| Author |
Changing from BT ADSL home to ADSL business (a warning)
|
|
|
| I thought this would be a good idea. As it's much more useable with voip for
instance and the price is almost the same
The people at wholesale said that I could take my email addresses with me,
however, it now seems that they requre an extra £1.50 a month to do this.
The last thing you want to loose is email addresses which in my case I have
had for many years.
| |
| Colin Forrester 2006-09-16, 1:11 pm |
| jasee wrote:
> I thought this would be a good idea. As it's much more useable with voip for
> instance and the price is almost the same
>
> The people at wholesale said that I could take my email addresses with me,
> however, it now seems that they requre an extra £1.50 a month to do this.
>
> The last thing you want to loose is email addresses which in my case I have
> had for many years.
I am not sure if you are warning that the original email address may be
lost or of the charge.
I have protected a series of email addresses for the £1.50 a month -
seems good value to me.
| |
| It's Me 2006-09-16, 1:11 pm |
|
>
> I have protected a series of email addresses for the £1.50 a month - seems
> good value to me.
>
Not when freeserve (wanadaoo, Orange) ones cost you 20p a year or less.
| |
| Colin Forrester 2006-09-16, 1:11 pm |
| It's Me wrote:
>
> Not when freeserve (wanadaoo, Orange) ones cost you 20p a year or less.
Which makes you wonder how long that will last - what are the monthly
direct debit collection costs on 20p?
| |
|
|
Colin Forrester wrote:
> Which makes you wonder how long that will last - what are the monthly
> direct debit collection costs on 20p?
there aren't any, its derived from phone call charges for dialling in
to keep it alive. Seems you can easily resurrect it from the web
without even doing the dial-in trick.
Also the BT Basic email option is free just to preserve an
@btinternet.com account and vie wit with webmail.
Phil
| |
| Colin Forrester 2006-09-16, 1:11 pm |
| PhilT wrote:
> Colin Forrester wrote:
>
>
> there aren't any, its derived from phone call charges for dialling in
> to keep it alive. Seems you can easily resurrect it from the web
> without even doing the dial-in trick.
>
> Also the BT Basic email option is free just to preserve an
> @btinternet.com account and vie wit with webmail.
OK, we needed to protect eight linked email addresses and are charged
£1.50 per month for the lot. Still feel this is good value though.
| |
| Andrew Crane 2006-09-16, 1:11 pm |
|
"It's Me" <spam@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:45092943$0$1378$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
>
seems[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Not when freeserve (wanadaoo, Orange) ones cost you 20p a year or less.
Then move to Freeserve you cheapskate. You want your cake and eat it and for
nothing. You are not the kind of customer that they want to attract on a
business package.
Regards
Andrew
| |
|
| Andrew Crane wrote:
> "It's Me" <spam@spam.spam> wrote in message
> news:45092943$0$1378$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
>
> Then move to Freeserve you cheapskate. You want your cake and eat it
> and for nothing. You are not the kind of customer that they want to
> attract on a business package.
As the OP, my complaint was that I wasn't informed and I don't require the
extra email addresses of Business Broadband anyway or the flashy Outlook Web
Acess, access.
Actually enabling this requires only a small change in their DNS, so I don't
see why it has to be a monthly burden
| |
|
| Colin Forrester wrote:
> I am not sure if you are warning that the original email address may be
> lost or of the charge.
> I have protected a series of email addresses for the £1.50 a month -
> seems good value to me.
But buying your own domain name would be even better value.
Owain
| |
| Andrew Crane 2006-09-16, 1:11 pm |
|
"jasee" <jasee@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:4mt1fhF7nuemU1@individual.net...
> As the OP, my complaint was that I wasn't informed and I don't require the
> extra email addresses of Business Broadband anyway or the flashy Outlook
Web
> Acess, access.
>
> Actually enabling this requires only a small change in their DNS, so I
don't
> see why it has to be a monthly burden
Pricing is market led, not down to resource usage. Most people don't penny
pinch and so will stand the cost. If you want it for nothing I'm sure there
are companies out there who are misguided enough to think they can make the
money back off you elsewhere. Like everything in life you get what you pay
for.
Also, there will be more to change than the DNS. A little knowledge is
dangerous.
Regards
Andrew
| |
| NoNeedToKnow 2006-09-16, 1:11 pm |
| On 14 Sep 2006, Colin Forrester wrote:
>OK, we needed to protect eight linked email addresses
So you'll carry on paying them, for years and years, to "keep the same
e-mail addresses" when in truth you could get a domain and have all the
e-mail addresses you use now, and more, and also phase out those which
currently cost some monthly fee - it's really close to being a "protection
racket" when ISPs have a monthly fee for such things!
