Legal for BT to update BT2700HGV on non BT ISP?

Hi, I have my BT2700 serving as a Modem only and have DMZ sending everything to tomato'ed linksys. I am on BE network and bought the BT router off fleabay.

Unlike some others I quite like the BT firmeware, that is until I logged on to my modem for the first time in a couple of months only to see the firmware had updated to 6.1 (despite DNS poisoning).

Now the MDC page is unavailable and it cant be flashed away from BT.

If the router was originally bought(not leased) from BT and sold on, is it legal for BT to reduce the functionality like this?

To be honest most of the features I need are still accessible but I understand VOIP has now been locked down to BT?

I still have a couple of units in the loft (I used to punt them out on fleabay), but I think I'll have to flash these away from BT, as its uncomfortable knowing they still send updates to them even if they are not on BT's network!

Would adding fake motive.com and bt.com routes to the routing table help I wonder?
BT have a shed load of Ip ranges but i think they have outsourced the whole firmware management to Motive.com?

Strictly speaking it is not BT that have updated it, BT sell these products for use on their network and a feature of them is that they will update themselves without intervention, that is to say, your router has updated itself without your or BT's intervention.

The fact that you have decided to use it off network and don't desire some of it's features does not mean BT are in the wrong for providing them.

BT are not reducing functionality as they never sold it with the purpose of doing what you are trying to do with it, trying to accuse them of such would be similar to saying that a firmware update that prevented a printer from overheating has reduced the printers functionality as a space heater.

-------------------------------------
Be* Pro Annex M Powered - 24,574 downstream sync 2,854 upstream sync

Speedtest.net
Thinkbroadband.com
BBmax

In reply to a post by ydrol:

If the router was originally bought(not leased) from BT and sold on, is it legal for BT to reduce the functionality like this?

I suppose it rather depends upon what the original terms of sale were.

I understand that position, but lets say someone bought it from BT at £90.
I then bought it used at say £20.

Now BT and myself have no relationship at all.
This is my ADSL Router(*), and is a bit of my computer equipment.

Can someone do remote modifications to it?
Even the original manufacturer?
[I suspect I'm on thin ground here but I'd like to play devils advocate a mo]

Arent there strict laws in the UK for altering equipment which you don't own and is not in your jurisdiction?

Looking at it completely differently (ie ignoring the legality aspect ) - Sending out global worldwide updates to a router on all networks - has to be a WTF in the making

The (*) probably indicates an incorrect assumption on my part Is it a 'normal' ADSL Router.
Do BT (or others acting on their behalf) have the right to update it after it has been sold on?


UPDATE:
First of all I'm not too bothered or strung out by this. I have 2 or more units in the loft and a handful of other makes. Call this a serendipity excercise:

The computer Misuse Act 1990 Section 3

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1990/UKpga_19900018_...

Unauthorised modification of computer material
he does any act which causes an unauthorised modification of the contents of any computer; and
(a) to impair the operation of any computer;

(b) to prevent or hinder access to any program or data held in any computer; or

(c) to impair the operation of any such program or the reliability of any such data.

This update has prevented access to certain configuration pages of the router,
esp 3rd party - non BT VOIP configuration , and flashing to other firmware.

However it wasn't originally sold with those capabilities, but it did have them when I bought it,
and it did not belong to BT, however BT may have a clause that it cant be sold on etc.

Anyway I'm not a lawyer, and its late

Edited by ydrol (Fri 03-Jul-09 00:18:50)

If, under the original terms, the original owner wasn't supposed to sell it on for use on another network and did, then the new "owner" wouldn't in fact be the owner.
It really is down to what was said in the original terms of sale. Until you know what those terms were, there's no point in speculating.

Yeah my though processes wondered along this path too - see edits above!

Not to mention 'terms of sale' or sometimes not proven in a legal sense.
Look and the history of the 2nd hand cd market etc.

Edited by ydrol (Fri 03-Jul-09 00:22:54)

Post deleted by ydrol

Post deleted by ydrol

I suspect your router asked for the update, which turns many of the arguments on their head.

Phil

MaxDSL - goes as fast as it can and doesn't read the line checker first.

MaxDSL diagnostics
Are your kids pirates ? Limewire, Bearshare, Kazaa, BitTorrent, eMule are all tools of the trade.

In reply to a post by yarwell:

I suspect your router asked for the update, which turns many of the arguments on their head.

True, It certainly has a function to advertise itself as available for update, I I guess that wraps that up. Off to play with my routing tables methinks...