Slashdot Log In
VeriSign Increases Domain Name Pricing
Posted by
Zonk
on Fri Apr 06, 2007 08:06 AM
from the because-it-can dept.
from the because-it-can dept.
BillGatesLoveChild writes "CNET reports VeriSign has made its move,
increasing domain name prices by 7%. From October 15 2007, .com domains will now cost $6.42 (up from $6) and .net domains $3.85 per annum.
ICANN had previously voted to support the increase. Despite annual income of $323.4M from .com domain names alone, VeriSign claims it needs the increase to provide
"a high level of security and reliability for .com." This increase comes in the face of complaints by customers, registrars and senators alike that VeriSign
is abusing its ICANN monopoly. Yet the furrowed brows and promises of senators of investigations have come to nothing, even though the only people seemingly in favor of the monopoly are ICANN and VeriSign. With complaints about the pair running back to 2002, what can we the public do to get our elected representatives to take the great domain name ripoff seriously?"
Related Stories
[+]
Technology: ICANN Set To Review Accreditation Policy 31 comments
tinkertim writes "ICANN is re-evaluating the scope and purpose of its accreditations, apparently sparked by the recent collapse of garage domain name registrar Registerfly. In a press release dated March 21, 2007, President and CEO of ICANN, Dr Paul Twomey is quoted as saying : 'What has happened to registrants with RegisterFly.com has made it clear there must be comprehensive review of the registrar accreditation process and the content of the RAA.' Dr. Twomey is blaming (in part) 'weaknesses in the RAA' for severe and undue hardships that many registrants encountered when trying to transfer names away from the failing registrar, Registerfly. Many new points to be discussed include allowing registrants to view the performance of registrars in an 'independent comparative way', as well as new language to allow ICANN to forcibly intercede in the face of wide spread, persistent and consistent complaints. 10 good points for discussion are listed by Dr. Twomey in the release, who invites all ICANN stakeholders to participate in re-evaluating the RAA. Registerfly, the catalyst for this re-write does not officially lose their accredited status until March 31, 2007, and continues to display the ICANN seal on their web site."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Voting Power (Score:5, Insightful)
This sounds a lot like the same thing, we have one company roughly running some kind of monopoly on something we all kind of take for granted but I'm sure the government and government organizations like ICANN see some pretty big tax kickbacks from Verisign. If another player were to enter the market and *gasp* actually turn it into a competition market, then these taxes might be questioned, challenged & lost! And the consumer might end up spending $2 a year instead of $6! Personally, I think the major companies are the consumers and since I don't ever see myself owning more than one domain name unless I start a company, I don't care. First off, don't call it a 'ripoff' because that makes it sound like $6 would break you. And if you're earning minimum wage in America, that's probably not the case. Instead, press this to your elected officials as a monopoly. And when they put on the show and get all huffy, actually make sure they follow through with it! If they don't, write about it and keep bitching. I think the problem is that not a lot of people own a domain that they have to register, I'm sure the vast majority are owned by companies or businesses and that means less votes. So it's kind of a lost cause because the politicians know that this way A) earns their government money and B) doesn't matter to many voters. But if you could get the elderly to care about this, that would all be null & void because there is no voting power like the aging baby boomers
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, it turns out that over the past 25 years oil companies paid more than $2.2 trillion in taxes (adjusted for inflation). That is more than three times what they earned in profits during the same period.
And by "paid," you mean, "passed along to consumers without benefit of KY."
Corporations exist to pass costs to customers and profits to the owners. The American public has paid $2.2 trillion so that the Exxonmobil fatcats could walk away with gold in their pockets. Similarly, the American public's
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Source?
Also, gross profit? Net profit? US profit? Worldwide?
Keep in mind that corporations are taxed differently than individuals, hugely profitable ones more so.
Never mind the indirect subsidies the oil industry gets, as well as the indirect costs born by the public (pollution, etc) that aren't fac
Re: (Score:2)
> whatever happened with those congressional hearings
> about an $8 billion dollar profit for a single quarter?
> Well, it turns out that over the past 25 years oil companies
> paid more than $2.2 trillion in taxes (adjusted for inflation).
> That is more than three times what they earned in profits during
> the same period.