The other silly fee that some ISPs charge for is a static IP address - I've
seen as much as 3 quid a month for that... with the ISP I'm using I can
switch from dynamic to static anytime I want without any fee being
charged at all Odd that some ISPs can be flexible while others make
it costly or "impossible"...
--
Change to DSL Max the way I did: switch ISP <http://www.dslmax.info/>
| |
| NoNeedToKnow 2006-09-16, 1:11 pm |
| On 14 Sep 2006, "jasee" <jasee@btinternet.com> wrote:
>The last thing you want to loose is email addresses which in my case I have
>had for many years.
I think it's about the first thing I'd *want* to lose. While you class it
as important, I'd say they become a millstone, kept for mainly
sentimental reasons, and you are now slave to it.
I had an ISP-related mail address which was fine, until the day that ISP
was bought by a much larger concern from another State (it was a small
or medium sized USA ISP) I'd had the mail address close on 8 years, and
then could no longer use it (if the domain had been available I might even
have registered it, but the expiry date is 2011, so it's now just history.)
| |
|
| NoNeedToKnow wrote:
> On 14 Sep 2006, "jasee" <jasee@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>
> I think it's about the first thing I'd *want* to lose. While you
> class it as important, I'd say they become a millstone, kept for
> mainly
> sentimental reasons, and you are now slave to it.
>
> I had an ISP-related mail address which was fine, until the day that
> ISP was bought by a much larger concern from another State (it was a
> small
> or medium sized USA ISP) I'd had the mail address close on 8 years,
> and then could no longer use it (if the domain had been available I
> might even have registered it, but the expiry date is 2011, so it's
> now just history.)
There is nothing permanent of course, I've got a few gmail addresses which
is possibly an answer. I've kept my old demon account for (mainly)
sentimental reasons so I'm paying £100+ for that...
| |
| Graham 2006-09-16, 1:11 pm |
|
>
> Not when freeserve (wanadaoo, Orange) ones cost you 20p a year or less.
Then you are being rippped off too ;-)
I simpley restore my suspended Freeserve accounts by going to this URL
https://www.orange.co.uk/signup/noties/ar60.cfm
there is also a link on the main Orange page.
No need to dial up.
I always warn people not to use their current ISP's email address as their
main
address. I know several people who feel "stuck" with the likes of AOL etc.
because thet didn't heed my warning.
I have had my Freeserve emails for eight years and I have lost count
of the ISP's I have used in that time.
Graham.
%Profound_observation%
| |
| Paul Cupis 2006-09-16, 1:11 pm |
| NoNeedToKnow wrote:
> On 14 Sep 2006, Colin Forrester wrote:
>
>
> So you'll carry on paying them, for years and years, to "keep the same
> e-mail addresses" when in truth you could get a domain and have all the
> e-mail addresses you use now, and more, and also phase out those which
> currently cost some monthly fee - it's really close to being a "protection
> racket" when ISPs have a monthly fee for such things!
A monthly fee for a service they provide every month, which uses their
resources and therefore costs them something to provide.
| |
| Colin Forrester 2006-09-16, 1:11 pm |
| NoNeedToKnow wrote:
> On 14 Sep 2006, Colin Forrester wrote:
>
>
> So you'll carry on paying them, for years and years, to "keep the same
> e-mail addresses" when in truth you could get a domain and have all the
> e-mail addresses you use now, and more, and also phase out those which
> currently cost some monthly fee
We needed to protect these addresses - which were used many years ago
and some people still send to them. The last thing we want is to give
them up and have someone else use them.
As I mentioned I do not consider the charge excessive and would prefer
to pay for a well maintained service (which it has been) rather than a
free service with no support and less chance of longevity.
| |
| Colin Forrester 2006-09-16, 1:11 pm |
| Owain wrote:
> Colin Forrester wrote:
>
> But buying your own domain name would be even better value.
Since I can't buy btinternet.com I will continue to rent specific
addresses to prevent others from using them.
| |
| NoNeedToKnow 2006-09-16, 1:11 pm |
| On 14 Sep 2006, Colin Forrester wrote:
>which were used many years ago and some people still send to them.
