Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

VeriSign Jacks Up .com, .net Prices To the Max

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 6 years ago | from the greed-is-universal dept.

The Internet 215

se7en writes "VeriSign is jacking up prices for the .com and .net domains for the second year running, increasing both by the maximum 7% allowed under its exclusive contract with ICANN. 'Assuming that VeriSign continues the 7 percent rise each year (which seems reasonable given the company's history), registrars will be looking at $9.00 for .com domains by the time the current contract ends in 2012 — a 50 percent increase in six years.' Registrars have no choice but to pony up, and chances are they'll pass the pain on to customers."

cancel ×

215 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Will this make spamsites unprofitable? (5, Interesting)

orkysoft (93727) | more than 6 years ago | (#22901668)

I wonder if this will decrease the amount of spam sites that clutter up so many Google search results...

Re:Will this make spamsites unprofitable? (2, Insightful)

cheater512 (783349) | more than 6 years ago | (#22901910)

Unlikely. A couple of extra bucks wont do anything.

Re:Will this make spamsites unprofitable? (5, Interesting)

shanen (462549) | more than 6 years ago | (#22902162)

This was exactly my first reaction to the article. Anything that increases the spammer's costs is a good thing, but it's basically too indirect to really matter. Rather Verisign is just acting to increase their own profits and using the spammers as an excuse.


Since we're on the topic of spam (and domains are included below), here's my latest suggestion to Gmail:

Basically Gmail is losing value for all of us as it becomes spam soaked. Even their filtering is having troubles with false positives and false negatives--and the spam is just increasing. Therefore I think Google should act more aggressively to drive the spammers away from Gmail.

My latest anti-spam idea is a SuperReport option. (Kind of like SpamCop, but not so lazy.) If you click on the SuperReport option, Gmail would explode the spam and try to analyze it for you to help go after the spammers more aggressively. Here is one way to implement it:

The first pass would be a low-cost quickie that would also act like a kind of CAPTCHA. This would just be an automated pass looking for obvious patterns like email addresses and URLs. The email would then be exploded and shown to the person making the report. The thoughtful responses for the second pass would guide the system in going after the spammers--making Gmail a *VERY* hostile environment for spammers to the point that they would stop spamming Gmail.

For example, if the first pass analysis finds an email address in the header, the exploded options might be "Obvious fake, ignore", "Plausible fake used to improve delivery", "Apparently valid drop address for replies", "Possible Joe job", and "Other". (Of course there should be pop-up explanations for help, which would be easy if it's done as a radio button. Also, Google always needs to allow for "Other" because the spammers are so damn innovative. In the "Other" case, the second pass should call for an explanation of why it is "Other".)

If the first pass analysis finds a URL, the exploded options should be things like "Drugs", "Stock scam", "Software piracy", "Loan scam", "419 scam", "Prostitution", "Fake merchandise", "Reputation theft", "Possible Joe job", and "Other". I think URLs should include a second radio button for "Registered Domain" (default), "Redirection", "Possible redirection", "Dynamic DNS routing", and "Other". (Or perhaps that would be another second-pass option?)

At the bottom of the expanded first pass analysis there should be some general options about the kind of spam and suggested countermeasures, and the submit SuperReport button. This would trigger the heavier second pass where Gmail's system would take these detailed results of the human analysis of the spam and use them to really go after the spammers in a more serious way.

I think Gmail should also rate the reporters on their spam-fighting skills, and figure out how smart they are when they are analyzing the spam. I want to earn a "Spam Fighter First Class" merit badge!

If you agree with these ideas--or have better ones, I suggest you try to call them to Google's attention. Google still seems to be an innovative and responsive company--and they claim they want to fight evil, too. More so if many people write to them? (I even think they recently implemented one of my suggestions to improve the Groups...)

Re:Will this make spamsites unprofitable? (4, Interesting)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 6 years ago | (#22902364)

OTOH, think how much money companies are spending to filter out all that SPAM. Everything from Firewall, to Anti-virus solutions to block the stuff. That doesn't come cheap depending on how many employees or customers there are effected. If this 7% does cut into the spammers profits in a way that it shuts them down, it will be a lot cheaper over all than the current meathods of fighting spam. Oh, and think how much bandwidth it would free up around the world.

7% increase to knock out the spammers? God, we can only dream of it!

Re:Will this make spamsites unprofitable? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22902414)

I have a shorter version: "Allow Bayesian filtering."