Wow! It sounds like ExxonMobil is on the verge of bankruptcy! That is, if they are really paying more in taxes than
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
There are currently, roughly, 65 Million registered domains. A 7% increase in the cost of those domains implies that Verisign is going to rake in an extra $4.5 million per year. Where, exactly, do you think that money is going to come from?
Listen, I'm not arguing that we're all going to be out on the street next year because of an increase like this. I'm just saying its not "just an
Re: (Score:2)
The average consumer isn't going to lose even a penny over this.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I suspect you're the one in need of an Economics 101 refresher. It's a fixed cost and hence doesn't affect "EVERYTHING", is is amortised across everything.
Because Amazon has to pay an extra 7% on their $10 dom
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, Amazon could use this matter as an excuse to rise the price of everything 7%, trusting that the average American is not smart enough to recognize the bullshit, and therefore increase its profit margins.
Re: (Score:2)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hyperbole/ [reference.com]
I knew I was exaggerating; I admitted it in my post. It still goes to the point though, that a 7% raise in the cost of a such a base unit of a economy has fair and wide-reaching effects.
Re: (Score:2)
Ripoff? (Score:5, Insightful)
Cry me a river.
This is ONLY a concern to the people interested in owning thousands of names.
Personally we should go back to $100 with a money pot that reinvest $90 of that to infrastructure or something of the sort.
Re:Ripoff? (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree. This increase will not harm people like you and me who own one or two domain names. It will however harm people who buy domains in bulk and do not make use of them. Even worse they try to sell them to you at much higher prices.
The bottom line: This increase is good for consumers, bad for domain sharks.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
1-5 domains at $5 each
5-20 domains at $50 for each above 5
20-80 domains at $500 for each above 20
80-320 domains at $5,000 for each above 80
320-1280 domains at $50,000 for each above 320
1280+ domains at $500,000 for each above 1280
I don't know the exact numbers but I think this illustrates the point.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Domain squatting is an utterly vile practice, and anything that drives even a few of them out of business is OK by me.
(It also pisses off the spammers, and it's neck-and-ne
Re: (Score:2)
Why?
They buy domains for $6 and as long as each name makes more than $6 they're happy. Now each domain
has to make 40 cents more.
Man. I bet they're all out of business overnight. Not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Problem is that the money rarely goes where you think it's going. Too many people find ways to dip their hands into any revenue stream.
Re:Ripoff? (Score:4, Interesting)
Problem is that the money rarely goes where you think it's going. Too many people find ways to dip their hands into any revenue stream."
Ah yes, the intellectual infrastruture fund.
Back when the NSF directed netsol to begin charging for domains (to be more clear, the NSF set the price, not netsol) one third of that $100 was set aside in a fund for "intellectual infrastructure". What is that? People. It was specifically meant to "keep the IETF process pure" - it was meant for workshops, paying for people to attend technical meetings that coiuld not otherwise afford to go and the like.
My source for this was NSF staffer Don Mitchell whose name you'll find on the early NSF/Netsol contracts.
People from all over the world paid into this fund for years.
What happened to it? As a result of lobbying the early ICANN wonks got congress to give it to their pet projects - internet2 which was of benefet only to US universities.
So lets not do that again shall we?
Parent
Re:Ripoff? (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Same here.
I have maybe a dozen domains, most of which I've had for over a decade. I leave one or two at netsol and the rest are at 3 or 4 of the largest registrars. The netsol ones are the only ones I've never had trouble with.
I'm going to have to waste a few hours today unfucking a problem with enom that cannot be addressed with their website that is a 5 minute process to fix with n
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty much says it all.
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Honestly, probably not much. We live in the decade of the Bush Administration, Halliburton, Iraq, the Patriot Act
What signifigence? (Score:2)
I'd vote against any representative that decided to waste any time on this.
Re: (Score:2)
They are, after all, managing a public resource of global proportions. So some accountability would be in order. And no I didn't read the fucking article.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>incessant repetition of Democratic Party talking points on Slashdot
Well, to be honest, the top post started it by talking about ExxonMobil ... which AFAIK does not do domain names.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Priorities (Score:5, Insightful)
A friend once mentioned that it is easier for people to pay indirect costs no matter how much they are than to fathom a direct cost. Maybe it's just this aspect of mental laziness that is the cause. Or possibly it is an excuse to vent or a combination of both.