So set yourself a limt - perhaps a generous limt of 18 months - during
which you use some mail rule (eg in your mail client) that forces any
mail sent to those specific addresses to be stored in some specific
"ask-them-to-send-to-our-new-mail-address" folder. At the end
of that time, you can stop paying for the service - while I will
accept you don't want to lose their business, you might also
take steps (which you seem unwilling to do) to stop their ever-
continuing use of those same old mail addresses.
| |
| NoNeedToKnow 2006-09-16, 1:11 pm |
| On 14 Sep 2006 17:37, "jasee" <jasee@btinternet.com> wrote:
>There is nothing permanent of course, I've got a few gmail addresses which
>is possibly an answer.
registering some domain (as little as a pound if you look around) may be
another answer, as suggested by more than one poster... send any
mail to your <current> favourite mail service, whether it be Gmail
or some other free/chargeable service.
>I've kept my old demon account for (mainly) sentimental reasons so I'm
>paying £100+ for that...
What do they say... something about a person and his money... Yes,
that's certainly true "sentiment" and I can think of other things to spend
100+ pounds on.
| |
| Colin Forrester 2006-09-16, 1:11 pm |
| NoNeedToKnow wrote:
> On 14 Sep 2006, Colin Forrester wrote:
>
>
> So set yourself a limt - perhaps a generous limt of 18 months - during
> which you use some mail rule (eg in your mail client) that forces any
> mail sent to those specific addresses to be stored in some specific
> "ask-them-to-send-to-our-new-mail-address" folder. At the end
> of that time, you can stop paying for the service - while I will
> accept you don't want to lose their business, you might also
> take steps (which you seem unwilling to do) to stop their ever-
> continuing use of those same old mail addresses.
You know that's a good idea - but our customers are always right and
some still use those old addresses. We need just one such customer to
generate less than 15 minutes work per annum to cover that cost. I
guess we will keep paying BT £1.50 per month for the time being.
| |
| NoNeedToKnow 2006-09-16, 1:11 pm |
| On 14 Sep 2006 18:25, Paul Cupis <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote:
>A monthly fee for a service they provide every month, which uses their
>resources and therefore costs them something to provide.
Nice bit of snipping... so now take the example of a static IP address,
where one ISP charges a single (25 pounds) setup fee, another ISP is
charging 3 pounds a month, while another ISP makes no charge for me
to use a static, or multiple static, or switch to dynamic...
It's not as if the monthly fee of 14.99 is high (if it were treble the cost
with some comment that it pays for the flexible facilities, I'd not have
chosen the same ISP, but it's a standard facility for all users, AFAIK).
Every business plan will be different, and some simply "absorb" the cost
of providing this service, but it makes me wonder how many people go
round with their eyes shut if they are willing to accept these charges,
arguably justified (by you) but seemingly unnecessary (to me).
We may best "agree to disagree", as it seems we are unlikely to see
much common ground on such matters, and I'm not ready to waste
too much time on discussing it, even if you might (based on very long
threads I've seen in the past, belabouring some point :-)
| |
| Paul Cupis 2006-09-16, 1:11 pm |
| NoNeedToKnow wrote:
> On 14 Sep 2006 18:25, Paul Cupis <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> Nice bit of snipping... so now take the example of a static IP address,
> where one ISP charges a single (25 pounds) setup fee, another ISP is
> charging 3 pounds a month, while another ISP makes no charge for me
> to use a static, or multiple static, or switch to dynamic...
If an ISP has more IPs than users, then there is little/no cost
difference to them whether the user has one dynamic IP or one static, if
they have more users than IPs (i.e. they are not promoting the service
as always-on), then they do have a higher cost for static.
As far as multiple IPs is concerned, some ISPs will build this into
their basic charges (i.e. everyone pays) and some will charge them as
extra (i.e. only the people who require them pays).
| |
| NoNeedToKnow 2006-09-16, 1:11 pm |
| On 14 Sep 2006 19:15, Colin Forrester wrote:
>I guess we will keep paying BT £1.50 per month for the time being.
I guess so, but at least you're big enough to consider the idea, not just
dismiss it and stick your head in the sand the way many might. When I
hear/read someone saying they "cannot" do something I will sometimes
go into overdrive to give them cause to rethink... Having customer you
consider to "always be right" on this, is just a cross you'll have to bear.
| |
|
| NoNeedToKnow wrote:
> On 14 Sep 2006 17:37, "jasee" <jasee@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>
> registering some domain (as little as a pound if you look around) may
> be another answer, as suggested by more than one poster... send any
> mail to your <current> favourite mail service, whether it be Gmail
> or some other free/chargeable service.
Yes, I know what's available. I still think it's not right for BT to be
charing for this. Obviously, if I were with someone else but this is bt to
bt! It's one particular address too (that I shall be sorry to loose) and I
don't want anyone else to have it! The equivalent of the cherished number
plate ;-)
>
>
> What do they say... something about a person and his money... Yes,
> that's certainly true "sentiment" and I can think of other things to
> spend 100+ pounds on.
