Plusnet IP problems and streaming

I have been having a problem for a while now were it seems, some plusnet IP address I have been given from a pool, of dynamic ip address, won't let me watch a certain stream of news I watch online.

I watch skynews live online from it's website. I have been making a note of the IP I have been given for the last few days. When I go to watch skynews live, I get a pre-recorded video and a message basically saying, I�m not from the UK.

The last time I had this problem, was about six years ago and it turned out that the IP addresses given by the isp, where not properly registered, that is why they would not work with most streaming videos, like skynews.

I never had this problem with my last isp so it�s not my end. Also I seem to get quite a bit of buffering on the high setting. To medium and low is ok but was not a problem before with old isp.

See here and if other PN users who are on dynamic IP, would like to test it as well.
http://news.sky.com/ Click on, �watch sky news live� at the top and it will open a pop up window. It will be on high setting unless you change it.


This is a snapshot of what I get when I have an IP from plusnet, that does not work. If you get this, then you have the same problem as me, with a bad PN IP.

http://s6.postimage.org/skc0n2sg1/Sky_news_region_pr...


These two at the moment are the ones that won't work, for the reasons I stated above.

If a PN rep replies, I can send them the full IP�s in a PM, so they can do some more testing or remove the Ip addresses.

31.185.***.**

146.90.***.**

The IP address I have today, starts with 87 and is working fine.

So could PN please sort this IP problem out and the buffering issue? Thanks

Edited by deleted (Sun 30-Dec-12 14:06:10)

A quick look up on the RIPE database show that these address ranges are properly registered and were assigned to Plusnet years ago... in other words, Sky have no excuse.
(in the the 31.185.***.** range, you should only see 32 to 47 or 128 to 255 as the third octet; the rest are variously assigned to places like Russia, Denmark, Germany, Bosnia and Italy, and not to Plusnet or any other UK provider - but the registration looks correct from other evidence, i.e. a traceroute to 31.185.1.X goes definitely to Russia so it's not a case of forgotten update to the database).

Thanks for reply. A pity Plusnet could not of replied. So are you saying it's a problem at skynews end? If so, how can we contact sky about this then?

Problem is, I may get one of them IP's again. So can anyone tell me how I can change IP address with PN, without having to keep switching off my router?

And no, I don't want a static IP or will I pay for one.

Edited by deleted (Sun 30-Dec-12 20:34:23)

In reply to a post by superspeed:

And no, I don't want a static IP or will I pay for one.

When everything goes IPv6 you won't get the option. Also as I understand it, every device will have one, no NAT. They're coming to get you ....

You do know it's only a one-off £5? Not pounds per month like some ISPs.

Edited by RobertoS (Sun 30-Dec-12 21:10:34)

In reply to a post by superspeed:

Thanks for reply. A pity Plusnet could not of replied. So are you saying it's a problem at skynews end? If so, how can we contact sky about this then?

Yes, I'm saying it's Sky not keeping their data up to date - and by the sound of it being years behind.
Not sure what you can do about that - it would be better if Plusnet gave them a wee reminder that these IPs are assigned to them and stop blocking their customers thank you.

Going IPV6 is a little way off yet. It's not very good either, as they failed to make it backwards compatible with IPV4. Thats why is has had a very slow uptake.

IPV4 will be around for a very long time, as we all have stuff that still uses IPV4.

Well even if it is only five quid, still don't want a static IP.
It still don't answer my question, if I can change IP without turning the router off.

Someone must know some command or something that could change it. Anyway called PN in the end and they don't believe you can change it any other way.

In reply to a post by superspeed:

It still don't answer my question, if I can change IP without turning the router off.

That depends on your router. You may be able to disconnect and reconnect which would drop the PPP session and then restart it without losing sync or rebooting/powering off. This would likely give you a different IP address.

Thanks.
Well lets hope a Plusnet rep can pop in tomorrow, if it's not to much bother and send skynews an email, to ask them to sort it out.


The buffering problem though, is still at plusnets end, as far as I can see. Just hope that new unlimited fibre is not stealing to much of my bandwidth.

Edited by deleted (Sun 30-Dec-12 23:06:48)

In reply to a post by Uilebheist:

In reply to a post by superspeed:

It still don't answer my question, if I can change IP without turning the router off.

