Slashdot Mirror
Network Solutions Opts Customer Into $1,850 Security Service
An anonymous reader writes "Brent Simmons has posted about a troubling email he received from Network Solutions. He registered two domains with them in the 1990s, and the domains remain registered today. Simmons just received an email informing him that he'd been opted into some kind of security service called Weblock, and that he would be billed $1,850 for the first year. Further, he would be billed $1,350 for every year after the first. Believing it to be a scam, he contacted the official Network Solutions account on Twitter. They said it was real. The email even said he couldn't opt out except by making a phone call."
Wow I am just utterly speechless...that a site could stay up for that long!
The continued production of sliced bread
Don't pay. When they try to do anything about it, sue.
So, I don't know about you, but this is straight up criminal behavior where I live.
Not shady, questionable, or dirty. Criminal.
In addition to ceasing business with this company I'd inform your credit card company. If you don't end up needing to dispute the charge, I bet lots of other people will be.
$2000 a month should get their attention, require a phone call and 1 months notice of termination, and a $2000 early termination fee
Free market, bitches! Suck it you socialist faggots!
Free market means exactly that - if the vendors do something despicable the customers stop doing business with them and choose other vendors who won't do similarly despicable things to them.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
anywhere else but in this persons claim.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
People have tried forcing people to buy their services before but you can't charge for a service someone didn't ask for. Well you can try but there is no legal power behind it. Things must be getting desperate over there.
Call collect.
way to lose customers. Unfortunately I fear these criminal tactics will earn them quite a bit of revenue nonetheless. I can imagine the rates on that phone number you need to call is ridiculous, or that there's no way to transfer a domain in under 2 weeks unless you pay extra, or some other genuinely American business practice like that.
Their letter says they want to charge him that much for adding security to -their- website. To prevent changes to their data. It doesn't add any value to his service at all. Just theirs. How do people live with themselves.
Businesses hate chargebacks, they cost them money. If you're ever in dispute about a credit card charge and you've given a company a fair chance to resolve it just call your credit card provider and dispute the charge.
So they made some shit up to regain them.
What else could it be? A wager with verisign to see who could be worse towards their customers and get away with it?
This type of thing is very prototypical for Network Solutions; what do expect from a company where every third and fourth word out their mouths is: "UP SELL!!"
UP SELL!!
UP SELL!!
They're just removing the middle man by requiring that the customer actually opt-in first. :D
Contact your credit card company and dispute the item. I've heard rumored that credit card companies tend to take the customer's side as a form of insurance against losing a customer.
In a truly free market, customers roped in this way would be free to simply not pay, tell the vendor to go to hell, and take his property (the domains) elsewhere.
Apparently NetworkSolutions is going to die soon. Sell Network Solutions. Sell sell sell!!!
Based on my reading it seems that they were merely outlining a new set of terms and conditions. Going forward, if you want to continue doing business with us, you'll have to either pay this amount for this new service of ours, or you'll have to call the phone number of our security team. By continuing to be our customer you accept these terms.
Many companies operate based on the above logic. By using their service, you're accepting their terms and conditions, whether you explicitly agreed to a contract or not. Often it is the case that a company reserves for itself the right to change their terms at any time.
In my opinion, it would be worthy of a lawsuit by the customer if the company had claimed that the customer retroactively accepted a service without ever having been able to learn about it.
Rather then deal with them, I would rather switch companies that handles the domain. Go with one that's won't try to do such a dickish move with billing. I personally prefer namecheap but I'm sure there are few good other ones, at least to the point where they won't auto opt in random crap for you. Of course, YMMV as this is the first I've heard of a registrar trying to pull this shit (heard plently of other annoying stuff though like crappy sign ups trying to make you opt into more things by making it unclear)
ACC in Australia would have a field day emptying this company's coffers with violation after violation...
In a free market there is no fraud.
Probably the best way to deal with scams like this is have your attorney send them an official (registered) letter stating that the service was not asked for and any attempt to charge the credit card will be considered fraud, theft, and will be prosecuted as such.
Silly boy, pay cash...no worries
We strongly encourage you to take advantage of this security program and register Certified Users before the program launch date...your credit card will be billed $1,850 for the first year of service on the date your program goes live
The email implies it's an opt out but, it's not clear to me that he'll actually be billed until he sets up the enhanced security. Regardless, I've avoided Network Solutions for a long, long time and would never consider doing business with them.
