123-Reg and NamesCo registered millions of .uk domains without asking customers
theregister.co.uk
theregister.co.uk
Around where I live, courts decide differently based on the nature of the enterprise. If a company gets an invoice and pays up, they basically agreed to the charge. That's because companies are expected to understand and check invoices. For private individuals, if they pay an invoice and only later realize that they didn't in fact wanted to pay, the contract that came into being based on their payment can be annulled. And in some cases it leads to charges of fraud. That's not to say that companies can't be illegally defrauded, just that the bars are higher.
In the .uk case, this means companies would have to make sure they didn't pay. But consumers could in fact claim they were tricked and demand restitution even after paying. I don't know how such cases are handled in the UK however.
In any case: Transfer your .co.uk to a reputable registrar. Don't do business with outfits who pull shit like this.
I was checking on OVH website if they do .co.uk (they do) and found out they also do .uk
It will take a while longer before major companies want to use the .uk domain in preference to the .co.uk.
I'm pissed at Sky (UK broadband provider) because they started charging us for a service I never used and cannot use and never agreed to (Free Weekend Talk - I don't even have a non-mobile phone!) - it used to be free then all of a sudden it wasn't and there was an "opt out" and it was charged automatically by direct debit and my bank cannot help because (presumably) they "notified" me. It's a small amount (and thus harder to notice on the monthly bank account balance) but I wonder what would happen if they offered medical insurance (which, again, I don't need), first for free and then they changed it to £500/month and "notified" me (but usually I disregard these kinds of letters because they're not important, just spam).
Well, I'm really angry at my bank. I'm probably switching to one of the new, digital ones, either Monzo or Starling. Old incompetent banks are the best advertisement the newcomers could ever get.
Be persistant, and if they still refuse, use the secret magic words: "So is that the banks final stance on this request, or is there another level you need to escalate my complaint to before I can contact the ombudsman?"
I agree that there is no need to use immoral registrars these days ─ Gandi has a section, which advises on upfront costs of creation, renewal etc. and is also one of the most reputable registrars in the business.
So clearly emails didn't go out to all customers, customer didn't read the emails or forgot about them.
123-Reg would send a 30 days to renewal email and 7 days to renewal email, maybe they were not sent this time?
And ICANT should clampdown of some of the dodgy stuff they allow crappy registrars.
I have a .me.uk domain, and I'd like the .uk. I attempted to register it, and I was charged, but then refunded a few days later. It's currently pointing to a 123-Reg parking page.
The problem is that (like many non-profits) it's being run by people who see the world the way for-profit companies do, and think that it's their job to maximise their surplus rather than act as stewards of the .uk namespace.
So you see the chairman's statement in the annual report saying « In addition to pursuing organic growth, we have a prudent approach to possible acquisitions and investments that will accelerate our strategy and lay the foundations for future growth. »
even though there's nothing in the company's official objectives that says growth is an aim.
None of the .uk tld's that were registered on my behalf are set to auto-renew (and I have quite a few .co.uk - and thus .uk - domains too).
Reading past the El Reg's hyperbolic writing style, I suspect what's actually happening here is they were set to not auto-renew unless the customer started altering the settings of the .uk tld. Since I left them alone, they'll just expire. It's still a frustrating anti-pattern and worth reporting on but not the literal scam El Reg are reporting it as.
El Reg's house style is very much love it or loathe it, but I think it's unfair to accuse them of being misrepresentative. The Reg has been one of my daily go-to websites since the early 00s purely because I find it trustworthy and not wont to sit in the pockets of the industry it reports on.
There wasn't any other comments when I typed mine.
> El Reg's house style is very much love it or loathe it, but I think it's unfair to accuse them of being misrepresentative.
Why? They have been on other occasions and their writing style is intentionally designed to be exaggerative.
> The Reg has been one of my daily go-to websites since the early 00s purely because I find it trustworthy and not wont to sit in the pockets of the industry it reports on.
I've found in their effort not to "sit in the pockets of the industry" they're bias has shifted too far to the other side where they too quick to pass judgement. Combined with their inflammatory tones, it creates a feeling reminiscent of those armchair critics that claim everything is shit while failing to appreciate the detail of the problem.
Their writing style is intended to be a bit tabloid in its reading, sure, but i've always figured that's to make otherwise dry reading a bit more engaging. The sum of their analysis is essentially on point. Their cousin, The Inquirer, by contrast is probably less 'exaggerative' as you put, it but is painful to wade through.
As I say - it's a love it or loathe it rag but I don't see them as being overly negative, except where due. I suppose the tone does encourage armchair critics in the comments sections, but then their comments section is second only to HN, I feel, for worthwhile input from people who Know Their Shit.
Sorry, I was talking about HN comments. To be honest I didn't even realise El Reg had a comments section (though I wouldn't have read them anyway - HN is the only site's comments I read)
> As I say - it's a love it or loathe it rag but I don't see them as being overly negative, except where due.
Their comments regarding OpenSSL weren't. Back when Heartbleed was announced El Reg were heavily critical (as many people were) but they then ratchet up the tone by recommending people use other, largely unproven, cryptography libraries. They've also reported other vulnerabilities as being disastrous - using the same language as they did for Heardbleed and ShellShock - but for vulnerabilities that are purely theoretical and extremely difficult, impractical or even out of scope for 99.999% of consumer devices. El Reg have often been amongst the worst for misrepresenting the real world implications for vulnerability announcements and that's entirely down to the tabloid nature of their reporting.