That depends on your router. You may be able to disconnect and reconnect which would drop the PPP session and then restart it without losing sync or rebooting/powering off. This would likely give you a different IP address.

If you mean the disconnect and reconnect button in the UI, then I have that. The problem is blasted DLM. Keep doing that may cause my speed to drop again.

You do know it's only a one-off £5? Not pounds per month like some ISPs.

If you wanted a static IP it was a freebie when I started with madasafish (Brightview days) and it still is for me ....... can't speak for others though

Could you repost the failing IP's with the third quartets please.

In reply to a post by superspeed:

If you mean the disconnect and reconnect button in the UI, then I have that. The problem is blasted DLM. Keep doing that may cause my speed to drop again.

If the "disconnect" button drops sync, then no, that's not what I mean. If it drops PPP session without dropping sync then the DLM wouldn't even know anything happened.
Usually though the "drop ppp without dropping sync" is only available via the command-line interface, not the GUI (if the router has a command-line interface at all, some don't). And the exact command obviously depends on the router's model.

In reply to a post by superspeed:

Just hope that new unlimited fibre is not stealing to much of my bandwidth.

Seeing as it wasn't available until 19 December so no new signups live yet, and existing customers can only upgrade on their billing date, plus the capacity upgrades already installed for the forecast demand growth for the immediate future, that seems rather unlikely.

I''ve also started having issues aswell with strange IP address's being assigned and loss of browsing. No loss of sync to the exchange, but dropped ppp sessions with repeated error messages

LCP Down - Failed to Authenticate
Chap Authentication Failed

When it does establish a ppp session, there is no browsing when the IP range is dynamically assigned.

IP address range = 172.16.112.XXX
DNS = 62.6.38.125

According to my router logs, it's been happening since 00.30gmt on the 20th December. I've obviously not noticed it during the night, but it happend yesterday evening.
No loss of sync with the exchange.

Hmmm, being assigned an IP address reserved for private LANs? And a BT DNS server?
I've seen that before when the BT's server failed to connect to the ISP's RADIUS server to authenticate the ppp session.

There is nothing wrong with plusnet IP. I still accessing sky go and sky news live no problem at all. It must be at your pc end's problem (maybe your firewall)

Max, your trolling is becoming more transparent every day.

I thought there was a major outage that affected plusnet last night http://usertools.plus.net/status/archive/1356914255.htm

Edited by deleted (Mon 31-Dec-12 10:43:13)

In reply to a post by Uilebheist:

Usually though the "drop ppp without dropping sync" is only available via the command-line interface, not the GUI (if the router has a command-line interface at all, some don't).

The "Disconnect" button in Plusnet's Technicolor routers drops PPP and not synch.

In reply to a post by Uilebheist:

In reply to a post by superspeed:

Thanks for reply. A pity Plusnet could not of replied. So are you saying it's a problem at skynews end? If so, how can we contact sky about this then?

Yes, I'm saying it's Sky not keeping their data up to date - and by the sound of it being years behind.

Ironic somewhat, because I seem to remember when Sky launched their broadband service some years ago, there were similar problems with UK sites not recognising their range of IP addresses !

I have sent you a PM with the full IP addresses.

BTW the IP address I have today, is also working fine.

Edited by deleted (Mon 31-Dec-12 11:42:41)

The router PN provide I don't believe you can use command line, as it's locked down but I have two other routers.

The one I am on right now is a TP-Link TL-R402M DSL. Don't know how or if you can do it with this.

Thanks, the specific IPs are definitely registered as Plusnet's, so it looks like Sky are to blame.

If you are referring to the TG582 it's not locked down and you can telnet in to do all sorts of advanced configuration.

Ok thanks, I wasn't sure. Good to know if I have to use that router.

I am stciking with the one I have on, as it works well, so if anybody knows how to change IP with this router, please let me know.


I also have a Buffalo Airstation incase someone knows about that. I can swap it over for a while if needed but don't want to keep swapping routers over to much, as it will affect my line

Edited by deleted (Mon 31-Dec-12 12:11:11)

In reply to a post by superspeed:

Well lets hope a Plusnet rep can pop in tomorrow, if it's not to much bother and send skynews an email, to ask them to sort it out.

You'd be better off posting on http://community.plus.net/forum or raising a ticket if you want a timely reply from Plusnet surely?

Plusnet do post and frequent these forums but they seem to pick and chose when they want to reply.