A free market for credit reporting agencies would select for those agencies which best differentiate between real and fraudulent claims :)
"Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
If the feature doesn't exist (which it probably does, considering a co-commenter noted the name is at least used in one of their official documents), then it merely turns into a story of network solutions' official twitter account (as pointed to from network solutions' website) stating that a document that would be completely false, is in fact completely authentic, and make it rather strange that they would tell the guy to contact them directly so that they could explain.
I'd love to read the explanation, regardless.
Credit reporting agencies aren't about reporting credit, they are gangs who job it is to record which of the peons isn't being compliant.
Suckers, just another worthless blogger baiting /. tards for hits. Wonder if he added additional advertising before posting this?
A couple years back, Network Solutions "opted me in" for automatic payment of all my domains via credit (debit) card. I didn't want this, as I don't habitually keep enough money in the account to cover random charges; I put in what's needed, when needed, and that's how I like to roll. There's an opt-out checkmark; but it doesn't work. You have to call and it tells you so. Then when you call, they say "oh, hey, for some reason this isn't working..." So since I couldn't turn it off, I just changed to an expired card. Then I get panicked form emails about how it won't charge, and I pay by paypal. That worked last year. THIS year, though, what happens is that the Paypal charge is now automatic -- by paying once, you're opting in (without recourse of course) to paying them via paypal automatically forever. I found that once you paid, Paypal (not Network Solutions, but Paypal) has a way to disable the "agreement" and get you back to payment only when you authorize it. Takes some menu mining, but it's there. Or at least it was a few months ago.
The only reason I continue to use Network Solutions is because over the years (and yes, some of my domains have been up since the 90's as well) I've watched other name registering outfits come and go, seen various name server problems, etc., and for all their horrifying business practices and high prices, my sites seem to always work, which is what I place the most emphasis on.
Interesting note: When the above happened, I submitted the story to slashdot. Initially, it got high ratings, and I thought for sure it would post. Then it disappeared. I mean literally -- I could no longer find it in the submissions cue. It disappeared from my profile, too. Older and newer submissions remain. I have no idea what that means, but I thought it was weird. No other story I have submitted has disappeared like that.
http://toolbar.netcraft.com/si... Unk, Unk, There's no name on it! (Tuco Benedicto)
Yeah, I recently had two domains I was planning on letting expire get auto renewed for 5 years for a total of ~$380. I went to check and they were set for auto renewal (I don't remember requesting that.) When I went to turn auto renewal off it stated that I had to call. It was a big PITA but after 20-30 minutes talking to the nice guy in India (naturally) I had my money back and auto renewal turned off. They're hoping people are unattentive. Not too cool.
...
Comcast (in most areas) is a government enforced monopoly. That's precisely the opposite of free market.
On the other hand, I pay $30 / month for unlimited everything, no contract, on my cell phone because that's a free market -
if Boost Mobile annoys me, I can switch to Virgin mobile ($35 no contract), Walmart Family mobile ($35 no contract), T-Mobile, Cricket, Sprint,AT&T, Metro PCS, etc. etc.
"Cable is a natural monopoly", some people say. It is, in precisely the same way that phone service is. It's "inefficient" to have redundant towers owned by different companies.
Yet, that's how you get consumer choice. "The government should own the cables and companies provide customer service", some say. Funny, that's almost exactly what happens in the free market, except without the government bureaucracy, and with actual competition. US wireless service has a couple of networks using competing technology, and many competing companies providing service over those networks. For example, I liked Sprint's network, but not their policies and attitude. With Boost, I can have the same Sprint network, but without the annoying nickel-and-dime policies, or service contracts. If I didn't like Boost's service, some Walmart Family Mobile phones also run on the same network. If I'd prefer a different network, several providers offer service on a different network.
That's the difference between a regulated monopoly (you can choose Comcast or Comcast) and unregulated competition (a dozen phone companies to choose from).
Then eventually one of those dozen or so phone companies buy a competitor... then a couple more... and you end up with an actual monopoly, because that's the best way to maximize your profits! the clients win, because they don't need to shop around, this is the best option ever!
The real solution for the "natural monopoly" is to have the infrastructure owned by the government, and providers buy service from there. It works great for mobile service in Europe (or did, until privatization took hold, and the assets were sold off below market, and the profits were lost and service got worse.
