Generally, the anti-new extension crowd is made up of people who have been in the business for some time and have portfolios made up almost exclusively of .com names (perhaps with a few .nets and .orgs thrown in for old school seasoning). They fear adoption of new extensions will lessen the value of their .com holdings, so any comments they might have on the new TLDs is likely to be negative.

So, where does the truth lie with respect to new extensions as a sensible investment? Since we are talking about the future NO ONE knows the answer to that question. Until hard sales data emerges, anything you hear from either camp is just an opinion. You are on your own to do your own research and form your own opinions � but for your fiscal health it is something you MUST do. If there is a problem on the horizon, ignoring it will not make it go away.

Saying .com is king is fine � no one disputes that, but if you live by the credo that .com (or anything else) will ALWAYS be king, you could wind up missing a great investment opportunity, or even worse wind up with empty pockets. This is especially true if you are investing in mediocre quality .coms. If the new extensions do gain acceptance, the stronger words and terms available in .info, .biz and .us will leave little or no interest in poor quality .coms. A half dozen popular extensions will create a market glut in which only the better names will do well in all extensions.

You can say to yourself that it is never going to happen, but you need only look at what DID happen in the radio and television industries to see the dangers to investors who ignore the latest developments.

In the 1960�s, AM Radio was the undisputed king of the airways. An interloper came along called FM. It was widely ridiculed as a joke. The vast majority of radios didn�t even have an FM band! The AM guys laughed at and dismissed FM as a player that would never get off the bench (I know because I was broadcasting on the AM band at the time). Of course, FM wound up eating AM�s lunch. It completely took over the dial for music and relegated the AM band to news and talk radio. The value of AM stations was decimated. Those that did not invest in FM counterparts were the ones who wound up on the sidelines.

To put this in domain terms, this was the equivalent of new.net unseating .com! Without a special receiver you couldn�t even tune in FM. Same with new.net. Of course, new.net failed, but .info, .biz and .us do not have the handicap of needing a special receiver. They resolve in any browser, so the only hurdle they will have to jump is recognition.

For another example look at TV. Again, just a couple of decades ago television had two distinct bands. The VHF stations (channels 2-13) were the haves. The UHF stations (channels 14-69) were the have-nots. The VHF people never gave UHF a second thought. They were viewed as worthless properties with weak signals that no one could see. They needed a separate antenna to be received, so obviously they would never be a factor in the TV business.

Oops! Along came Ted Turner�s UHF station in Atlanta, channel 17. Turner married it with cable and not only overcame the local reception problem, he married the station with cable to extend its reach nationwide! Other UHF properties joined the party and now the distinctions between UHF and VHF have just about disappeared. Even in the largest markets there is a good chance that a powerful network affiliate will be on a UHF channel, something that was unheard of just a few years  ago. Again those who invested in UHF reaped large benefits. Those who did not were left out in the cold as changing technology altered the landscape again.

Will the same thing happen on the internet? Maybe, maybe not. But keep in mind that radio and TV  were far larger mediums than the internet is today. The broadcast outlets where AM and VHF were once king reached over 98% of American households. The internet reaches only about 50% of households. If radio and TV could be turned upside down, the argument that a medium with half the penetration could not possibly see a change in user habits is obviously untrue.

We are already seeing some early adoption of new extensions � well-known American politicians using .US, small businesses that can�t afford or get a good name in .com picking up .biz (or .us if they live in the States), tourist destinations like Cancun using .info in their TV commercials The big question is will usage reach critical mass? As long as the question remains unanswered, you MUST pay attention to developments in the domain business. Take your eye off the ball for even a moment and you could very well strike out.

If you wish to comment on Ron Jackson's Editorial, write to [email protected]