Why is .co so expensive?

**deanhills** · July 9th, 2011, 20:03

I don't know much about domains and am on a learning curve. I've been checking up on some of the domain registrars/resellers and notice that .co is at least three times as expensive as .com? Why is that? I also don't really see any .co's around. Are they more like an elite type domain?

**TaoPhoenix** · July 9th, 2011, 20:15

Nah, far from elite... check your registration intermediary company, it might be a private company loading up on fees.

**AboutWeb** · July 10th, 2011, 00:20

Yes, they are expensive indeed. Because .co is shorter than .com.
http://www.godaddy.com/tlds/co-domain.aspx
http://www.namecheap.com/domains/ext.../cctld/co.aspx
http://www.domain.com/domains/tlds_co.php

**hourb** · July 10th, 2011, 08:00

in my opinion .com is the best most known.i wont ever use.co

**Decker** · July 10th, 2011, 08:06

It's just a new version of .com and since it costs so much to setup a new tld they have to recoup it as quick as, just means all the good names (short ones) are available again (with exceptions, see below) and you might get a mistype going to your site rather than the intended .com - although wait for all the legal stuff over who uses names that are already taken as .com

Take for example 'mcdonalds' they have the .com and .co.uk and probably a few others but not .co - why not?
They don't need to, they have trademark protection, so if you reg mcdonalds.co then you would be in a heap of pain.

Domain name extensions are running short of usable meaningful names, and those useless gits that buy up and hang onto good names hoping to make a fortune selling them should be forced to release them if they're not in active use rather than just creating new extensions.

**AboutWeb** · July 10th, 2011, 14:29

Originally Posted by Decker

Domain name extensions are running short of usable meaningful names, and those useless gits that buy up and hang onto good names hoping to make a fortune selling them should be forced to release them if they're not in active use rather than just creating new extensions.

Totally agree! I was searching today for a domain name, and unfortunately all my desired names were taken by some hosting companies and they didn't had any site on those domains.

**deeplist** · July 10th, 2011, 20:20

Originally Posted by AboutWeb

Totally agree! I was searching today for a domain name, and unfortunately all my desired names were taken by some hosting companies and they didn't had any site on those domains.

Welcome to the world of wasted domains. These stupid parking companies will swipe up domains left and right and then just sit on them for years trying to sell them for $500. I guess if somebody wants it bad enough, they'll pay up.

**deanhills** · July 11th, 2011, 03:08

Originally Posted by Decker

It's just a new version of .com and since it costs so much to setup a new tld they have to recoup it as quick as, just means all the good names (short ones) are available again (with exceptions, see below) and you might get a mistype going to your site rather than the intended .com - although wait for all the legal stuff over who uses names that are already taken as .com

Take for example 'mcdonalds' they have the .com and .co.uk and probably a few others but not .co - why not?
They don't need to, they have trademark protection, so if you reg mcdonalds.co then you would be in a heap of pain.

Domain name extensions are running short of usable meaningful names, and those useless gits that buy up and hang onto good names hoping to make a fortune selling them should be forced to release them if they're not in active use rather than just creating new extensions.

Thanks Decker, this makes great sense to me. Also thanks for the heads up about trademark protection. Guess one must have your ducks in a row when you start a serious .com business.

**worlditsme** · July 14th, 2011, 09:17

Also, .co is probably that expensive because it is still fairly new at the moment.

**Decker** · July 14th, 2011, 09:50

Originally Posted by worlditsme

Also, .co is probably that expensive because it is still fairly new at the moment.

NO! Really, we never thought of that

read the rest of the thread, it's not long.

**SiberForum** · July 15th, 2011, 10:25

.co is expensive because this is a cctld of Columbia. They usually are of higher price.

**JerrickYeoh** · July 19th, 2011, 21:05

Ofcourse .co domain names is expensive than .com domain .
.com domain is Normal TLD domain which is the cheaper domain.
.co domain play a role of country domain which is Columbia and it also play role of company.
That is why .co domain tend to be more expensive.

**deeplist** · July 19th, 2011, 21:09

Originally Posted by JerrickYeoh

Ofcourse .co domain names is expensive than .com domain .
.com domain is Normal TLD domain which is the cheaper domain.
.co domain play a role of country domain which is Columbia and it also play role of company.
That is why .co domain tend to be more expensive.

That actually doesn't explain anything at all.

**deanhills** · July 19th, 2011, 23:23

Originally Posted by deeplist

That actually doesn't explain anything at all.

Agreed. Decker has given a really good explanation that covered it well.

**Decker** · July 20th, 2011, 08:23

Originally Posted by SiberForum

.co is expensive because this is a cctld of Columbia. They usually are of higher price.

Originally Posted by JerrickYeoh

Ofcourse .co domain names is expensive than .com domain .
.com domain is Normal TLD domain which is the cheaper domain.
.co domain play a role of country domain which is Columbia and it also play role of company.
That is why .co domain tend to be more expensive.

.co is not the domain naming convention for Columbia .com.co is making it a second level domain, .co is a Tld as in top level domain and recently introduced.

For a Columbian domain it would be 'mysite.com.co' not 'mysite.co' .co is a global Tld.

Do you people not read threads, again it's not a long one.