Learn to love Alaska
I just logged into my NetSol account for my two domains, and aside from the totally skeevy auto-renew forced on, and only removable with a phone call, I saw no trace of this.
It's worth noting that this action (auto-enroll and bill) is illegal in Canada. Each province/territory has its own consumer protection act that requires explicit opt-in for any new services that are provided to existing customers, in writing. You cannot auto-enroll people and require them to opt-out to not be charged.
Source (for Ontario, at least): http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/ht...
Non-legalese summary provided by the Ministry of Consumer Services of Ontario: http://www.sse.gov.on.ca/mcs/e...
I would guess someone offered the company a fair amount of money to have Brents domain names released and handed over. I'd seriously check if this message has been sent to all client of this "Network Solutions".
I'm pretty sure it is illegal. Would love to see the contract.
This on the surface reads like a scam by Network Solutions to grab domain names by threat of extortion.
First up, get a complaint registered at a Federal District Court.
Second, argue for a restraining order and cease/desist order against Network Solutions.
Network Solutions is banking that you will OPT OUT BY PHONE and give them the domains without any compensation.
In that case, you loose for sure. So fight.
Yes, a monopoly that they lobbied for.
Through what? Wishful thinking? Certainly not based on the hundreds of years of history of corporate behavior.
In a free market there is no fraud.
Fraud is illegal. In a free market, nothing is illegal. So yes, you're right. But so what?
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Having used many different companies like them because like many of you I had built a lot of websites for companies over the years. One of the lessons I've learned was never to do business with network solutions or godaddy. Network solutions is practically a scam by itself because their fees are outrageous. But then again, the fees are increasing everywhere including 1and1. They lock down your account and make it really hard to do anything with it or even transfer it to another company, it's annoying and can take many hours of your precious time to do and when you're being paid $80/hr at least for web dev, your client isn't very happy to give you that amount simply on transferring a domain but there's no choice because their hold times are ridiculous during work hours.
Godaddy though is a different breed of asshole. Many years ago they took my domains that were about to expire (in a month) and put them into "godaddy custody" (made that up but it felt that way) because someone else wanted to buy them on the godaddy network. I lost a few domains because of this and they refused to give them back. Thankfully they were just for fansites that I was slowly abandoning but it got sold for a few thousand dollars later on during an auction but I was a little pansy so I didn't do anything about it. Godaddy also overcharges on everything and don't add privacy protection for free. And if you ever lose your domain you'll have to participate in the auction because godaddy will either not enable auto-renew or enable it so be very careful on what is checked off for your account. I presume if they can make a pretty buck they won't enable auto-renew. But, mind you I lost 2 or 3 domains when auto-renew was enabled a month before it expired.
ICANN has rules for how accredited registrar must handle such things. They could be fined or have there accrediation pulled.
I hate to have to tell you this...Cellular Phones are ALSO a REGULATED MARKET.
Just try setting up your own towers, you're going to find something odd happens when those frequencies gets disrupted.
You're just happier with the regulations for Cell service operation than you are with Coaxial.
I have one domain hosted with Network Solutions. While they are more expensive than many others I've been pretty happy with the service I've received. I've never had problems with their website and I've always found it easy to navigate. As a consumer, I talk with my wallet since that is the only thing companies car about. I'll be moving my domain to another provider. It's sad when companies do stuff like this. How the hell does this stuff get approved?
I suspect that someone misplaced a comma :) Perhaps these values are $18.50 and $13.50 (of course then it'd have to be a decimal dot, but the developers that wrote this are probably outsourced :) ). It's difficult to understand how NS would expect this to fly under the radar (or fly at all) given the cost of similar services at other registrars. I mean, they are overpriced - but this is nuts.
"If it was revealed their sales staff ate human body parts and molested captive giant squid
Keep your cotton-pickin' hands off me and my configuration files!
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
The auto renews on my account are on, and to turn them off I have to call in.
Time to move the domain.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
FUCK YOU.
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
A public trust of some sort could work too.
That's what the government is supposed to be. Not a group of elite telling the plebes how to live.