There were four of them on here yesterday and not one of them bothered to post. Only seems to be oldjim that posts the most. Waste of time with tickets and anyway, I may well be posting on that forum very soon, as i'm not happy about certain things.

Your probably know who I am then.


Well I have another problem IP today that don't work. Almost like one of the other IP's I posted. 31.185.***.***

Nobody got back to me about changing IP without a reboot, so I may just have to switch the router off. Not really bothered if it messes up in the situation at the moment.

Edited by deleted (Tue 01-Jan-13 12:03:07)

I am not a member of staff
Regarding changing IP without a reboot - not knowing which router you have - have you actually checked if you can.
I know that with the Plusnet (Thompson/Technicolor) routers you can and also with my Netgear

In reply to a post by superspeed:

Well I have another problem IP today that don't work. Almost like one of the other IP's I posted. 31.185.***.***

I have to ask - have you been in touch with Sky abut this? Apologies if you've already said.

Thanks for the reply jim. At least you do reply on here, thats what I mean.

I have been using a TP link TL-R402M recently, as I don't really like the technicolour router.Here http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B000N99BAS/?tag=hydra0b-2...

I can't find anything in the simple guide about it but my router does have the standard connect and disconnect in the user interface.

Edited by deleted (Tue 01-Jan-13 13:01:19)

Is this Sky service something you have to pay for? Either directly by subscription or indirectly via some other subscription? Or sio it toatlly free with no tie-in to any other Sky service?

I wouldn't know where to start. I did mention about it but ideally, it would be best for PN to contact sky over it. I know nothing about PN or skys networks.

Edited by deleted (Tue 01-Jan-13 13:08:30)

No roberto, it's free online at the website and link I posted. Has been for many years. If you use it on xbox or other services, maybe a charge for it.

Edited by deleted (Tue 01-Jan-13 13:07:38)

As does my Netgear and it doesn't resync

In reply to a post by superspeed:

I wouldn't know where to start. I did mention about it but ideally, it would be best for PN to contact sky over it. I know nothing about PN or skys networks.

I meant using something like http://contactus.sky.com/ and quoting some of the evidence in this thread that the IP addresses that were not being allowed were valid UK addresses assigned to Plusnet. Agreed it would be helpful if Plusnet contacted Sky as well. FWIW it works fine for me at the moment and I'm currently on an 87.113 address.

I'm not sure that is the correct place but I did an online chat and this is what was said below

I'm not going to call that expensive number and why should I have to. PN should deal with it. You could be on hold for an hour or more and that's what sky were like many years ago.

Welcome to Sky Live Chat Service. A Sky Advisor will be with you shortly. Your chat may be monitored and recorded for training, legal and compliance purposes.
You are now connected with Tara.
Tara: Hello, you're chatting with Tara, a Sky advisor, may I take your name please?
You: Hi I'm not a customer. Just need something sorting
You: Hi sorry this maybe a strange inquiry. There seems to be a problem watching sky news live from the website and it turns out your IP list is out of date. It�s blocking some of the ip addresses from my isp. Can you resolve this or give me an email phone number to ask sky to sort it. Thanks
Tara: Hi there.
Tara: Just checking that for you now.
Tara: Thank you for your time.
Tara: Can I know whether you are enquiring about the Sky Go service please?
You: Not sure but it's free from here http://news.sky.com/
Tara: Just checking that for you now.
Tara: Thank you for your time.
Tara: I�m sorry, I�ve been unable to find that information for you so I would request you to give a call on 08442 41 15 22 and I�m sure one of my colleagues will definitely assist you further with this.
You: Right Ok. You may need to contact my isp as well.
Tara: If that is case our team will contact them directly.
Tara: You can give a call on the above number and they will check the details for you.
Tara: Is there anything else I can help you with today?
You: No thats all thank you.
Tara: Thank you for chatting with me today. We really value your feedback. Please click the button marked "End Chat" at the top right of this chat window to answer a few questions about your experience with us today. Enjoy the rest of your day.

Edited by deleted (Tue 01-Jan-13 20:28:04)

Some hours ago I had to disconnect. I left it for about an hour and it had reconnected with a new IP when I got back. It may of been my auto connect that did that but not sure if it registered as a disconnection PN end.


BTW I called TP link and no way to drop just PPP session, so they told me. Also you can't telnet with TP link routers. It's not an option.