There are quite a few others I believe
| |
| Adam Funk 2006-09-16, 1:11 pm |
| On 2006-09-14, Paul Cupis <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote:
>
> If an ISP has more IPs than users, then there is little/no cost
> difference to them whether the user has one dynamic IP or one static, if
> they have more users than IPs (i.e. they are not promoting the service
> as always-on), then they do have a higher cost for static.
>
> As far as multiple IPs is concerned, some ISPs will build this into
> their basic charges (i.e. everyone pays) and some will charge them as
> extra (i.e. only the people who require them pays).
Surely broadband providers have almost as many IP addresses in use as
customers. Why do so many of them offer static IPs to "business"
(i.e. expensive) accounts only?
| |
| Adam Funk 2006-09-16, 1:11 pm |
| I think you're both right, in a way.
> NoNeedToKnow wrote:
That's good advice.
[vbcol=seagreen]
Paul Cupis <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> A monthly fee for a service they provide every month, which uses their
> resources and therefore costs them something to provide.
And that's a reasonable explanation.
(But I wouldn't be surprised if the charges for keeping e-mail
addresses "alive" were out of proportion to the costs, simply because
they can take advantage of their less technically knowledgeable
customers.)
| |
|
| Adam Funk wrote:
> On 2006-09-14, Paul Cupis <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> Surely broadband providers have almost as many IP addresses in use as
> customers. Why do so many of them offer static IPs to "business"
> (i.e. expensive) accounts only?
It's got advantages and disadvantages. The main disadvantage is any hacker
knows where _you_ are
| |
| Paul Cupis 2006-09-16, 1:11 pm |
| Adam Funk wrote:
> On 2006-09-14, Paul Cupis <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> Surely broadband providers have almost as many IP addresses in use as
> customers. Why do so many of them offer static IPs to "business"
> (i.e. expensive) accounts only?
Not necessarily. For example some ISPs will give their users RFC1918
space by default and you have to get a business product in order to get
one or more public/routable IP address(es).
| |
| Paul Cupis 2006-09-16, 1:11 pm |
| Adam Funk wrote:
> (But I wouldn't be surprised if the charges for keeping e-mail
> addresses "alive" were out of proportion to the costs, simply because
> they can take advantage of their less technically knowledgeable
> customers.)
Charges do not have to be proportionate to costs - only market demand
will normally suggest this.
As an example, do you think that TalkTalk/Sky levy charges for their
broadband products which are proportionate to their costs?
If BT wanted to charge £10/month for this service, they could. They
might not get the same number of customers utilising the service, but on
the other hand, they might. Perhaps they think that 1.50/month is what
the market/their customers will stand for.
| |
| Paul B 2006-09-16, 1:11 pm |
| Thus spake NoNeedToKnow:
> On 14 Sep 2006, Colin Forrester wrote:
>
>
> So you'll carry on paying them, for years and years, to "keep the same
> e-mail addresses" when in truth you could get a domain and have all
> the e-mail addresses you use now, and more, and also phase out those
> which currently cost some monthly fee - it's really close to being a
> "protection racket" when ISPs have a monthly fee for such things!
>
> The other silly fee that some ISPs charge for is a static IP address
> - I've seen as much as 3 quid a month for that... with the ISP I'm
> using I can switch from dynamic to static anytime I want without any
> fee being
> charged at all Odd that some ISPs can be flexible while others make
> it costly or "impossible"...
>
> --
> Change to DSL Max the way I did: switch ISP <http://www.dslmax.info/>
Had a letter from Nominet requesting I confirm my domain yesterday. I
haven't bothered with my own web site but have 5 email addresses from 1and1.
I also have 2 email addresses with my provider, Nildram who are very
unpopular in many quarters as they *do* charge for static IPs. I've changed
over most of my email subscriptions to my domain so can change providers
with ease - not that I'm unhappy with my present one. Cost: £11.71pa.
Accessing these email addresses either through Outlook or my phone is
transparent & can use either pop3 or imap & has a web interface, spam
filtering if required or virus protection.
--
Basically, I hate people who preface nearly every sentence with the word
'basically'!
| |
| Adam Funk 2006-09-16, 1:11 pm |
| On 2006-09-15, Paul Cupis <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote:
> Adam Funk wrote:
I didn't say I *knew* what the charges were, just that I wouldn't be
surprised if....
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Charges do not have to be proportionate to costs - only market demand
> will normally suggest this.
>
> As an example, do you think that TalkTalk/Sky levy charges for their
> broadband products which are proportionate to their costs?