Learn to love Alaska
In a true free market people will choose not to do business with a company that engages in fraudulent behavior, of course. They will fastidiously research the companies they enter relationships with to ensure that they are behaving in a moral manner. Just like how they will research their grocery store to ensure they store meat at a safe temperature, or the farm where the store gets said meat at to ensure the animals aren't being fed cancer-causing growth hormones.
IIRC, while congress talks about generalities, the actual laws are written by teams of lawyers. How many members of congress even read the entire law they are voting on, much less understand it?
The reprobates at Network Solutions re-enable auto renew every couple of months, forcing me to log in and turn it off again. Someone should write a Firefox add-on to do that automatically. The cretinous chimps have also been guessing the new expiration dates on expired credit cards in order to charge those auto renewals.
I find it funny how people think that once they earn more than $100,000/yr think they are untouchable. They never understand the reason why they were fired, why their kids can't get a job even after going to a good school with good grades, why things just don't go their way. And no laws were broken to accomplish it.
You should learn what libertarians actually believe. Punishing/preventing fraud is one of the few things we believe the government should be doing.
The government should exist to protect the citizens from outside threats (military) and from harming each other (police). These are things that libertarians believe in.
There are still laws in a society that has a free market. The free market is not anarchy. You might try reading once in a while.
Well, in the normal course of the business cycle you'll get many competitors when times are good and then the poorly run ones fail, or get acquired in the bad times, leaving just a handful. But absent barriers to entry (yay regulatory capture!), there will be a new crowd when the economy comes full circle, and one of the new guys often displaces an older firm when the next culling comes.
That's the normal way it's supposed to happen, if not ruined by bailouts or other government selection of winners. Lots of competition during the boom, a few survivors during the bust, and repeat.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Well said! It's quite sad how people naturally distinguish the two. This is the second time we've faced such corporate entanglement in government, and the second time we've had the government more interested in the "spoils of victory" than governing, but it's the first time we have both at once. I really hope we can avoid the violence that accompanied the last cycle, as I doubt we have a Chester A. Arthur out there man enough to step up.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
For a really important domain, there's MarkMonitor. Their real business is searching for trademark infringement, but they're also a domain registrar. A typical MarkMonitor domain is "cbs.com". If you have to ask how much their domain registration costs, you can't afford it. If anything goes wrong with a MarkMonitor domain, alarms go off and technicians and lawyers swing into action to get it fixed immediately.
Network Solutions seems to be trying to move into that territory. But they're botching the job.
The real solution for the "natural monopoly" is to have the infrastructure owned by the government, and providers buy service from there. It works great for mobile service in Europe (or did, until privatization took hold, and the assets were sold off below market, and the profits were lost and service got worse.
It doesn't even have to be the government, rather it's an entity that has no commercial interests in the infrastructure they're providing. This can be done by making the wholesale provider a completely separate corporate entity from retail providers (and preventing the wholesale provider from being a retail provider).
A government service like a infrastructure provider can be corporatised and run on it's own $0 profit mandate without govt interference. They only have to make enough to meet costs (incl. expansion costs).
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Who in their right mind still uses Network Solutions?
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
The problem is not the one man to step up; but the many men and women to stand behind him.
That's you general public. Take the responsibility.
In a free market, nothing is illegal.
Huh?
The free market is built on the principles of property ownership and the transfer of ownership. At the same time, those principles are foundational to government. In a free market, it is illegal to steal, which contradicts your statement.
So I would say that one of the primary roles of government is to enable the free market.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
Theft != Fraud.
Fraud, as defined in our current market, a true free market would view as creative ways to get individuals to voluntarily part with their property.
I guess I am spoiled. I grew up in Conservative Texas, where the communist TXU provided power, cheaper and more reliably than anywhere else in the US. Though power in TX went to shit when they privatized. And I got my water from Dallas Water Utilities, again, one of the best water companies in the country (owned by the City of Dallas). If it was government owned, it was superior. When they moved to private, the prices went up and service got worse.
And the funny thing looking back is "conservative" Texas had more of the government owned utilities. And they were good.
Private companies that had capped profits is what brought us AT&T and the insurance industry.
Learn to love Alaska
Our government is so far from what it should be that it confuses people as to what a government is/should be.
How do we reset it without bloodshed?
Learn to love Alaska
That's total bullshit. When the infrastructure was owned by the government it would take 6-8 weeks just to get a phone line. Everything took forever and was hyper expensive.