Re:Will this make spamsites unprofitable? (2, Interesting)

transami (202700) | more than 6 years ago | (#22902500)

There is a simple solution to email spam. It's called a white list.

A while back I worte an email to a fellow programmer whom I never before emailed. His email system automatically replied asking that I confirm my message was from a person by answering a bran dead simple question. By replying appropriately I was white listed and he got my original message.

Ultimately of course AI's might circumvent any such system, but those days are still ways off, so I don't know why email engineers haven't made this a standard option.

Re:Will this make spamsites unprofitable? (3, Informative)

shanen (462549) | more than 6 years ago | (#22902530)

Don't confuse challenge/response with whitelisting--but it doesn't matter since SMTP doesn't verify the sender. Any technical response to a fundamentally economic problem is only going to be a bandaid at best.

However, we're getting too far off topic, if'n you ask me. The part that is relevant to this discussion is how much of the spammers' costs are related to domain acquisition, and the answer is 'precious little' and there are always other ways to work around it. In particular, some of the most annoying spammers around here are hosting their own websites and using dynamic DNS services to route their suckers without ever buying any domains of their own.

Re:Will this make spamsites unprofitable? (1)

Cairnarvon (901868) | more than 6 years ago | (#22902432)

A couple of extra bucks times a few hundred thousand. Most domain squatters don't squat just one domain.
Of course, it doesn't matter much as long as the five-day grace period makes domain kiting possible.

Re:Will this make spamsites unprofitable? (1)

cheater512 (783349) | more than 6 years ago | (#22902516)

A 7% increase is nothing for spammers.

Re:Will this make spamsites unprofitable? (1)

KillerCow (213458) | more than 6 years ago | (#22902494)

I don't know... a couple of extra bucks multiplied over a million squatted domains might do something. Charging what a domain is worth is probably the only way to stop squatting.

Re:Will this make spamsites unprofitable? (2, Insightful)

Kozz (7764) | more than 6 years ago | (#22902074)

HAHAHAHAHA... oh, you were serious??

I think changing policies on domain tasting would do a hell of a lot more.

Re:Will this make spamsites unprofitable? (1)

orkysoft (93727) | more than 6 years ago | (#22902264)

Well, spammers/squatters generally need a lot of domain names to build the fake referencing networks to game Google, so the costs would add up. A few bucks here, a few bucks there, soon, you are talking about real money.

Re:Will this make spamsites unprofitable? (1)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 6 years ago | (#22902390)

if it does, I'll sure pay the extra like $1 a year or whatever. Actually, either way I don't really care lol. I mean really, that's like 0.1% of the yearly beef jerky budget. My yearly hosting for my site was just up 2 days ago and it was up $10 from last year just for hosting, no DNS, and I wasn't even particularly concerned about that. The only people that should care about a tiny yearly increase are ones that register a seriously high amount of domain names and I can't think of any "good" reason to do that. If not illegal, anyone who registers a ton of domains is at least doing something shady or annoying.

And? (5, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 6 years ago | (#22901674)

Is there any reason Verisign wouldn't jack up prices by the max allowed in their contract?

Re:And? (5, Insightful)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | more than 6 years ago | (#22901696)

Is there any reason Verisign wouldn't jack up prices by the max allowed in their contract?

In a sane world, behaving like a bunch of asshats by trying to squeeze us for every penny they can, would mean that their contract wouldn't be renewed by ICANN; so there would be such an incentive. In a sane world.

Of course, we do not live in a sane world.

Re:And? (5, Insightful)

BrookHarty (9119) | more than 6 years ago | (#22901736)

Well if you don't like them, go register your domain somewhere else!

Oh wait.

Re:And? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22901830)

Congratulations!

You win a gold star... for STUPIDITY!

Re:And? (5, Funny)

MrNaz (730548) | more than 6 years ago | (#22902014)

You fail sarcasm. Totally. You could say that you have failed to the max.

Re:And? (0, Flamebait)

Paiev (1233954) | more than 6 years ago | (#22902112)

The GP's comment was the most obvious sarcasm ever. Congratulations! You win a gold star...for STUPIDITY!

Re:And? (3, Informative)

MrCawfee (13910) | more than 6 years ago | (#22902254)

How would a domain registry possibly function without it being a monopoly? Well it probally couldn't. Someone has to publish the root zones, and maintain those servers, and do you really want one company running one root server and another company running another? Well it really can't.

The system we have now is fine as it is, yeah Verisign controls ICANN (they are pretty much the only ones who talk at registrar meetings), but anything they do that is extremely controversial gets rejected.

