151–160 of 253 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/bankinforeg/regecg.htm They would be in violation of this above Regulation for banking. Chargeback through your bank would be the quickest way to both get your funds back and penalize them. If you want to make it a federal case that is also an option.
Is there any chance that they can weasel their way out of this by having their lawyers point to fine print?
Disclaimer - I hate NetSol with passion. Correct me if I'm wrong but don't the following excerpts imply that you need to opt-in first? "In addition WebLock enrolled customers will have access to a 24/7 NOC and rapid response team in the event of any security issues." "We strongly encourage you to take advantage of this security program and register Certified Users before the program launch date. Thank you for helping…
"Starting 9:00 AM EST on 2/4/2014 all of your domains will be protected via our WebLock Program. In order to make changes to your Domain Name's configuration settings you must be pre-registered as a Certified User. [...] To establish Certified Users and pre-register authorized phone numbers and email addresses please call 1-888-642-0265 Monday to Friday between 8:00AM and 5:00PM EST. Please make sure to establish Certified Users with authorized phone numbers and email addresses before launch date. To establish Certified Users and pre-register authorized phone numbers and email addresses please call 1-888-642-0265 Monday to Friday between 8:00AM and 5:00PM EST. Please make sure to establish Certified Users with authorized phone numbers and email addresses before launch date. [...] To help recapture the costs of maintaining this extra level of security for your account, your credit card will be billed $1,850 for the first year of service on the date your program goes live. After that you will be billed $1,350 on every subsequent year from that date. If you wish to opt out of this program you may do so by calling us at 1-888-642-0265."
That makes it very clear. As of 2/4/2014 his domains WILL be protected, any changes will require him to be registed as a Certified User, that will require a call, and he better make sure to register as a Certified User before the launch date (which is given; 2/4/2014). And after this launch date he will be billed $1,850, and he has to call in order to opt out of the program. There is no ambiguity in any of this. He WILL be protected, he WILL need to be a certified user, they WILL charge his card, and he WILL need to opt out if he chooses.
The only ambiguous phrase is this, right at the end:
"We strongly encourage you to take advantage of this security program and register Certified Users before the program launch date. "
Now, you could interpret that to mean "if you don't register Certified Users you will not be protected". But you could also interpret that to mean "if you don't register Certified Users you'll be fucked, because your domain will be protected anyhow but you can't make changes". So it's ambigious. But the proceeding paragraphs explicitly state that you will be protected anyhow but can't make changes, so I think that, in contet, it clearly means that the program is opt-out, not opt-in.
More charitably, it's possible NetSol managed to copy-paste a few paragraphs from the "thanks for opting in, your protections start {{ date }}" email into their "have you considered opting in, it's awesome" email; the general rambling and incoherent nature of the email would certainly support this. But while we can guess as to what insanity led them to send the email, and if they actually meant it, I maintain that the plain meaning of the email is jut what it said: That protection WILL start on 2/4/2014, unless he calls to stop it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AT&T has recently tried to charge me a leasing fee for my U-verse router. I called in and explained to the person on the phone that I own the router, and referred him to my first months statement were it specifically states that I paid $160+ for the router. The man on the phone told me that their policy has changed, and they now charge leasing fees to everyone who does NOT own their own equipment. I explained to the…
What is it with telecoms? I have had issues like this too but in New Zealand. I actually beg them not to transfer me to their fault team in Manilla every time they decide its a fault I have. If I have to speak to Peachy, Pricilla or Daisy again I'll scream. I eventually found that all Telecoms here have their accounts departments within the country. So any issues I have I choose accounts to talk to. The locals have a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AT&T has recently tried to charge me a leasing fee for my U-verse router. I called in and explained to the person on the phone that I own the router, and referred him to my first months statement were it specifically states that I paid $160+ for the router. The man on the phone told me that their policy has changed, and they now charge leasing fees to everyone who does NOT own their own equipment. I explained to the…
I had this issue with Comcast. I didn't even buy the modem from them; I bought it from Staples, and yet, a year after I'd been with them, they decided to start trying to tack on a modem rental fee. When I talked to their 'executive' customer service (whatever it is, the people who actually can do anything), they told me to -send them a receipt-. Are you kidding me? Why don't -you- prove that -you- own it? Where's -yo…
This is my nightmare story with Network Solutions. We were running our business on a domain with Register.com back in ~2002. Network Solutions sent a "bill" for renewal, which our office manager paid without telling anyone. That triggered a transfer from register.com to Network Solutions, blasting all our DNS entries along the way. I was at E3 in Los Angeles and got the call that the site was down, and no email was c…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/bankinforeg/regecg.htm They would be in violation of this above Regulation for banking. Chargeback through your bank would be the quickest way to both get your funds back and penalize them. If you want to make it a federal case that is also an option.