> I have no idea what that means, but I thought it was weird. No other story I have submitted has disappeared like that.
It probably means:
DELETE FORM stories WHERE id = ?; -- NetSol told us so
That your all being punked.
I guess I am spoiled. I grew up in Conservative Texas, where the communist TXU provided power, cheaper and more reliably than anywhere else in the US. Though power in TX went to shit when they privatized.
Same story with Australian states that went the same way. I'm in one of the lucky states where the power distribution utility was corpratised, so no longer under direct govt control but still has no profit motive. States that went for full privatisation ended up with horrible power bills.
Private companies that had capped profits is what brought us AT&T and the insurance industry.
Corpratised entities aren't technically private. They're more like non-profit organisations that have to provide a service. At the very worst, they have to turn over their profit to the government.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
The real solution for the "natural monopoly" is to have the infrastructure owned by the government, and providers buy service from there.
Yes, everyone learns that in economics 101. By the time people get to actually make the rules, everyone seems to have forgotten it. Quite an interesting phenomenon, if you're a psychologist.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Stop using federal reserve notes.
That's the only way.
How could you possibly not realize that now's a good time to invest in Web.com Group inc?
*Using 2009 statistics of 6.6M domains
What kind of legislation is that, under which such behaviour is considered legal?
I once used Network Solutions for my domain business but after a snafu on their part where I lost a domain for a couple years, switched to directnic.com. I pay the extra US$5 for Direct Privacy, which does all those things Network Solutions scam, er real email says it does. I don't understand why people are paying so much for a simple domain name every year either.
Agrisea Tsunami - Epyc Servers... https://agrisea.net/products
It's quite sad how people naturally distinguish the two. This is the second time we've faced such corporate entanglement in government, and the second time we've had the government more interested in the "spoils of victory" than governing, but it's the first time we have both at once.
I find your comment extremely interesting, however, I have difficulties in understanding the events that you have mentioned.
Would you kindly elaborate, or at least, give us a pointer or two, on the events ?
Many thanks in advance !
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Our government is so far from what it should be that it confuses people as to what a government is/should be
This I don't understand.
Aren't the people supposed to be the real "BOSS" of the government ?
How can the "BOSS" play the role of the "BOSS" if the "BOSS" is him/herself confused ?
I was not born in America, but I did study a lot about America, and although I know that I am far from being an expert on democracy / governance and all that, at the very least I do understand which roles a government should play, which it shouldn't.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
I believe this is know as Extortion
This works well when there are multiple competing entities however if you have one wholesale provider then they have no reason to invest in upgrades or cut prices they charge. We have a system like this in the UK where BT wholesale manages the infrastructure and must allow anyone to use it at the same rate. The government heavily regulates both what they do and how much they can charge. There is also some limited market competition across large parts of the UK from a cable provider. The situation works but it's hard to say whether it is better than a fully government controlled infrastructure. Theoretically the lack of a profit motive would mean that they could drop prices or invest more in the best case, however it could also mean that they were wasteful because they have less direct motivation to control costs.
I think your 'free market' will never come to be, human behavior works against such markets.
Now that i think about it, your 'free market' is so vague and full of fantasy that anyone could apply it to what they consider 'free market'. Of course that itself is a free market, let everyone do anything, but of course human behavior will work against that and what ends up being a free market one day will end up being a monopoly the next. Free market needs government intervention, but thats not a free market....and so we come full circle.
In the end im not sure if you are being sarcastic or real, because frankly neither would surprise me and this could go either way, but the idea of a true free market is simply a impossibility.
Nonsense. You may have some weird notion that a 'true' free market doesn't include the notion of fraud but that doesn't make it so. Restricting fraud has no more relevance to whether a market is free or not than restricting theft does.
Nonsense. You may have some weird notion that a 'true' free market doesn't include the notion of fraud but that doesn't make it so. Restricting fraud has no more relevance to whether a market is free or not than restricting theft does.
A "true" free market is an unrestricted one where the market decides what it can support. The market we exist in is not a free market as there are restrictions, limitations on behaviours, subsidies and such.
I am currently in the process of moving over 100 domains away from NetSol to Hover. I'd used NetSol since I started getting domains in the 90s, but it has changed from a trusted institution on the web into a scam. Everything is an up sell, and everything is designed to confuse you into buying things you don't need. One personal example. Last year I set up a client on a basic WordPress account, but later wanted to move the domain. They would not let us access the .db file until we upgraded the account. They wouldn't give us our own data!
