Home / Blogs

A Telegraph-Era TLD?

While doing research for a paper on telegraph codebooks, I was reminded of something I had long known: one could have short addresses for telegrams. A short article in The New Yorker described how it worked in New York City.

Briefly, one could pick more or less any name that wasn’t in use, and list it with the Central Bureau for Registered Addresses. Many names were cute, such as Nostrop for the Gillette razor company or Illuminate for the New York Edison Company. Prices seem cheap—$2.50 per year—though this was during the Depression.

Errors were an issue: you couldn’t register a name that could easily be confused with another given the error properties of Morse code. For example, A is ”._”, but if there’s too long a space between the two signals it might be received as ET, which is .  _.

The Central Bureau also did error correction on failed address look-ups. To do this, they used things like reversed-name indices, an alphabetical list going right-to-left. The article suggests that most errors were in the first few letters of an address; I suspect it was more that the human doing the look-up at the receiving telegraph company could do any necessary error correction given the first few letters and an alphabetical list.

There turns out to have been a security angle as well, though I confess I don’t understand it. This particular service was local to New York City, so perhaps we’re really talking about the NYC.NY.US domain, rather than an analog to .COM. Originally, each cable company had its own address list. However, “In 1917, the State Department, fearing spies, abolished all existing lists and set up a uniform one for everybody.” I don’t know why having a single list would make life harder for spies. After the war, the article says that the cable companies realized that this was more convenient for everyone and set up their own single list. Personally, I suspect it was more a matter of customer demand.

I wonder, though, if some of the same issues we see today arose then. Were there trademark disputes? Telesquatting? It might be fun to research this history.

By Steven Bellovin, Professor of Computer Science at Columbia University

Bellovin is the co-author of Firewalls and Internet Security: Repelling the Wily Hacker, and holds several patents on cryptographic and network protocols. He has served on many National Research Council study committees, including those on information systems trustworthiness, the privacy implications of authentication technologies, and cybersecurity research needs.

Visit Page

Filed Under

CircleID Newsletter The Weekly Wrap

More and more professionals are choosing to publish critical posts on CircleID from all corners of the Internet industry. If you find it hard to keep up daily, consider subscribing to our weekly digest. We will provide you a convenient summary report once a week sent directly to your inbox. It's a quick and easy read.

I make a point of reading CircleID. There is no getting around the utility of knowing what thoughtful people are thinking and saying about our industry.

Co-designer of the TCP/IP Protocols & the Architecture of the Internet


Why typosquatting was not a problem Daniel Feenberg  –  Jan 11, 2009 3:34 PM

I expect the reason typo-squatting was not a problem was that (for example) Con-Ed was a big user of the telegraph, and a much larger source of income for the telegraph company than any typo-squatting lowlife. So the telegraph company would not have any sympathy for squatters, and would not go out of its way to accomodate them - they would be dismissed without consideration. Compare this to the situation with DNS, where Con-Ed is an insignificant customer (it needs register only a handfull of domain names) and the typo-squatter is an important source of revenue, registering thousands of names. So naturally the regsitrar strives accomodates the squatter, and looks with favor on even the most outlandish legal theory protecting the squatter from the wrath of Con-Ed (and the police, for that matter). Hence the emphasis on privacy, first-come, etc.

Daniel Feenberg

Comment Title:

  Notify me of follow-up comments

We encourage you to post comments and engage in discussions that advance this post through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can report it using the link at the end of each comment. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of CircleID. For more information on our comment policy, see Codes of Conduct.



Domain Management

Sponsored byMarkMonitor

Brand Protection

Sponsored byAppdetex

Domain Names

Sponsored byVerisign


Sponsored byVerisign

Threat Intelligence

Sponsored byWhoisXML API

IPv4 Markets

Sponsored byIPXO