And as far as competition goes, that has moved to the registrars, who end up finding that gTLDs are not profitable enough without other services making money.

Now another thing that verisign is trying to get passed is to charge 0.15 per domain name for bulk deletions, which may have the effect of killing the recycling business, which is most of these registrar's bread and butter.

Either way, the atm fee i paid at the gas station today is more than this fee increase.. although it does make verisign an extra 30 million

Re:And? (1)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 6 years ago | (#22902450)

Well then perhaps the next time, they can auction off the rights to the root domains, the highest bidder gets it and charges the maximum the market can pay. The highest bidder can also look for other ways to maximise their returns, weekly rentals on the most popular domains, immediate foreclosure on domain names if the fee isn't paid on time and the auctioning of those domain name.

The guaranteed quickest way of getting other countries to create their own root servers and only mirror those entries from other countries that adhere to some sort of reasonable international rules and via accepted treaties.

Re:And? (1)

dosius (230542) | more than 6 years ago | (#22902376)

Needless to say...

I don't own any .com or .net domains. Only a .org and a couple .infos

-uso.

Re:And? (4, Insightful)

mlts (1038732) | more than 6 years ago | (#22901802)

Hate to be a devil's advocate here, and but Verisign in some ways has to, because publically traded companies like VRSN have to show their shareholders they are earning as much money as the traffic can bear, and if not, why not.

If they don't, shareholders will become former shareholders, and/or try to find reasons to sue. This is true about any company, if any company cuts prices on a flagship product, they need to have a good reason (such as a new model, competition is forcing their hand, or perhaps going for higher volume sales) to explain why to shareholders why they did so and why they chose to get less income.

Verisign isn't perfect, but the real culprits are ICANN, and the short range thinking of stockholders in the US who only care about what is coming next quarter, rather than being with a company long term. I'd rather invest in a company who has multiple subsequent quarterly charges against their income for R&D than one which always makes the numbers (even barely) each quarter, but really has no real direction to expand.

Re:And? (2, Interesting)

segoy (641704) | more than 6 years ago | (#22901924)

Guy with a 1M+ UID comes up with this to say? Where's my +3 [Insightful and 1M+ uid] modifier?

Verisign isn't perfect, but the real culprits are ICANN, and the short range thinking of stockholders in the US who only care about what is coming next quarter, rather than being with a company long term. I'd rather invest in a company who has multiple subsequent quarterly charges against their income for R&D than one which always makes the numbers (even barely) each quarter, but really has no real direction to expand.
This is why I left my company traded on the exchange for an LLP. Oftentimes there is a lot of investment that goes into excellent profits (prophets?), and shareholders rarely tolerate seeing their companies enrich the lives of anyone other than themselves.

Re:And? (2, Informative)

Martin Blank (154261) | more than 6 years ago | (#22901992)

It's one of the reasons I'm considering leaving my company. While I do generally worship at the altar of the almighty dollar, there are some sects that are a little too eager to keep the money for a chosen select few without anything more than lip-service about the sweat of the parishioners. I don't mind working for a publicly-traded company, as long as their stated commitment to their people is a commitment to all of their people.

Re:And? (2, Interesting)

TheLink (130905) | more than 6 years ago | (#22902366)

"don't mind working for a publicly-traded company, as long as their stated commitment to their people is a commitment to all of their people."

That's more likely to happen if it's a Cooperative.

Even if Cooperatives do as well or even better than Companies (thinking long term is typically better than "let's sack everyone and boost profits for next quarter"), there is currently not as much incentive for people to start up cooperatives - it typically takes a lot of effort and risk to be the "first boss" and get everyone else etc. Companies are started instead so that the person starting them can get the lions share (I have no objections to that).

Perhaps existing cooperatives could create funds to be used to help get more cooperatives started (a bit like what "venture capitalists" are doing).

Re:And? (3, Interesting)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#22901814)

If your running a website, the $9 registration fee is pretty minimal. If you can't afford that, you probably aren't getting much out of having your site anyway.

Re:And? (5, Interesting)

repka (1102731) | more than 6 years ago | (#22901900)

I don't mind paying $9 dollars, I mind paying them exclusively to Verisign.

Re:And? (4, Insightful)

garett_spencley (193892) | more than 6 years ago | (#22901912)

I pay $9.20 USD right now / .com domain. I think that $9 is what VERISIGN gets. Not what people actually pay.