So now I am going to through the multi-stage process of moving all these domains, waiting days for each authorization code. These guys are crooks, so stay the fuck away from ever doing business with them. And if you have domains there, run away!!!
Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a difficult battle. - Plato
The real solution for the "natural monopoly" is to have the infrastructure owned by the government, and providers buy service from there.
I'm fond of local cooperatives. Not technically government, but owned by the customers, so they're beholden to them.
I don't read AC A human right
In a free market you would be able to choose to get your credit scored by a company which does not mark down your score in response to non-payment of unsolicited demands.
The only reason I continue to use Network Solutions is because over the years (and yes, some of my domains have been up since the 90's as well) I've watched other name registering outfits come and go, seen various name server problems, etc., and for all their horrifying business practices and high prices, my sites seem to always work, which is what I place the most emphasis on.
EasyDNS has been around since 1998. Happy customer with them since 2001.
They also don't back down easily and will tell the police to go fuck themselves:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/10/09/plods_plonk_takedown_notice_on_easydns/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/10/11/london_cops_leads_global_push_to_make_pirates_vanish/
They're in Toronto, Canada (as am I), so depending on where you are, they aren't under the jurisdiction of some of the more dumb laws where your domains can be taken away.
Again: happy customer; no other connection.
The real solution for the "natural monopoly" is to have the infrastructure owned by the government, and providers buy service from there. It works great for mobile service in Europe (or did, until privatization took hold, and the assets were sold off below market, and the profits were lost and service got worse.
It doesn't even have to be the government, rather it's an entity that has no commercial interests in the infrastructure they're providing.
As an example: in Canada the air traffic control system is run by NavCanada, a non-profit. They charge fees but only to cover their costs (a modest profit is authorized, but it must be put in the bank and next year's fees have to be reset if it's too large).
The board is made up of folks from government, airlines, airports, a person or two representing the union of controllers. Basically everyone who has skin in the proverbial game.
In a free market there is no fraud.
Fraud is illegal. In a free market, nothing is illegal. So yes, you're right. But so what?
In a free market where "nothing is illegal", a company committing large scale fraud would likely have their directors shot or offices firebombed...
http://blog.nexusuk.org
Since they are reportedly only sending these To the top 1% of web.com sites by traffic, PERHAPS the purpose of this letter, is to intentionally persuade customers with "high-risk" domains, to switch registrars, and reduce future embarrassments for the registrar?
Additional security checks, such as telephone callback for unlocking or changes..... are available from other registrars, and can be added.... such that the total cost of domain registration, is still less than netsol's.
a phone call the nsa listens too to know your voice
Theft is legal I see it everywhere.
Since the charge was refused by the customer, taking it anyway is unauthorized.
A mugger isn't authorized for access to your wallet just because you hand it over.
You should, if you're telling the bank to refuse debits from a company, also tell the company beforehand, so that they know it's unauthorized too, then it becomes fraud if they then get the money out before you have a chance to get the bank to change.
But, what will I use to buy my bitcoins?
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
EU law prohibits Opt-in and enforces Opt-out only
I know Yanks equate Socialism to Communism (incorrectly) but hey, we seem to be better off in many ways. Can't be all that bad now can it , considering the Capatilist alternative.
In a true free market people will choose not to do business with a company that engages in fraudulent behavior, of course.
And do what? Move to the other corporations who are colluding with the first one? Oh what grand choices!
How cute. Except that that credit agency will simply be ignored by the corporations who are colluding with the corrupt agency. And there will be nothing you can do to stop that. What you claim seems to come from someone completely ignorant to the history of corporations.
I hope Simmons is consulting with an attorney to consider his options. It might also be worth a criminal complaint.
I'm surprised anyone uses Network Solutions. I have used internet.bs (no BS) for many years without issues.
Sometimes I have trouble telling if people are just trolling about libertarianism, or if they actually believe the words coming out of their fingers. The credit reporting agencies are far enough oft of the public eye, that there's basically nothing the free market can do to them,
Is 1563649 a prime number?
You should have seen the look on my realtor's face when I started going through the contract line by line, page by page.
