Lonely Planet announces deal with Google

or was it the BBC?

Anyway, Lonelyplanet's founders the Wheeler's let go a 40% stake in the company after fellow shareholder Singleton released his shareholding of 30%.

That means the beeb have majority holding of 75% and the Lonely Planers will be dancing to their tune.

You've got mail..
Does this mean I will be receiving more nasty legal letters in the near future?
Probably.

Webfusion/Pipex Hosting - Bullying Tactic

Last year, as a gift I purchased a domain name and some hosting for my my sister, as she promised to go on a Dreamweaver course and populate the site.

After a years hosting which I paid up front, I let the contract lapse because she had done nothing.

Previous Experience
As is usual with a web hosting, if you don't want it, just leave it, and when you don't pay, your site is deleted from the server along with your DNS info after 1 year.

It has been like this since 1997 when I started designing websites.

Pipex/Webfusion Hosting
This being the case with all other hosting contracts. Leaving a fixed term contract to lapse, paid up-front, no problem you may think.
Well not if you're hosting with Pipex/Webfusion.

Since the end of the hosting period of one year, I've received requests I pay £105.64 for another years hosting.

Clause
It turns out Webfusion have inserted a clause which says you are bound to host until you cancel.

Check
I checked their contract. This term was not highlighted or highlighted in any of the confirmation emails.

Bullying Tactic
The question is whether I'll be bound by the Webfusion contract.
Most consumers feel that when they accept a contract, it is always binding.
In business this is true.

We'll see what happens.

About Webfusion/Pipex.

Google Deception Case - ACCC Case

Ask yourself: - "Now how many times have I clicked on a Google advertiser in the AdWords section and thought it was an organic result?"

This is what the Australian Consumer And Competition Commission have just launched a case against Google, (the first government body to do so), to find out.

Case facts
From the ACCC's site, information about the case cites an Australian publisher Trading Post Australia Pty Ltd using the names of two competitors in localised AdWords campaigns, ("Kloster Ford" and "Charlestown Toyota").

This, in it's simplest terms is a case of Passing off, an advertiser using trademarks and trading names to attract business through deception.

In addition and in a seemingly unrelated statement:-
"Google, by failing to adequately distinguish sponsored links from 'organic' search results, has engaged and continues to engage in misleading and deceptive conduct" the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) said.

Thinking
By asserting Google is deriving advertising revenue's from cases where it knows passing off is taking place, the ACCC are effectively attempting to shift the duty of care, hoping to reveal the entrails of Googles' advertising, targetting and information management stategy in the process.

Chances
It's a wide ball.

The ACCC statement for bringing the action is spurious and without foundation.

Intent
Does Google derive income in the knowledge advertisers are passing off?

Remains to be seen.

The case has an initial hearing on August 27th.

details