Granted, I agree. If you can't afford $10 - $15 / YEAR for your domain then you're not getting much out of it. But then again, not all .com's are for-profit. Some people don't like that and think that .com should ONLY be for commercial entities, and I agree that's absolutely what it was designed for initially. Only problem is if you don't register a .com for your domain then a squatter will. And, unfortunately, unless your traffic consists mostly of tech-savvy users then the majority of your type-in traffic will hit the .com first.

Well, in Australia (4, Informative)

Psychotria (953670) | more than 6 years ago | (#22901936)

I would love to pay just $9.00 for a registration fee. Try > $100 here for a .com.au :/

Re:Well, in Australia (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#22902080)

I think last time I updated my .ca address it was $20 a year. Not that expensive. $100 a year seems a little prohibitive. Especially if it's just for personal use.

Re:Well, in Australia (3, Informative)

neonmonk (467567) | more than 6 years ago | (#22902330)

.com.au is restricted to businesses in Australia. You have to actually supply an Australian Business Number (ABN) to register it.

$100 is a bit of an exaggeration. I paid $70 for two years and registered a .net.au & .com.au (so $35 for two years)

You just have to shop around.

Re:Well, in Australia (1)

Dahamma (304068) | more than 6 years ago | (#22902438)

Yeah, but to give the majority of /. users context... was that when AU$ was 0.75 US$ or the currently awful (for me anyway! ;) 0.92 US$...

Re:Well, in Australia (1)

Psychotria (953670) | more than 6 years ago | (#22902524)

You're right. I should have checked some more. My registrar _last time_ I updated my domain names was $180 for two years (so $90/year). I just checked their website and it's now $80 for two years. The price seems to have come down, probably because of increased competition. I apologise for not checking that first.

Re:Well, in Australia (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22902442)

I pay ~$5/year incl. VAT for my .de domain. The .de CCTLD is the largest country code domain and the second largest domain after .com. The registry is run by a cooperative of ISPs.

Re:And? (1)

vsloathe (1257618) | more than 6 years ago | (#22902368)

Additionally, some have mentioned web "spammers" (no such thing, in legal terms). Most of the ones I know tend to use .infos, which can still be had for around 80 cents a pop per year. I am a registrar, and I get my .coms at 6 bucks a piece. I could get them cheaper, but I would have to do more volume. Maybe someday. I sell my .coms at a much lower margin than a lot of the big registrars. It's pretty common to find $9.99 per year .coms, but I sell them for between 6.70-7.50. Depends on the time of year or if I'm having a sale. Also we do volume discounts with our larger customers (usually resellers). Raising the cost of domains won't fight web "spam". Mostly the trend right now is to use parasite hosting (e.g. free, someone else's domain, free blogs etc) and leach off their authority. The answer begins with Google really. It's in Google's best interest to keep *some* web spam around, as it tends to make the company an awful lot of money (Made For Adsense pages are semi-legitimate, as they are still taking the surfer to what he or she wants to find, and up until just recently, they've made Google an absolute mountain of money).

Inflation (5, Interesting)

copponex (13876) | more than 6 years ago | (#22901976)

The dollar is dropping like a rock. If they are an international company, they probably have no choice. When did they make this contract? They may even be getting screwed.

Re:And? (4, Interesting)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 6 years ago | (#22902502)

In a sane world, behaving like a bunch of asshats by trying to squeeze us for every penny they can, would mean that their contract wouldn't be renewed by ICANN; so there would be such an incentive.
You seem to forget that ICANN already approved this (and future) price increases in advance.

Verisign can't change prices without negotiating with ICANN.
So really, any name calling and/or accusations of penny squeezing should be directed at ICANN.

Re:And? (1)

calebt3 (1098475) | more than 6 years ago | (#22901698)

It scares off potential customers?

Re:And? (1)

Scaba (183684) | more than 6 years ago | (#22901740)

And that's the beauty of a monopoly - you don't have to worry about losing customers.

Re:And? (2, Informative)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 6 years ago | (#22901760)

Maybe slashdot should be worried about scaring off customers with its stupid lingo in the title..

Re:And? (2, Funny)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#22901846)

What customers?

Re:And? (4, Informative)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 6 years ago | (#22901738)

hmm 7%.. verisign is just trying to catch up with the rate of inflation :)

Re:And? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22901816)

Is there any reason Verisign wouldn't jack up prices by the max allowed in their contract?

Absolutely none.