And actually, you're still wrong. When I say informed, I mean it. I'm fully aware that I, much less the average person, can only understand so much, have so much time to go through fine print. As such when it comes to individuals I place a great deal of weight on what I call 'the standard contract'. For a retail store, for example, the 'standard contract' for purchasing would include things like a 30 day return policy on all goods. Don't want to offer a 30 day warranty? You're going to have to show that customers have adequate notification of the variance.
I know full well that NS is probably basing doing this on some clause in their terms of use - possibly terms introduced a while back in one of those 'agree or no longer do business with us' emails. I don't give a hoot because, as you say, it's only weirdos like me that actually read the things.
I don't read AC A human right
Did you bother reading the terms before you checked the box "I agree" and submit?
If you didn't, you probably fit right in with the politicians who have to pass laws so we can see what's in them.
This is kind of like pulling an Obama.
Obama: "I didn't know"
Public: "Didn't you read the bill before you signed it?"
Obama: "That's a politician's job! They didn't have your best interest at heart and it's the Republicans."
Public: "So what you're saying is you have no duty to the people, right?"
Obama: "Look, there are problems...."
Public: "No! Quit squirming the issue. You didn't read it you dumb-fuck!"
Obama: "I'll just have Jay Carney talk to you guys. I don't want to. I'm going back to my room to play with the dog."
It doesn't even have to be the government, rather it's an entity that has no commercial interests in the infrastructure they're providing. This can be done by making the wholesale provider a completely separate corporate entity from retail providers (and preventing the wholesale provider from being a retail provider).
Exactly... Could be the government or private company, but we just need a law that says no single entity (or parent, sibling or subsidiary entity) can own more than one of physical infrastructure, connectivity, or content generation.
You lack basic comprehension of Libertarianism, free markets, and socialism.
You fail on all counts.
Coops are technially government. A group of people who agree to a social contract to operate under. It's only "not a governemnt" because the Republicans (members of the "government") have sold the idea that the government is evil, and we need to give them more power so they can fix it with an even bigger government).
Learn to love Alaska
I remember from Econ 101 that a "regulated industry" is the preferred way because capitalism deems the profits should be private, and the risk public.
Learn to love Alaska
Bitcoin isn't a long term or even short term solution. The same thing you use to buy U.S. dollars.
And then the industry will cry because legislation will have to be made. They will say Regulations are hampering our ability to provide a low cost, high profit product too many regulations. We will need top bring in foreign workers and move our production offshore.
Jack of all trades,master of none
You must be one of those mouth breathing idiots that prides himself on voting for the lesser of two evils, and believes that the free market means you can kill your neighbor and take his stuff.
Pretty sure getting shot at in trenches originated in Europe...
Is anyone else bothered that PayPal allows automatic renewal without my entering my PayPal password?
Is there any way to block this type of automatic payment from my PayPal account?
I had an experience with a gym around the same time as that CPA came out in 2002 so it may have predated it slightly. Went to a gym for a 3 month stint as part of a special. Decided not to continue. Found out 9 months later they were still charging me, and had been since my 3 months. Contacted gym who said that I was automatically signed up for, well forever apparently. Said I had to have canceled by sending in a written request (had I even known about it). Did some research, at the time it was the "Prepaid Services Act" that regulated this function. Looking on the BBB, the primary violators at the time were pretty much all scamy gyms. I read up on the act, and had several meetings with gym management and finally owner. They said I had a contract. I asked to see my contract. They delayed. Then said it was lost. I then informed them that they have been illegally removing funds from my account without a contract in contravention of the PSA with fines of 50,000$, and asked to speak with the owner (unavailable). I said I would be in the following week I would expect a check for all the funds, or I would take them to court.
There was an envelope waiting for me when I returned.
Also even after the CPA came out, while the 10 day cooling off period was useful, it still left a lot of scamy companies a lot of leeway. All those energy distribution companies for example. They had to notify you, but they would auto renew you, and it was set that way by default. To stop, they made it very hard to do so, again a written letter via registered mail. Even after that they would try to contact you and get you to change your mind, or even after to sign you up again. To which my response was "REALLY!??!".
In a more recent example are all the new water heater companies. I got suckered into one (sales outright lied, said term was 5 years), however did use the 10 day cooling off period. However the reason I did was that the contract you signed had a term of "for the life of the product" which could be 40 years, and the conditions (i.e. how much you pay) could be amended on notification (which you know would be every year). Again, even with the 10 day language, I had to given a written response via registered letter (also emailed and faxed them to be sure)...
