|
to BrettD
Re: Warning: New Domainsatcost.ca opt-out privacy charge45 days is actually reasonable to me. There are likely many cases of expired credit cards that they encounter. If that happens they need to provide time to notify, get those people to respond, etc. It's far better to do a lead like that than to have it expire and have a pissed off customer who might be facing extra fees. 45 days is at the upper limit of what I'd accept though. |
|
|
It's the arbitrary nature of the changes combined with other ones (ie the opt-out domain privacy charge) that makes me think a lot less of them. |
|
graniterock |
said by graniterock:Namespro is appealing but their .com pricing post special pricing is a little high. So I wrote to them. Basically there promotional pricing which I though would disappear upon renewal is semi-permanent. Their letter to me: quote: Thank you for your inquiry.
Our promotional pricing of $12.88 for dot-com domains have actually been in place for more then 5 years. That is, this pricing is actually our regular pricing. We have not heard from our management that there are plans to revert the pricing back to $18.88.
Even if the pricing went back to $18.88, please feel free to simply quote this support ticket and we will be glad to provide you with the pricing of $12.88 / year anytime.
We hope the above information is helpful to you. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any other questions. We will be glad to answer them for you.
Sincerely, Namespro.ca Team Register with Confidence
Mass domain exodus to namespro to commence shortly. |
|
DavesnothereChange is NOT Necessarily Progress Premium Member join:2009-06-15 Canada |
said by graniterock:Our promotional pricing of $12.88 for dot-com domains have actually been in place for more then 5 years.... ....more THEN 5 years ? It's one thing for some posters here to use incorrect spelling/grammar, but a company which wants our business really should get this stuff right. |
|
sbrook Mod join:2001-12-14 Ottawa |
sbrook
Mod
2014-Jul-31 10:31 pm
Yup ... I had an advertising thing from a major company using an apostrophe s for a plural. The new use for the apostrophe is to warn of upcoming appearance of an 's' |
|
DavesnothereChange is NOT Necessarily Progress Premium Member join:2009-06-15 Canada |
I sometimes use an apostrophe when pluralizing an upper-case acronym, though I believe that doing so is still incorrect linguistic syntax. A recent example of this would be today, in the START forum, where I posted about the ATA's which are used for VoIP. Permalink : » VoIP announcement soon? |
|
|
to graniterock
said by graniterock:It's the arbitrary nature of the changes combined with other ones (ie the opt-out domain privacy charge) that makes me think a lot less of them. Lots of companies do arbitrary things, it sucks but I can deal with that - I don't like it one bit, but I can deal with it. This one was beyond that though - they are charging individuals for a service they not only don't need, but is already being provided (free of charge) as a standard policy by the registry. |
|
|
I'm not a big fan of opt-out for things that were previously free either (Opt-out... and it's free anyways). They take a double hit on this privacy rule change. The 45 day renewal just adds salt to the wound but alone likely wouldn't have caused me to squawk. |
|
elwoodbluesElwood Blues Premium Member join:2006-08-30 Somewhere in |
to TomsReports
My personal domain was expiring, and being busy I didn't check, I was shocked to get a call from a Go-Daddy rep asking if I was going to renew. Didn't try to sell me anything extra. |
|
dillyhammerSTART me up Premium Member join:2010-01-09 Scarborough, ON |
to JMJimmy
said by JMJimmy:This one was beyond that though - they are charging individuals for a service they not only don't need, but is already being provided (free of charge) as a standard policy by the registry. IMHO, they should be stripped of their CIRA registrar status. Mike |
|
|
said by dillyhammer:said by JMJimmy:This one was beyond that though - they are charging individuals for a service they not only don't need, but is already being provided (free of charge) as a standard policy by the registry. IMHO, they should be stripped of their CIRA registrar status. Mike That may happen, or at least a suspension on new registrations. Depends what the investigation turns up as to the extent/intent. |
|