But given their censorship of domains, wild card fiasco, I say ICANN should pull them as a registrar, remember, Network Solutions is Verislime, oops, sorry, Verisign.

Verisign Sucks [aetherlumina.com]

Re:And? (1)

onefriedrice (1171917) | more than 6 years ago | (#22902372)

I wish domain name prices were much higher. Currently they're ridiculously low, and it only invites squatters. Most legit companies will only have a handful of domain names anyway.

Can't say I mind... (5, Interesting)

pushing-robot (1037830) | more than 6 years ago | (#22901692)

There's a very limited number of reasonable .com and .net domains out there. If they aren't worth USD $10 a year to you, maybe you should let someone else have a chance?

I think registration should be something like $100 one-time + $25/yr. Yeah, I'd spend a lot more, but it would be worth it to kill squatters.

Re:Can't say I mind... (3, Interesting)

Scaba (183684) | more than 6 years ago | (#22901714)

It wouldn't kill squatters. It would kill things like indie band and vanity domains.

Re:Can't say I mind... (1, Interesting)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 6 years ago | (#22901790)

...which should use different domains. Dot com is for commercial websites. It ticks me off to no end when websites name themseves .com when they have no off-internet existence whatsoever. Use .net if you can't stay away from making up a lame website name to be all legitimate like a business, or if you're a one-man development group (cough Flash developing houses). Use .name for personal sites. Use .info if you're just looking for a cheap DNS entry like I am.

Re:Can't say I mind... (5, Insightful)

garett_spencley (193892) | more than 6 years ago | (#22901888)

The problem is that "lay-people" consider .com to be "it". And if you register "my-indie-band.org" some squatter WILL register "my-indie-band.com" ... and when your fans go to look you up they'll type in the ".com" before the ".org".

Is it bullshit ? Yeah, absolutely. Is there much we can do about it ? Not really.

Re:Can't say I mind... (3, Insightful)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 6 years ago | (#22902078)

If you have a band, even an indie band, and you're selling stuff or live performances, wouldn't that classify as "commercial" enough for a .com domain?

Re:Can't say I mind... (1)

VirusEqualsVeryYes (981719) | more than 6 years ago | (#22902458)

Actually, selling absolutely nothing qualifies as commercial enough for a .com domain. .com, .org, and .net domains have no restrictions anymore.

The point the GP was making is that .com is seen as the primary domain suffix by most people. Given a domain without its suffix, people are far more likely to try the .com version first. Thus, despite the puritan demands that .com be reserved for commercial use, nearly every owner of a website tries for a .com domain -- even if for just a redirect, like slashdot.com -- so any price hiking of .com domains affects everyone.

Re:Can't say I mind... (1)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 6 years ago | (#22902160)

I don't mind that.. I'm impressed by .org or .net websites that refuse to register the .com.. it's always taken by some squatter but when I get the squatter page I'm not annoyed, I think "those guys are hardcore"

Re:Can't say I mind... (1)

Epistax (544591) | more than 6 years ago | (#22902514)

Are you NUTS? People would type "my-indie-band" and hit SEARCH. Or maybe "I'm feeling lucky". In either case, you'll be the squatter. The situation you describe is SO 2005.

Re:Can't say I mind... (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 6 years ago | (#22902296)

"It ticks me off to no end when websites name themseves .com when they have no off-internet existence whatsoever."

So eBay should give up eBay.com?

Re:Can't say I mind... (1)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 6 years ago | (#22902436)

Well they're actually a commercial site..

Re:Can't say I mind... (1)

drydirt (1161445) | more than 6 years ago | (#22902302)

That would have been a nice rule if we'd stuck to it in 1996. But now all a .net, .name, or .info domain says is "I was too late to grab the .com"

I left out .org because it does actually mean something to those who would notice such things.

Re:Can't say I mind... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22902352)

First of all, that's debatable. Dotcom has stopped meaning "commercial website" long before the dotcom boom. If you want a .com for your cat page, that's fine. Second, the .net TLD is no alternative either, because that's another Verisign domain which just got more expensive.

The whole idea of limiting TLDs to a few category-like names (outside of CCTLDs) is the primary economic problem with the domain name system. DNS is not a directory and can't be one. Domain names are administrative boundaries, not content descriptors. There should be thousands of TLDs, so that there is enough variation that you have to pay attention to the "suffix" of a domain. Then people wouldn't so easily think that .com is a proper website and the rest is for the amateurs. There should be thousands of TLDs, so that there can be actual competition between registries in terms of infrastructure quality, service and price. There should be thousands of TLDs, so that you can get a domain from a registry in a country of your choice without making people think of your domain as targeted to the people of that country. There should be thousands of TLDs, so that companies no longer feel compelled to own their name under all TLDs.

