach 0 as competition increases).

In reality we have a system of monopolistic competition, because competition is limited by scarcity and sellers do not offer identical goods. A Loius Vuitton bag is a different good than a Coach purse; a can of Coca-Cola is a different good than a can of Pepsi; etc.

And profits, especially sick ones, are bad, some would even say sick bad.

Sick profits man! SICK! How is it not obvious?

I'm all in favor of profit. I either failed completely in making my point, or I don't know what.

My point is monopolies can exist without government support and can exploit their monopoly to make more profit than would exist in a more competitive market.

All of this contradicts what I've read in this very forum about monopolies.

How exactly are you using the term "monopoly?"

A maximum of ONE of the statements "nobody is stopping you..." and "...has the whole market and takes a nice tax..." can be true, DUCY?

marketshare != monopoly.

FWIW, I believe the first one is correct.

But there's nothing stopping them from keeping their own top level database if they wanted to, as you already said. The effect is the same.

$1.99 http://www.cheap-domainregistration.com/

$2.85 http://www.active-domain.com/

google, there are tons of these.

chipsahoy was talking about .com registrations and these are at >$7 on both of these sites

Good point, but it doesn't matter. $7 domain registrations are pretty close to $0 in the grand scheme of what it costs to maintain a website (my hosting company picks up my registration fees FWIW, and their overall package is very competitive).

Regardless, the point stands that ICANN would never be in the position they are in without government intervention, so even if this is a "harmful" monopoly it doesn't show what OP claims it does.

I think your missing the point. Government got involved initially because they were the only ones to give a ****. Now everyone does, but ICANN's monopoly endures and not because the government gives or has ever given a **** who supplies DNS services only that at least someone does.

I might be a little confused, but does ICANN only have control over registering names with a .com after them? Does that mean other companies have control over .au or .tv ect?