>
> If BT wanted to charge £10/month for this service, they could. They
> might not get the same number of customers utilising the service, but on
> the other hand, they might. Perhaps they think that 1.50/month is what
> the market/their customers will stand for.
Actually I am surprised; I thought they'd charge more than that.
| |
| Adam Funk 2006-09-16, 1:11 pm |
| On 2006-09-15, jasee <jasee@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> It's got advantages and disadvantages. The main disadvantage is any hacker
> knows where _you_ are
In my experience a "dynamic" broadband IP address changes roughly
every year or two, so the possible security benefit of a changing
address doesn't apply.
The disadvantage of having a nominally dynamic IP address is that it
will be blacklisted so you can't route your mail directly.
| |
| Desk Rabbit 2006-09-16, 1:11 pm |
| Colin Forrester wrote:
> Owain wrote:
>
>
>
> Since I can't buy btinternet.com I will continue to rent specific
> addresses to prevent others from using them.
Of course you can't buy btinternet.com but you can buy your own domain
which is what is being talked about.
I've done all the hard work for you below:-
colinforrester.com is available!
colin-forrester.com is available!
cforrester.com is already registered
c-forrester.com is available!
colinf.com is already registered
colin-f.com is already registered
colinforrester.org is available!
colin-forrester.org is available!
cforrester.org is already registered
c-forrester.org is available!
colinf.org is available!
colin-f.org is available!
colinforrester.net is available!
colin-forrester.net is available!
cforrester.net is already registered
c-forrester.net is available!
colinf.net is available!
colin-f.net is available!
colinforrester.co.uk is available!
colin-forrester.co.uk is available!
cforrester.co.uk is already registered
c-forrester.co.uk is available!
colinf.co.uk is already registered
colin-f.co.uk is available!
colinforrester.org.uk is available!
colin-forrester.org.uk is available!
cforrester.org.uk is available!
c-forrester.org.uk is available!
colinf.org.uk is available!
colin-f.org.uk is available!
colinforrester.uk.com is available!
colin-forrester.uk.com is available!
cforrester.uk.com is available!
c-forrester.uk.com is available!
colinf.uk.com is available!
colin-f.uk.com is available!
colinforrester.gb.net is available!
colin-forrester.gb.net is available!
cforrester.gb.net is available!
c-forrester.gb.net is available!
colinf.gb.net is available!
colin-f.gb.net is available!
colinforrester.gb.com is available!
colin-forrester.gb.com is available!
cforrester.gb.com is available!
c-forrester.gb.com is available!
colinf.gb.com is available!
colin-f.gb.com is available!
colinforrester.uk.net is available!
colin-forrester.uk.net is available!
cforrester.uk.net is available!
c-forrester.uk.net is available!
colinf.uk.net is available!
colin-f.uk.net is available!
colinforrester.us.com is available!
colin-forrester.us.com is available!
cforrester.us.com is available!
c-forrester.us.com is available!
colinf.us.com is available!
colin-f.us.com is available!
colinforrester.eu.com is available!
colin-forrester.eu.com is available!
cforrester.eu.com is available!
c-forrester.eu.com is available!
colinf.eu.com is available!
colin-f.eu.com is available!
colinforrester.info is available!
colin-forrester.info is available!
cforrester.info is available!
c-forrester.info is available!
colinf.info is available!
colin-f.info is available!
colinforrester.biz is available!
colin-forrester.biz is available!
cforrester.biz is available!
c-forrester.biz is available!
colinf.biz is available!
colin-f.biz is available!
colinforrester.me.uk is available!
colin-forrester.me.uk is available!
cforrester.me.uk is available!
c-forrester.me.uk is available!
colinf.me.uk is available!
colin-f.me.uk is available!
colinforrester.us is available!
colin-forrester.us is available!
cforrester.us is available!
c-forrester.us is available!
colinf.us is available!
colin-f.us is available!
colinforrester.web.com is available!
colin-forrester.web.com is available!
cforrester.web.com is available!
c-forrester.web.com is available!
colinf.web.com is available!
colin-f.web.com is available!
colinforrester.eu is available!
colin-forrester.eu is available!
cforrester.eu is available!
c-forrester.eu is available!
colinf.eu is available!
colin-f.eu is available!
| |
| NoNeedToKnow 2006-09-16, 1:11 pm |
| On 15 Sep 2006, Adam Funk <a24061@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In my experience a "dynamic" broadband IP address changes roughly every year or ...