I wish domains were more expensive (Score:5, Insightful)
I was hosting my friend's site for 2 or 3 years. Completely irrelevant domain name (htskrotownik.org) which will never be of any use to anyone. It got PageRank 1 (could be 2 before). Anyways, he abandoned the site and didn't renew the domain. It was picked up in no time after it was back on the market and is happily parked ever since.
Get over it. (Score:3, Insightful)
Time to go for a flamebait moderation.
Just shut up and get over it.
This is the first price increase since 1999, at less than the rate of inflation, over a bit of pocket change. 42 cents? I've likely got a hundred times that in loose pennies scattered around the house. If you've got a domain and it's not worth an extra four dimes and two pennies, then drop it because it wasn't worth jack in the first place. There are things worth complaining about and this isn't one of them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with monopolies is that they have no incentive to become more efficient.
Re: (Score:2)
Second, the lower price of storage and CPUs have very little effect when j
Re:Get over it. (Score:4, Insightful)
Would you be happy if your salary went down as fast as the cost of computer equipment? I know I wouldn't be thrilled. The things involved in the registering of a domain where the costs have gone down (i.e., computers) are only a minor component; the things involved where the costs have gone up (i.e., rent, power, or people--not only salaries, but overhead costs like health insurance) are a major component.
As far as economies of scale, it works for some things, not for others. Buying coal by the bargeload is more cost-effective than by 50-pound sacks; however, help-desk costs theoretically scale pretty much with the number of customers. (Actually, I'd expect the amount of hand-holding required to go up slightly faster than the number of customers, as the tech-savy were the early adopters so the clueful-to-clueless ratio can only get worse...)
Parent
abuse of domain names, and sliding pricing (Score:3, Interesting)
what can we the public do to get our elected representatives to take the great domain name ripoff seriously
Stop buying domain names. 90% of the people (who aren't domain squatters) who have them, don't need them.
Seriously. It used to be that people used (gasp) hostnames under domain names, and subdirectories under those.
I know people who have three domain names for different kinds of personal websites; one domain name has their "video blog", another has their homepage, a third has their "buisness"(hobby.)
Realistically, there should be quotas- individuals aren't really the problem, but cap them at perhaps a dozen domains, globally. Corporations? Maybe a few dozen, tops.
Or, perhaps an exponential pricing curve based on the global number of domains you have registered; individuals won't need more than a couple for almost any reason I can think of, and companies which are making money using domain names can afford to pay quite a bit more.
DNS will be faster, domain name squatting will cease to be a problem, etc.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
However, you're right about subdomains, directories, etc. Why does every movie need to have its own domain
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The biggest single reason to buy a domain name is to get control over your own email. I got my own domain name and web host and the $10/year and $10/month is more than worth the flexibility of having email addresses that I can create and destroy at will. Whenever I sign up for a mailing list or ecommerce site, I create a new email address and forward it to my main one. If I start getting spam, I can delete that email address. I haven't found a solution as convenient anywhere else.
So the solution isn't for
The grass can't be greener on BOTH sides... (Score:4, Insightful)
I vote they don't.
I thought.... (Score:4, Insightful)
I thought we wanted the government to quit trying to legislate the internet; now it seems we want them to go after VeriSign and ICANN? Which is it, do we want the government meddling with the internet or not?
Re: (Score:2)
Do Something While WeCANN (Score:3, Insightful)
YouCANNt (Score:2)
I would stake your life and mine that it will always be that way. They've funded it from the beginning and are never going to relinquish control to a bunch of furriners.
For better or worse it's predictable and there are worse things than the US congress as oversight which is the way it works now (ICANN --> DoC --> congress).
Up! Up! (Score:2)
It would harm spammers registering throw-away domains for each "marketing campaign".
Re: (Score:2)
Rubbish !
Considering that half the spam I get appears to come from my own domain through spoofing (and there is no reason to suspect the other 50% are genuine either), I don't think increasing the cost of domains will make any difference.
As I only pay around $10/year for my domains, and the current $ - £ exchange rate is ludicrously in my favour, I think