Re:Can't say I mind... (1)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 6 years ago | (#22902470)

And there should be absolutely no rules what-so-EVER about owning trademarked domains. I mean, there should be rules, like that you can't own a thousand domain names, but connecting it to real-world American trademark law is just retarded. If I'm in mexico and google hasn't translated to spanish yet because it's the 90s, I should be able to register google.mx and offer a spanish-language google results translator or something.. I'd love to see TLDs being created for web communities and someone putting up google.4chan which is identical to google.com except the o's have nipples. People take trademarks too seriously and those serious business laws should stay the heck away from my internet...

Re:Can't say I mind... (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#22901832)

If you can't manage to afford $25 a year for your website, you could just go with yourband.myspace.com, or something along those lines. $25 is pretty minimal. It's about the same as a couple packs of guitar strings.

Re:Can't say I mind... (1)

Scaba (183684) | more than 6 years ago | (#22901932)

You forgot about the initial $100 + $25/year. And why should legitimate users of domains be punished for the bad behavior of squatters? Should gas be $100 fill-up fee + $25 per gallon because some people who drive are criminals?

Re:Can't say I mind... (2, Interesting)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#22902108)

All people who drive are criminals. They are killing the environment. :P. Ok on a more serious note, it sucks, but it's probably the only way to keep the squatters away. Make it not financially viable to operate, and they will go away. However, I would support that the extra fees go to charities, so that they can be put to better use than lining the pockets of verisign.

The USA: Land of Competition (2, Interesting)

The Fanta Menace (607612) | more than 6 years ago | (#22901704)

The United States is really big on competition. Everyone else has to compete. Why is this monopoly allowed to exist?

Re:The USA: Land of Competition (4, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 6 years ago | (#22902066)

The United States is really big on competition.
Correction - the united states TALKS really big on competition.

The only real competition that the government cares about is who can shove the most 'campaign funds' into each politician's pockets.

Re:The USA: Land of Competition (1)

AnonymousCactus (810364) | more than 6 years ago | (#22902094)

The problem is that there is a single list that someone has to manage and that someone has to get paid for it.

Competition may be at work here, but not in the way you want. The competition is apparently in bidding for the contract. But then, that is only competition if ICANN makes the bidding competitive.

Re:The USA: Land of Competition (1)

juliandemarchi (1261822) | more than 6 years ago | (#22902318)

This is the reason OpenNIC (http://www.opennicproject.org) was created. Sure it is not that popular, and sure no one not configured to use OpenNIC nameservers can not see their gTLDs. But their very existance is a great sign that some people are fed up with this U.S controlled DNS system! OpenNIC provide very fast DNS servers located all over the globe and by using it you are showing that you do not support the U.S controlled namesystem. Lets end this monopoly of the namesystem and start supporting the alternative roots! Only you can change they way things are, we are not forced to use the ICANN root servers.

inflation (4, Funny)

TheSHAD0W (258774) | more than 6 years ago | (#22901758)

That'll be what, 1 Euro by then?

Re:inflation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22901796)

inflation != depreciation

Re:inflation (1)

TheSHAD0W (258774) | more than 6 years ago | (#22902232)

Or devaluation... :-P

Value of the once almighty dollar. (5, Insightful)

lancejjj (924211) | more than 6 years ago | (#22901768)

increasing both by the maximum 7% allowed under its exclusive contract with ICANN
But that 7% increase is in U.S. dollars.

Given the recent drop of the value of the dollar, that means that much of the rest of the world whose currency isn't based on the US dollar will see a 1% price drop, instead of a 8% price drop.

Re:Value of the once almighty dollar. (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 6 years ago | (#22902304)

I calculate it to be in the 13% price drop neighborhood.... I wonder if my registrar will pass on the savings to me? I suspect not.

yes but I am still the greatest (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22901770)

and so it doesn't matter. I rule. I am the best person ever and my life is super.

Re:yes but I am still the greatest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22901998)

I will be feared by some group of scaley documants with the desk lady for you shaving cauldrone.

Prices need to go up much further (3, Interesting)

Salgat (1098063) | more than 6 years ago | (#22901806)

I am amazed that such a valuable commodity is so cheap still, especially when the low price only benefits those who purchase massive amounts of domains. I wish the prices were at least $20 a year.