Seems commonly the case for cable services, and using Freeserve in 200? the
'dynamic' was 'sticky' rather than fixed. However three services I've used
in the last 3 years (on 2 lines, so have had a mix of static and dynamic at
any one time) have had dynamic where each connection is unlikely to get a
previously allocated address (at my end). I don't know how 'sticky' they
are at FreeUK, but it would need quite a wide 'survey' to check, I suspect.
| |
| Ivor Jones 2006-09-16, 1:11 pm |
| "Adam Funk" <a24061@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:gamqt3-l0f.ln1@news.ducksburg.com
> On 2006-09-15, jasee <jasee@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>
> In my experience a "dynamic" broadband IP address changes
> roughly every year or two, so the possible security
> benefit of a changing address doesn't apply.
Mine changes virtually every time I reboot the router. As I've had a
problem or three in the past couple of weeks (dodgy firmware upgrade) I've
been rebooting somewhat more often than usual, with the result that I've
had about 6 addresses in the past fortnight..!
When I haven't had to reboot, I've found that the address does change
every few months, certainly more often than a "year or two".
Ivor
| |
| Colin Forrester 2006-09-16, 1:11 pm |
| Desk Rabbit wrote:
> Colin Forrester wrote:
>
> Of course you can't buy btinternet.com but you can buy your own domain
> which is what is being talked about.
>
> I've done all the hard work for you below:-
>
> colinforrester.com is available!
Thank you - but my real name isn't Colin Forrester.
The addresses under BTInternet.com are of the form "LondonProperty@",
"TonyBliar@" etc. They were widely advertised in journals and still
attract traffic. It would be a shame for a competitor to grab them and
business.
Plus there are specific domain names already rented and managed on our
server.
| |
|
|
"Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
news:4mvqjdF83677U1@individual.net...
> "Adam Funk" <a24061@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:gamqt3-l0f.ln1@news.ducksburg.com
>
> Mine changes virtually every time I reboot the router. As I've had a
> problem or three in the past couple of weeks (dodgy firmware upgrade) I've
> been rebooting somewhat more often than usual, with the result that I've
> had about 6 addresses in the past fortnight..!
>
> When I haven't had to reboot, I've found that the address does change
> every few months, certainly more often than a "year or two".
I've not kept track of the changes of address with BT ADSL residential, are
all BT business accounts a fixed IP?
I don't really like to keep the router on permanently connected (ideally) as
it has got a signature (in theory it's make and model can be identified).
Unfortunately 'dial' on demand is too slow, DNS requests time out, so I
have to leave it permanently on. However most routers seem to get 'stuck'
for no apparent reason, the only answer is usually to pull the plug.
| |
| Anonymous 2006-09-16, 1:11 pm |
| Colin Forrester <colin@thefrogslepthere.com> wrote:
>
> Thank you - but my real name isn't Colin Forrester.
I'll bet you don't really have any frogs either!
You big fraud.
Get out of this newsgroup.
-=-
This message was sent via two or more anonymous remailing services.
| |
| NoNeedToKnow 2006-09-16, 1:11 pm |
| On 15 Sep 2006, "jasee" <jasee@btinternet.com> wrote:
>I don't really like to keep the router on permanently connected (ideally) as
>it has got a signature (in theory it's make and model can be identified).
Yes, lots of people leave their router with the default port 80 for access,
but surely the majority of routers have WAN access disabled by default,
so what 'signature' are you suggesting is present for possible 'detection'?
| |
|
| NoNeedToKnow wrote:
> On 15 Sep 2006, "jasee" <jasee@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>
> Yes, lots of people leave their router with the default port 80 for
> access, but surely the majority of routers have WAN access disabled
> by default,
> so what 'signature' are you suggesting is present for possible
> 'detection'?
IIRC it's basically it's MAC address
| |
| Paul Cupis 2006-09-16, 1:11 pm |
| Adam Funk wrote:
> The disadvantage of having a nominally dynamic IP address is that it
> will be blacklisted so you can't route your mail directly.
If you are running your own mail server on the internet, you really need
a static IP address with correct forward/reverse DNS, else be branded an
untrustworthy source of mail.
| |
| Adam Funk 2006-09-16, 1:11 pm |
| On 2006-09-15, Paul Cupis <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote:
> Adam Funk wrote:
>
> If you are running your own mail server on the internet, you really need
> a static IP address with correct forward/reverse DNS, else be branded an
> untrustworthy source of mail.
Yes, that's exactly what I meant.
| |
| Ivor Jones 2006-09-16, 1:11 pm |
| "jasee" <jasee@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:4n0aroF7u3eoU1@individual.net
> NoNeedToKnow wrote:
>
> IIRC it's basically it's MAC address
Which is of what use to anyone..?
Ivor
| |
|
| Ivor Jones wrote:
> "jasee" <jasee@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:4n0aroF7u3eoU1@individual.net
>
> Which is of what use to anyone..?