Edited by deleted (Tue 01-Jan-13 20:39:16)

Are you able to use iPlayer successfully? Do you use the national lottery website with a personal account? Both of these also limit by IP address to UK only addresses so would be interesting to see if either of them have kept up to date.

If none of them work then worth trying to speak to Plusnet. However, if those do work then clearly they have managed to keep up with Plusnet IP changes and it is just Sky that haven't - in which case I would put the blame squarely on Sky.

In reply to a post by superspeed:

I called TP link and no way to drop just PPP session, so they told me.

Unplugging the ethernet cable from the WAN port ought to work!

Edited by ferretuk (Wed 02-Jan-13 11:18:27)

ferretuk: slick solution!

Hi,

Could you send me the full IPs please? We've got a couple of ranges in 31.185.x.x so want to check if it's affecting both ranges or just one.

There are a couple of places that set the geography of IPs, it's possible it's missing from one of these (although I'd suspect there would be other things that say the same) or it could be Sky themselves.

Do you have Sky Go? Just wondering if that's similarly affected or have you tried other UK streaming services like iPlayer when you've had one of the affected IPs?

Thanks but that will cause a disconnection, which is not good for my line. PN confirmed that while I while talking about my other issues.

Another problem IP in the same range as before 31.185.***.**

I don't use iplayer much and certainly don't use national lottery website at all.

Plusnet have had plenty of opportunity to post on here about it but choose to ignore it.

EDIT: just seen reply from PN.

Edited by deleted (Wed 02-Jan-13 17:21:18)

In reply to a post by superspeed:

Thanks but that will cause a disconnection, which is not good for my line. PN confirmed that while I while talking about my other issues.

My understanding was that on FTTC it was only a modem disconnection that might affect the line. I may be wrong but I can't see why the Openreach DLM would know or care about router disconnections.

Edited by kasg (Wed 02-Jan-13 17:10:18)

In reply to a post by DaveTomlinson:

There are a couple of places that set the geography of IPs, it's possible it's missing from one of these (although I'd suspect there would be other things that say the same) or it could be Sky themselves.

IIRC Sky rely on Neustar for their Geo-location. Either Neustar haven't updated their database to include some of our ranges, or Sky are using an old copy of their database.

The IP ranges you seem to be having problems with aren't new though.

You could do worse than use the form here the next time you're assigned a problematic IP.

Regards,

Thank you dave for the reply. I have just sent you a PM with the current problem IP addresses.

I don't use iplayer much but have tested just now and it works. The SKY news is still a problem, even today.

No I don't use skygo and is not needed for sky news live.

Edited by deleted (Wed 02-Jan-13 16:48:41)

Not so. I have been given conflicting advice but thats what I was told today.

Think we should start a new thread about DLM and what it does and how it affects your line.

Edited by deleted (Wed 02-Jan-13 16:53:08)

Ta, I've contacted Neustar to check that their records are OK, if they are then I'll try Sky.

In reply to a post by superspeed:

Think we should start a new thread about DLM and what it does and how it affects your line.

That would be an interesting read but perhaps in the Fibre Broadband section where people who have no reason to read here can contribute.

In reply to a post by superspeed:

Not so. I have been given conflicting advice but thats what I was told today.

Think we should start a new thread about DLM and what it does and how it affects your line.

No need for a thread.

It is almost certain the Plusnet support person advising you either didn't fully understand the question, (bearing in mind we don't know verbatim what the question you asked was), or [didn't realise | forgot that] you are on FTTC. On FTTC, disconnecting the router from the modem will make no difference whatsoever to your line, so long as you don't do it every few minutes for a while. (It's possible the BTW DLM might detect an instability and request a more stable setting from the Openreach DLM, but that's pure surmise by me).

The Openreach DLM, as has been said, won't even know about router disconnections.

Edited by RobertoS (Wed 02-Jan-13 17:05:33)

I'm really confused now. The person I spoke to seemed very knowledgeable and said he had quite a bit of experience.

I would leave the DLM guide to your roberto as your more knowledgeable but think I may start my own thread about it. To do with what I was told.

Yes it would and would help sort out the confusion and conflicting advice. Roberto or some of the others are best for that though.

I will ask my specific questions on here.

In reply to a post by superspeed:

I don't use iplayer much and certainly don't use national lottery website at all.