Re:Prices need to go up much further (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 6 years ago | (#22902136)

the 1990's called they want their dot com boom idea's back.

Re:Prices need to go up much further (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22902544)

the 1990's called they want their dot com boom idea's back.

Why would they want the back of the idea? That hardly even makes sense.

Re:Prices need to go up much further (2, Insightful)

Loconut1389 (455297) | more than 6 years ago | (#22902556)

apparently you don't run a bunch of non-profit sites on your own dime or with a limited budget. Thanks for your support.

You kids... and your short memories... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22901826)

Remember when domains finally dropped from the $100 starting point (for two years)? Yeah, $9 is nothing.

Cheap price (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22901840)

WOW!!! Only $9!!! That is 1/10 the price the last time I looked into buying a domain name. Maybe I should buy one before the rates go back up.

I dont understand (3, Insightful)

JimboFBX (1097277) | more than 6 years ago | (#22901882)

I dont understand- is this entry a joke? This is about as ground-breaking as "a local McDonald's increases $1 menu to $1.05 menu!" In other news, inflation was 8% last year!

Re:I dont understand (2, Funny)

carpe.cervisiam (900585) | more than 6 years ago | (#22901934)

I dont understand- is this entry a joke? This is about as ground-breaking as "a local McDonald's increases $1 menu to $1.05 menu!" In other news, inflation was 8% last year!
Wow. I want to live in your world. The magical land where an inflation rate of 8% translates into a 5% increase in the price of goods and services.

Re:I dont understand (1)

Jarjarthejedi (996957) | more than 6 years ago | (#22902024)

Bad Math Proves A Point!

(Kudos to anyone who gets the reference)

How soon people forget... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22902002)

...that domains used to cost $140 a year. We only DREAMED of $10 domains back in 1999.

Re:How soon people forget... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22902314)

Domains used to be free, along with address allocations.

How much is a domain worth? (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 6 years ago | (#22902022)

Honestly, domains are dirt cheap, and $9 a domain is a far cry from $50 a year that we paid 15 years ago, but certainly more than when they could theoretically be had for free. Of course a cautions business will gather up every conceivable domain in every conceivable TLD. This means that where where one might buy a domain or two for $100 every two years, now even a small business might buy tens times that may, at a cost of perhaps a few hundred dollars per year. Of course, in the scheme of rolling out a domain, what is a few hundred dollars.

I have a few domains, nothing serious, and i would not be unwilling to pay more under certain conditions. Mostly these would have to with transfer and the amount of time a registrar can sit on a domain without releasing it. I appreciate having a 30 day waiting period to repurchase a domain, but I have seen 90 days+ where the register is allowed to hold the domain hostage. Clearly this a revenue generating tactic, and if it is to end must be replaced with other revenue.

Obsolete (2, Insightful)

racyrefinedraj (981243) | more than 6 years ago | (#22902030)

Why do we have TLDs anymore, anyway? Why can't I just register http://yourname/ [yourname] ? Since their original intent is both broken (not all .coms are commercial etc) and obsolete (people just google for things anyway), why don't we just say that a domain is a string of alphanumeric characters terminated by a /

The contract does not end in 2012 (4, Informative)

karl.auerbach (157250) | more than 6 years ago | (#22902034)

The contract with Verisign does not end in 2012.

ICANN granted to Verisign a perpetual right of renewal.

In other words, unless Verisign goes out and illegally clubs baby seals (and maybe even if they do) they get the right to renew the contract again and again and again and again...

Has ICANN ever bothered to consider the actual costs that Verisign incurs to deliver those domain name registrations? No.

It has been estimated that the amount may be as low as $0.02 per year. In which case ICANN has created a guaranteed profit to Verisign of about $420,000,000 eavery year - with you and me paying.

If $9 is "The Max"... (1)

prostoalex (308614) | more than 6 years ago | (#22902044)

...you might have a low FICO score.

Marijuana, legal in 2008, if you help! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22902096)

On January 24th, the California Supreme Court ruled that employers can fire workers who use medical marijuana even if it was legally recommended by a doctor.