No use unless you want to identify the make and model. :-)
Of course a packet capture program and telnet are useful as well
| |
| willie@macleod-group.com 2006-09-16, 7:11 pm |
| jasee wrote:
> The people at wholesale said that I could take my email addresses with me,
> however, it now seems that they requre an extra =A31.50 a month to do thi=
s=2E
btinternet.com addresses? If you are worried about the monthly charge
then just dial up every 3 months via the 0845 number to keep the
accounts active.
Regards
William MacLeod
| |
|
| willie@macleod-group.com wrote:
> jasee wrote:
>
>
> btinternet.com addresses? If you are worried about the monthly charge
> then just dial up every 3 months via the 0845 number to keep the
> accounts active.
Don't understand this, what do you mean?
| |
| Chris Davies 2006-09-18, 7:11 am |
| In uk.telecom jasee <jasee@btinternet.com> wrote:
> I don't really like to keep the router on permanently connected
> (ideally) as it has got a signature (in theory it's make and model
> can be identified).
> IIRC it's basically its MAC address
Uh, I think you're missing a fundamental part of IP (ethernet)
networking. The MAC address is only used on the local network segment. As
soon as you pass through another router the device's MAC address
is replaced by the MAC address of that new router. This means that
(ethernet) datagrams need only know how to route using the MAC address
on the current segment. A higher level protocol (IP in this case) then
handles the routing to the next device in the chain.
Bottom line: your ADSL modem/router's MAC address cannot be seen past
the first router managed by your ISP.
Chris
| |
|
| Chris Davies wrote:
> In uk.telecom jasee <jasee@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>
> Uh, I think you're missing a fundamental part of IP (ethernet)
> networking. The MAC address is only used on the local network
> segment. As soon as you pass through another router the device's MAC
> address
> is replaced by the MAC address of that new router. This means that
> (ethernet) datagrams need only know how to route using the MAC address
> on the current segment. A higher level protocol (IP in this case) then
> handles the routing to the next device in the chain.
>
> Bottom line: your ADSL modem/router's MAC address cannot be seen past
> the first router managed by your ISP.
Do you imagine you are the only one on 'your' side of the router?
| |
| Dennis Ferguson 2006-09-18, 7:11 pm |
| On 2006-09-18, jasee <jasee@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Chris Davies wrote:
>
> Do you imagine you are the only one on 'your' side of the router?
If it is ADSL you should be the only one. Packets from your modem
are probably routed over an unshared point-to-point ATM VC which
terminates at the router. The ADSL portion of the network is in fact
unlikely to make any use of the MAC addresses at all; they're present
on the packets only so you can connect the router to a modem with an
ethernet cable. Since you can't count on the MAC addresses generated
by user equipment being unique, making use of them would expose you
to difficulties which might better be avoided.
I think the software which attempts to idenitify router makes and models
does so by searching for open service ports and IP level packet formatting
idiosyncrasies.
Dennis Ferguson
| |
|
| Dennis Ferguson wrote:
> On 2006-09-18, jasee <jasee@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> If it is ADSL you should be the only one. Packets from your modem
> are probably routed over an unshared point-to-point ATM VC which
> terminates at the router. The ADSL portion of the network is in fact
> unlikely to make any use of the MAC addresses at all; they're present
> on the packets only so you can connect the router to a modem with an
> ethernet cable. Since you can't count on the MAC addresses generated
> by user equipment being unique, making use of them would expose you
> to difficulties which might better be avoided.
>
> I think the software which attempts to idenitify router makes and
> models does so by searching for open service ports and IP level
> packet formatting idiosyncrasies.
Looking in the arp cache for my router reveals it is actually made by Askey
Computer Corp. In fact, it's a bt voyager 2091. I'd be interested to know if
other peoples voyager's *don't* show this (for the same model)
I did mention other methods (it's been snipped).In earlier days if you
simply telnetted (for instance) to some routers, they would announce what
model they were. Packet capturing should also be useful.
Mac addresses are still supposed to be unique AFAIK there is no way to
permanently change them.
| |
| Dennis Ferguson 2006-09-18, 7:11 pm |
| On 2006-09-18, jasee <jasee@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Dennis Ferguson wrote:
>
> Looking in the arp cache for my router reveals it is actually made by Askey
> Computer Corp. In fact, it's a bt voyager 2091. I'd be interested to know if
> other peoples voyager's *don't* show this (for the same model)
> I did mention other methods (it's been snipped).In earlier days if you
> simply telnetted (for instance) to some routers, they would announce what
> model they were. Packet capturing should also be useful.