Is there any chance that they can weasel their way out of this by having their lawyers point to fine print?
Their service agreement reads that they have the right to "change part of the Services provided under this Agreement at any time" in section 12. No doubt they're hoping that they'll be able to defend the charge based largely on this.
But there's nothing to support the idea that the "Weblock Program" is a modification of the contracted services (domain registration) instead of a separate program. A couple glaringly obvious problems:
First, the original email stated that the customer "will be protected via our WebLock Program," implying a distinction from the original services. Then there's the subject line, "Your domain is being enrolled in the WebLock Security Program," which is a fairly explicit assertion of the same.
Second, you have the addition of Schedule II to the Service Agreement clearly stating that it's a separate service and not simply a change to the existing ones offered.
In short, they don't really have any magical fine print to even point to (and that's before you start interpreting and responding to them) that can justify this new charge.
But even if they somehow prevailed on the merits of any potential contractual claims, they're still going to get chewed up by their card processor as there isn't a merchant agreement in the world that can justify this behavior.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
CEO appears not to have a linkedin page (really?) You shouldn't be surprised when people choose not to have LinkedIn profiles. I quit LinkedIn because they were spamming me. They were also selling spamming privileges (or InMail) to anyone willing to pay. The user experience is below average, the groups are pathetic, and recommendations have become essentially worthless. So really, having a LinkedIn profile isn't obli…
I commented a while back on LinkedIn spam, and got the distinct feeling I was an odd one out here (and that it was up to me to filter their crap out). Their service provided me with the contact details of someone who damaged my car - and calling his employer got things rolling fast after weeks on inaction. However the LinkedIn spam still tracks me down occasionally months after fleeing the service.
I've just stopped caring what people think anymore. It's become a 'the blind leading the blind' sort of thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Linkedin CEO appears not to have a linkedin page (really?) CFO: www.linkedin.com/pub/kevin-carney/a/494/713 CPO: www.linkedin.com/pub/roseann-duran/0/66a/971 ... it goes on https://www.web.com/aboutus/leadership.aspx they're publicly traded: http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=WWWW Would be interesting if Yahoo ran this on their finance news site.
CEO appears not to have a linkedin page (really?) You shouldn't be surprised when people choose not to have LinkedIn profiles. I quit LinkedIn because they were spamming me. They were also selling spamming privileges (or InMail) to anyone willing to pay. The user experience is below average, the groups are pathetic, and recommendations have become essentially worthless. So really, having a LinkedIn profile isn't obli…
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Network+Solutions+and+America+...
Relevant part:
>>Network Solutions, Inc. (NASDAQ: NSOL), the world's leading registrar of domain names with more than 10 million registrations, and America Online, Inc. (NYSE: AOL), the world's leading interactive services company, today announced a multi-year, multi-million dollar strategic marketing alliance to offer Network Solutions' (NSI) domain name registration and value-added services globally across America Online, Inc. brands, making it easier and more convenient than ever for businesses and consumers to create an online presence.
Interestingly, I ran across what I thought was a great anecdote about Jim Rutt, CEO of Network Solutions in a Barron's article this week:
http://online.barrons.com/article/SB500014240531119046810045...
>>The second inspiration for this memo came from a report entitled Alpha and the Paradox of Skill by Michael Mauboussin of Credit Suisse. In it he talks about Jim Rutt, the CEO of Network Solutions. As a young man, Rutt wanted to become a better poker player, and to that end he worked hard to learn the odds regarding each hand and how to detect "tells" in other players that give away their position. Here's the part that attracted my attention: At that point, an uncle pulled him aside and doled out some advice. "Jim, I wouldn't spend my time getting better," he advised, "I'd spend my time finding weak games."
Seems like he found a weak game with auto-rebilling.