VeriSign Jacks Up .com, .net Prices To the Max 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."
Re:And? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:And? (Score:3, Informative)
Well, in Australia (Score:5, Informative)
Re:And? (Score:3, Informative)
How soon people forget... (Score:2, Informative)
The contract does not end in 2012 (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:And? (Score:3, Informative)
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:Well, in Australia (Score:3, Informative)
$100 is a bit of an exaggeration. I paid $70 for two years and registered a
You just have to shop around.
Read the Contract (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/net/ [icann.org]
http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/com/ [icann.org]
Re:Well, in Australia (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Will this make spamsites unprofitable? (Score:4, Informative)
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:How soon people forget... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Will this make spamsites unprofitable? (Score:5, Informative)
The first one is obviously false. There are newsletters I want, and automated alerts, like a bill becoming due. And I want to continue to receive these even if the sending company changes the sender address.
The second is false too. I can quite well imagine e-mails with something important to the recipient and not the sender, and if the sender gets a reply back asking them to identify themselves, they won't follow up. Because it wasn't important to them. No matter how important it might have been for the recipient.
An example: If I had tickets to a concert I can't go to after all, and knowing you're a fan, I sent you an e-mail offering them to you. If I got a reply back saying I need to identify myself as a human, I'd mutter "and the horse you rode in on", and either give the tickets to someone else or simply throw them away.
Re:The USA: Land of Competition (Score:4, Informative)
Things have changed: they broke up Standard Oil and AT & T, but they have not broken up Microsoft, and current regulation of telecoms is pretty poor.
It is not just a US problem either. "Business friendly" governments and regulators all over the world are prepared to accept fairly weak arguments for tolerating monopolies, and seem to be quite happy to regard oligopoly [moneyterms.co.uk] as an adequate level of competition.
Re:Will this make spamsites unprofitable? (Score:5, Informative)
Sometimes an email may be sent from alternate or temporary accounts. This is more often the case when something is urgent.
Also my mom won't react to such an email. Most people assume that an email sent is an email sent, and any emails requesting some further action are always going to have problems.
Re:Will this make spamsites unprofitable? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Will this make spamsites unprofitable? (Score:2, Informative)
I am an off-site mail filterer [mail-scanning.com], and our stats show that 99% of incoming mail is spam.