how-to block ads
|
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
 ·Cox HSI
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·Cox VOIP
·ViaTalk
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·MegaPath
·Verizon west (ex G..
·Time Warner VOIP
1 edit | reply to supergirl
Re: I don't get it
said by supergirl  :Just because cheapie registrars can't do it doesn't make it illegal. You should actually read the Sherman Anti-Trust Act before dismissing it.
This is absolutely them abusing their market position for anticompetitive practices and it is absolutely illegal.
That said, the only thing that results from class actions are greedy blood sucking lawyers like Sen. John Edwards getting filthy rich. | |
tim_k
Buttons, Bows, Beamer, Shadow, Kasey
Premium
join:2002-02-02
Stewartstown, PA
 ·Millenicom
 ·WildBlue
| said by Dogfather :said by supergirl :Just because cheapie registrars can't do it doesn't make it illegal. You should actually read the Sherman Anti-Trust Act before dismissing it. This is absolutely them abusing their market position for anticompetitive practices and it is absolutely illegal. That said, the only thing that results from class actions are greedy blood sucking lawyers like Sen. John Edwards getting filthy rich. This should be handled as a criminal case, not a civil case. that will keep the class action lawyers out of it.
--
RIP my baby Buttons 1/15/94-2/9/07 Buttons, Buttons video
| |
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA | When you have a gov't that kisses the ass of business, that is very unlikely to happen, even during an election cycle. | |
supergirl
join:2007-03-20
Pensacola, FL
·Cox VOIP
·Skype
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southeast
·magicjack.com
| reply to Dogfather
said by Dogfather :said by supergirl :Just because cheapie registrars can't do it doesn't make it illegal. You should actually read the Sherman Anti-Trust Act before dismissing it. This is absolutely them abusing their market position for anticompetitive practices and it is absolutely illegal. Oh, you can call Network Solutions and they will release the domain as well. Miss that?
I don't really see any big businesses using anyone BUT Network Solutions. I use them. I like the 5-day hold. I have 100 domains, more of less-I buy and sell .com domains, through them and paid $9.99 for each year choosing the 10-year option. Granted, I've bought and sold domains making a fortune. So, why do I care? NS is making me lots of money.
Here's a question: Why should people use Network Solutions to see if a domain is available in the first place? Answer: they're the best.  They also "hide" the true owner as well.
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl | |
Dogfather
Premium
join:2007-12-26
Laguna Hills, CA
·Cox HSI
·Verizon FIOS
·Cox VOIP
·ViaTalk
·RoadRunner Cable
·MegaPath
·Verizon west (ex G..
·Time Warner VOIP
1 edit | reply to supergirl
Re: I don't get it
Why should I have to call and rot on hold to get Network Solutions to release a domain that I'm interested in that they shouldn't be holding in the first place.
Anti-competition laws aren't about what companies do to consumers, it's what they do to each other.
Network Solutions abuses their market position to interfere with their competitors' ability to sell that customer to domain name and that's illegal.
If Network Solutions is the best as you claim, they shouldn't have to resort to criminal activity to conduct their business.
IOW, NS should be competing on the merits of their service instead of jailing customers and forcing them to jump through hoops to get the domain registered elsewhere. | |
amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
clubs:
| No, one should not have to call. Even then, how exactly is that supposed to accomplish anything? It's still a waste of both people's time.
Personally, I've called my registrar to renew. I prefer to speak to a human being. That's what they're there for, and I don't mind having to talk to somebody who will actually take care of it. It's almost easier than navigating all the stupid nonsense and upselling on the site.
Supergirl - glad you're making money. Much props on figuring out a way to do that. Your defensive position on this issue, however, doesn't need to come out sounding downright mean to those of us who may disagree with parts of the issue.
said by supergirl :Just because cheapie registrars can't do it doesn't make it illegal. "The tactic allowed the provider to keep shoppers from doing business elsewhere" is Karl's opinion (and the law firm's). What law are the using to justify bringing this suit? Oh, monopoly law. Gee, that's gonna be hard to prove. By the way, registrations for domains at Network Solutions are only $9.99 if you pay for 10 years, which most smart people should do in the first place. Their analogy: "Imagine if you asked a car dealer if they had a black convertible and were then forced to buy the car from them. Would you get a good deal?" Not to self: idiot lawyers I never want to hire. Is that like saying, that brand new black Toyota can only be bought from a Toyota dealership? Oh, you can call Network Solutions and they will release the domain as well. Law firm missed that one. IDIOTS! -cheapie? Who are you to judge another registrar? Why on earth does it matter?
-Most "smart people" ...wow... thanks for helping us understand that you have a magical brain.
Some people, who aren't neccessarily running a business, do not want, nor need to spend the initial money for 10 years of registration. They might do so after the first year if they wish to keep their presence, others may not. There's a reason companies like GoDaddy have a boatload of customers; their prices are fair. Network Solutions' prices are inordinately high for shorter term registrations, this should be obvious.
Besides, I'd bet you think the internet is purely commercial. Sorry, it's not. Less than half of all websites are not commercial in nature, and many of those that are, do not have commerce as a sole reason for their existence...