> Mac addresses are still supposed to be unique AFAIK there is no way to
> permanently change them.
It is true that MAC addresses are supposed to be unique, but it is
hard to guarantee this on equipment you don't control. The problems
include
- equipment manufacturers make mistakes, or hardware breaks in a way
which makes the ROM the address is stored in unreadable
- the original (ancient history) intent was that each piece of
equipment would have a unique MAC address, but not necessarily
each interface in the box (Sun workstations come to mind as having
done it this way), so if you needed two interfaces in the same box
on the same wire (or same DSL network) they'd use the same MAC address
- a lot of equipment provides a way to configure any MAC address you
like on any interface, in part to provide you a way to work around
the problems above should you need to, and anything which can be
fiddled with by a user can't be guaranteed to be have any particular
properties at all
I can also tell you that right now my MacBook Pro is using a MAC address
which identifies it as a cisco router, a change I could make "permanent"
if I could find the right startup configuration file to put the command
in. If I thought people were using MAC addresses to determine what type
of equipment I have for evil purposes I would do this on all the equipment
I own.
While we could quibble about this part, however, I think the original
point still stands: ADSL networks make no use of your router's MAC
address, and are point-to-point rather than shared. The MAC address may
not even be used on the DSL side of a router/modem combo like you have,
but even when it is the address is sent over an unshared, point-to-point
circuit that terminates at your service provider's router. I don't know
how anyone else could ever see it.
Dennis Ferguson
| |
| Chris Davies 2006-09-19, 7:11 am |
| Chris Davies wrote:
> Bottom line: your ADSL modem/router's MAC address cannot be seen past
> the first router managed by your ISP.
In uk.telecom jasee <jasee@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Do you imagine you are the only one on 'your' side of the router?
This has now been answered well by others here. To qualify my own
comments, however, in the case of ADSL my answer to your question is
"yes".
Chris
| |
| hairydog@despammed.com 2006-09-26, 7:11 am |
| On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 18:25:59 +0100, Paul Cupis <paul@cupis.co.uk>
wrote:
>A monthly fee for a service they provide every month, which uses their
>resources and therefore costs them something to provide.
No. I understand that a fixed IP costs nothing to provide, and in fact
can be slightly cheaper than a dynamic one.
| |
| hairydog@despammed.com 2006-09-26, 7:11 am |
| On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 08:54:52 +0100, "jasee" <jasee@btinternet.com>
wrote:
>I thought this would be a good idea.
Why on earth did you think that? Moving to a good ADSL provider would
have been, but BT isn't one of them.
| |
| Paul Cupis 2006-09-26, 7:11 am |
| hairydog@despammed.com wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 18:25:59 +0100, Paul Cupis <paul@cupis.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
> No. I understand that a fixed IP costs nothing to provide, and in fact
> can be slightly cheaper than a dynamic one.
Where do you understand this from? Are are you talking about public IP
addresses or private?
| |
|
| hairydog@despammed.com wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 08:54:52 +0100, "jasee" <jasee@btinternet.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> Why on earth did you think that? Moving to a good ADSL provider would
> have been, but BT isn't one of them.
I've been with them pretty well since they started offering ADSL, having had
ISDN before I can't say I've got any particular complaint now, they were
shakey to begin with.
The main reason for moving to 'business' (which you've snipped) is the lack
of a cap which is very useful if you are considering voip (for instance).
However I'm open to suggestions for other providers of uncapped services in
the TN27 area of Kent. (provided they've got a reasonable chance of
survival)
| |
| hairydog@despammed.com 2006-09-26, 7:11 pm |
| On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 17:22:52 +0100, "jasee" <jasee@btinternet.com>
wrote:
>The main reason for moving to 'business' (which you've snipped) is the lack
>of a cap which is very useful if you are considering voip (for instance).
VOIP is not going to bash many caps. At around 29 hours per gigabyte
(at worst - use a different codec and it's a lot less) the cost of the
calls will outweigh the data charges.
>However I'm open to suggestions for other providers of uncapped services in
>the TN27 area of Kent. (provided they've got a reasonable chance of
>survival)
The chances are that most will be reselling BT Wholesale, just as BT
Broadband and BT Business Broadband are. Location makes no difference
to this.
And don't depend on BT staying in business for too long.
| |
| hairydog@despammed.com 2006-09-26, 7:11 pm |
| On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 12:36:27 +0100, Paul Cupis <paul@cupis.co.uk>
wrote:
>Where do you understand this from?
From ISPs.
>Are are you talking about public IP
>addresses or private?
How could a private IP address cost more? They are all from set
ranges.
|
|
|
|