Anyway special place in hell for all those jerks.
Cooperatives have a long history - farmer's cooperatives, for example. They're business contracts more than social contracts, and very much predate the republican party. Heck, USAA originated as a cooperative because army officers couldn't otherwise get auto insurance.
So, nice bit of conspiracy theory, but pretty much completely untrue.
I don't read AC A human right
The current take on coops by the Republicans is not colored by the fact they pre-date the Republican party. And yes, a large number of companies started as coops. Some are coops without members knowing. And something like a homeowners association is a social-contract coop-like thing.
Learn to love Alaska
Corpratised entities aren't technically private. They're more like non-profit organisations that have to provide a service. At the very worst, they have to turn over their profit to the government.
There is a difference between government-owned corporations (in the US, things like the US Post Office, or ABC, NBN, or Post in OZ), and a government sanctioned private company with guaranteed profits and legal protections (AT&T, insurance). AT&T (from early 1900s to 1970) was a privately held company with privatized profits and guaranteed profit and government funding (USF and other funds paid directly to a private company). The service was worse and prices much higher than post 1996 deregulation, but the additional rounds of deregulation have allowed more predatory practices to succeed (net neutrality being a back-lash to companies harming their customers).
Learn to love Alaska
And the fourth largest dairy company in the world, Fonterra, is actually nothing more than a massive farmer's co-operative. Although as a New Zealander, it almost is the government.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Network Solutions has said it won't charge customers automatically after all:
http://domainnamewire.com/2014/01/22/web-com-weblock-program-will-be-opt-in-not-opt-out/
these guys would already be taken away in chains, as this constitutes attempted fraud. Any court in Germany would shoot down this silly contract on the first day in court and award damages to the offended users.
What is wrong with those people ?
I find it funny how people think that once they earn more than $100,000/yr think they are untouchable. They never understand the reason why they were fired, why their kids can't get a job even after going to a good school with good grades, why things just don't go their way. And no laws were broken to accomplish it.
It's interesting to see someone lack clarity and lose the ability to have any consistency in their thought when they become overwhelmed with fear.
lol spoken like a true little bitch
lolz spoken from its heart like a draft exempt parentally financed party boy
Did you not read that I specifically didn't quote the part about fraud? Perhaps because that's not what my argument was focused on?
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
Dear Sir,
Many thanks for the much valuable and most enlightening lessons !
How I hope /. has more people like you so that we can benefit from your wisdom !!
Thanks again !!!
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
And something like a homeowners association is a social-contract coop-like thing.
HOAs might be more social in nature, but traditional coops like USAA, utilities, and farmer ones are pretty much pure business. That's why I said 'more' rather than 'instead'. Nearly everything is a mix of both anyways. Farmers have the right to withdraw from coops, I don't have to do business with USAA, etc...
Indeed, HOAs are much closer to being governments than traditional coops. Which leads to why your comparison/republican attack rant is still a failure becuase Cooperatives are explicitly NOT governments - they generally lack the power to fine, enforce law, etc... Well, short of 'Pay us X or we won't do business with you', but that's a pretty standard power for business to have anyways.
Other than that, your rant about the republican party still
I don't read AC A human right
The real solution for the "natural monopoly" is to have the infrastructure owned by the government
Works fine for highways and truckers.
Juat because monetary policy is targeted at good profits for Fonterra, screwing the average citizen, and the "primary industry" minister is the Minister of Fonterra Interests doesn't mean there is any relation between Fonterra and the Government.
Learn to love Alaska
Good answer.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
I just have to be cryptic when people ask on here where I moved that's better than the US. I don't want any more of those damned Americans moving here.
The US immigration policy is "my family's here now, time to close the borders". Isn't it about time for that protectionism in NZ? Key went to England and was told "no, we won't let Kiwis in any easier than anyone else, we have to close our borders because of all the EU citizens that come here to work for a season, then go back home." Or Australia where Kiwis are no longer residents, but instead get to stay, but will never get benefits like flood relief or earthquake relief, all to make sure no kiwis get on the dole.
Learn to love Alaska
In other news - someone is still dumb enough to use Network Solutions.