-analogy. Hmm. Not sure what to say to that one. If you don't understand, then nobody is going to, nor could they explain it to you on a level that would make sense. Sorry.
From - »www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/analogy
1: inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will probably agree in others"
As for "Karl's opinion" ... again, I don't understand what your magic brain interprets here. It does, in fact, keep shoppers from going elsewhere. Sure, some call, I guess. Most folks probably don't and end up paying them.
People should be able to look up a name from one site and purchase from another. It happens all the time. Heck, I've done it.
If I were not knowledgeable of Network Solution's tactics, and went to buy up some names, I'd be extremely upset at their "safety measures." After all, if I was searching for a name or five, and decided, "gee, these prices seem steep, maybe I'll check GoDaddy" but COULD NOT buy from them after merely SEARCHING... that's just flat out wrong.
This news is truly sad. That it has to come to a suit just to try to make things right again. That some people actually defend this practice as sane and reasonable, somehow doesn't surprise me.
I see that they wish to stop scammers. Cool. But there has to be a better way. That's all. I just disagree that this is anything close to a good approach. | |
AnonProxy
Proxy of Anon
Premium
join:2001-05-12
ß
| reply to tim_k
NOTHING stops a civil case from happening if there is a criminal case going on. Infact often civil cases follow criminal cases so one leads to the other.
This is the ONE time I agree with a quick class action lawsuit.
If you are saying that s state AG or a US AG should be looking into this I agree, but you can't wait for this to happen. | |
DSL Oberst
join:2001-11-29
| reply to tim_k
This should be handled as a criminal case, not a civil case. that will keep the class action lawyers out of it.
And what crime would you prosecute under? Who would get the jail time?
Aside from that, a criminal trial would not keep a civil suit from being issued. They might - and that's a strong MIGHT - wait for the criminal trial to stop before pursuing it, but there's no guarantee. | |
supergirl
join:2007-03-20
Pensacola, FL
·Cox VOIP
·Skype
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southeast
·magicjack.com
| reply to amungus
said by amungus :No, one should not have to call. Even then, how exactly is that supposed to accomplish anything? It's still a waste of both people's time. Personally, I've called my registrar to renew. I prefer to speak to a human being. That's what they're there for, and I don't mind having to talk to somebody who will actually take care of it. It's almost easier than navigating all the stupid nonsense and upselling on the site. Supergirl - glad you're making money. Much props on figuring out a way to do that. Your defensive position on this issue, however, doesn't need to come out sounding downright mean to those of us who may disagree with parts of the issue. said by supergirl :Just because cheapie registrars can't do it doesn't make it illegal. "The tactic allowed the provider to keep shoppers from doing business elsewhere" is Karl's opinion (and the law firm's). What law are the using to justify bringing this suit? Oh, monopoly law. Gee, that's gonna be hard to prove. By the way, registrations for domains at Network Solutions are only $9.99 if you pay for 10 years, which most smart people should do in the first place. Their analogy: "Imagine if you asked a car dealer if they had a black convertible and were then forced to buy the car from them. Would you get a good deal?" Not to self: idiot lawyers I never want to hire. Is that like saying, that brand new black Toyota can only be bought from a Toyota dealership? Oh, you can call Network Solutions and they will release the domain as well. Law firm missed that one. IDIOTS! -cheapie? Who are you to judge another registrar? Why on earth does it matter? -Most "smart people" ...wow... thanks for helping us understand that you have a magical brain. Some people, who aren't neccessarily running a business, do not want, nor need to spend the initial money for 10 years of registration. They might do so after the first year if they wish to keep their presence, others may not. There's a reason companies like GoDaddy have a boatload of customers; their prices are fair. Network Solutions' prices are inordinately high for shorter term registrations, this should be obvious. Besides, I'd bet you think the internet is purely commercial. Sorry, it's not. Less than half of all websites are not commercial in nature, and many of those that are, do not have commerce as a sole reason for their existence... -analogy. Hmm. Not sure what to say to that one. If you don't understand, then nobody is going to, nor could they explain it to you on a level that would make sense. Sorry. From - » www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/analogy1: inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will probably agree in others" As for "Karl's opinion" ... again, I don't understand what your magic brain interprets here. It does, in fact, keep shoppers from going elsewhere. Sure, some call, I guess. Most folks probably don't and end up paying them. People should be able to look up a name from one site and purchase from another. It happens all the time. Heck, I've done it. If I were not knowledgeable of Network Solution's tactics, and went to buy up some names, I'd be extremely upset at their "safety measures." After all, if I was searching for a name or five, and decided, "gee, these prices seem steep, maybe I'll check GoDaddy" but COULD NOT buy from them after merely SEARCHING... that's just flat out wrong. This news is truly sad. That it has to come to a suit just to try to make things right again. That some people actually defend this practice as sane and reasonable, somehow doesn't surprise me. I see that they wish to stop scammers. Cool. But there has to be a better way. That's all. I just disagree that this is anything close to a good approach. Thanks for the compliment!
--
Saving the world keeps me busy. However, I find Earth very primitive from my home planet of Krypton.
-Supergirl | |
|