  We knew this was going to happen because Oregon did the same thing right at the time we were finishing up the wording for the California Cannabis Hemp & Health Initiative 2008 (CCHHI). We addressed this problem in our initiative under section 5(b). Here is the wording we have included: ..
5(b): "Testing for inactive and/or inert residual cannabis metabolites shall not be required for employment or insurance, nor be considered in determining employment, other impairment, or intoxication." ..
Now all we have to do is get this initiative on the ballot to fix this problem. We need everyone's help with this. Please visit http://www.calhemp08.org/ [calhemp08.org] for more information on how you can help.
The only way to reverse the Greenhouse Effect is with Cannabis Hemp. It makes the best fuel on Earth, as well as the best paper, fiber, food and medicines. Californians are smart to use this wonderful plant and should not be threatened with losing their jobs for it.

The average lifespan in the United States is 76 for a man and 78 for a woman. But if you smoke pot morning, noon and night, you will live an average of two years longer than if you don't. People who smoke pot but don't smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol will live approximately 8 to 24 years longer than those who do smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol. This was proven in studies done by Dr. Vera Ruben on Rastafarians in Jamaica from 1968 to 1974. The Rastafarians lived up in the hills and were the poorest people in Jamaica. Everyone expected them to have the shortest lives but instead they had the longest lives. They smoked pot morning, noon and night. This study cost $6,000,000.00 and was an extremely comprehensive study. If the same study was done today it would cost approximately $125,000,000.00.

We can do something about this if we have all of you helping us. We only have until the middle of April so let's get to work!!! Thanks!

Keys to profit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22902106)

Step 1:monopoly

Step 2:????????

Step 3:Profit!

Re:Keys to profit (1)

e9th (652576) | more than 6 years ago | (#22902504)

Monopolies ordinarily omit step 2.

Seriously... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22902118)

Seriously... is ANYONE really surprised that they didn't increase the price by the maximum allowed amount?

$9.00? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22902226)

Wow, all of nine 9.0 dollars a year? And this is finincial hardship, or pain?

I would make domain registration 900/yr.

That should get rid of all those typo domains, and domain squatting.

The IT and open source monkeys don't need their own domain names, that's what sourceforge is for.

Re:$9.00? (1)

Warll (1211492) | more than 6 years ago | (#22902378)

You know what I'd think that would work great! Twenty years ago mind you.
I don't know if you've noticed but the internet has grown, like a lot.

Speaking of inflation... (5, Funny)

OakDragon (885217) | more than 6 years ago | (#22902326)

...somebody tell the GoDaddy girl that her tits are going to have to get bigger.

Read the Contract (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22902334)

The contract is on the ICANN site. People should read it before making statements that aren't true. Verisign can not raise the fee every year, only four of the six years in a contract period. Look at the payments they need to make to ICANN: $1.5 million rising to $3 million a quarter over the contract. Look at the SLAs for .com and .net (5-100 milliseconds), 100% availability per year on some services or penalties. How many company's can provide that level of service for the millions or billions of queries they get a day, especially from the squatters that register hundreds of thousands of names a day and release them during the grace period. Verisign doesn't make any money from the squatters yet has to store and report on all of that data. If people think the business is such a cash cow and easy to do, why didn't they bid on the contract? They could be billionaires by now.

http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/net/ [icann.org]
http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/com/ [icann.org]

Re:Read the Contract (1)

Lord Flipper (627481) | more than 6 years ago | (#22902552)

The contract is on the ICANN site. People should read it before making statements that aren't true

Absolutely correct. Somebody give this AC the max in mod points. The whole post was informative and interesting.

Microsoft.... (1)

wilhil (1160445) | more than 6 years ago | (#22902420)

I am sorry to say it, but I just can not see how Microsoft can be called a monopoly, I am currently a open source user and am posting this comment from Mozilla Firefox running on Ubuntu. At the end of the day, there is choice there and if people want to, they can change their operating system and live without any commercial software, I have been doing this for the past few months and am generally having a good time. Now, if I want a .com name, I am FORCED to pay the extra, no questions asked. There is clearly a monopoly here, but no one seems to care or do anything. Fine you can get other domain names, however I am sure that at least 80% (if not 99%) of people would classify the internet as ".com".

Re:Microsoft.... (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 6 years ago | (#22902634)

I think you underestimate the capacities of 80% - 90% of people.

Granted theyre pretty much lemmings but even the most tech illiterate person I know (and my family is full of *cringe* doctors) knows .org and .net exist .de .jp etc might be another matter.

By "reasonable" you mean "expected from monopoly" (1)

whorfin (686885) | more than 6 years ago | (#22902638)

They're a friggin monopoly. give them a "maximum allowable increase", they have zero incentive to not 'achieve'. Every resller markets themselves and then comes home to poppa, the ecosystem is theirs.

(sigh)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>