Plusnet have had plenty of opportunity to post on here about it but choose to ignore it.

EDIT: just seen reply from PN.

Give us a break. It has been Xmas

I spotted the thread, but being as I was on holiday and couldn't answer it, thought it would be best to leave it till I was back in.

How do you mean, give you a break?
It's Xmas, when everybody is feeling bored with nothing to do, not even work, and you aren't fixing problems 5 minutes before they are reported?
Just joking of course.

Glad your back kelly. I sent dave a PM with the offending IP's, so may want to see what dave is doing. Think bob maybe helping out as well.

I've had a reply back from Neustar, our IPs were registered with them as in the UK but one of the values for confidence that it was in the UK wasn't set correctly. They've updated this for us, not sure how long it will take for the change to propagate through to Sky, but hopefully not too long.

Thanks dave for sorting out this issue.

I'll keep check on it and will let you know if any more IP's that may have this problem. Also test out the IP's that had the original problem, when I'm assigned them.

Edited by deleted (Thu 03-Jan-13 16:29:45)

Hi dave, i'm afraid this problem is back again with a similar IP range, to one of the other IP's I sent you.

Sending a PM with the IP address from today. 146.90.**.***

Can you get on to it, thanks.

Thanks, I sent that one over too, so hopefully that will be updated when they do the update.

Thanks just sent you another PM with yet another IP.

You may want to send in all IP's that start with 146.90.**.*** as that's now three with the same problem in that range. May save time doing that to be on the safe side.

Edited by deleted (Sun 13-Jan-13 19:27:46)

Hi superspeed,

I believe Dave did send off the whole block (at least that part of it that is allocated to us) so it's just a matter of Sky updating their database from the now-amended one that Neustar have. Not sure how often Sky do refresh from the Neustar 'master' DB but that's now what we're waiting on.

Surely it's Sky that you should be pestering now that PN has made sure the correct information has been passed on?

As I am assigned a dynamic IP, I could get any one. But I am still being assigned problem IP's that I have never had. So I still need to provide them IP's to plusnet, to sort out.

I am keeping a list of the problem IP's, so I know what ones I have had.

Edited by deleted (Tue 15-Jan-13 20:38:18)

Ah matt, I was wondering if you was ever going to post on here. Now you have.

Thanks matt.

I have only been sending single IP's to dave but dave never said he was going to send in the whole block.

It's like I said to jelv above Matt. I can only give problem IP's when I am assigned them, which is normally once a day.

Edited by deleted (Tue 15-Jan-13 20:40:27)

Another blasted bad IP again, in the same range as before. 146.90.**.** How long does it take to go through? And are your sure the whole block has been submitted?

I think these IP's are so old and that's the reason for this continued problem. I would like some option in my members centre please, so that I can block these annoying problem IP's until they are either removed from the pool, or the problem is sorted.

Think you need to add some fresh IP's to the pool of old dynamic IP's you have.

Edited by deleted (Wed 23-Jan-13 00:38:26)

In reply to a post by superspeed:

Another blasted bad IP again, in the same range as before. 146.90.**.** How long does it take to go through? And are your sure the whole block has been submitted?

I think these IP's are so old and that's the reason for this continued problem. I would like some option in my members centre please, so that I can block these annoying problem IP's until they are either removed from the pool, or the problem is sorted.

Think you need to add some fresh IP's to the pool of old dynamic IP's you have.

If these problems are so troubling to you, switch to a static IP - most modern PlusNet products permit this for a one-off £5 payment. So long as you are not in the habit of getting yourself IP bans from services you care about or bringing yourself to the attention of someone who may wish to DDoS you, this really isn't a problem unless you're in the habit of getting a fresh address to circumvent a restriction (such as the Royal Mail's per-address daily limit on postcode lookups).

With an organisation such as PlusNet, it's impossible for someone attempting to track you to know easily whether your IP address is static or dynamic without inside knowledge of the ISP. If someone is prepared to go to that sort of effort, I suggest you have bigger concerns than them examining whatever portion of your Internet traffic they have. Anyone persuading a court there are legitimate concerns about the legality of your Internet use can apply for a court order requiring disclosure of which customer the address was allocated to - dynamic IP will not protect you here.


The peril of being on dynamic IP is that you may get an address that others have got banned, or where there's some kind of geolocation issue. With static IP, any issues have to be sorted one time only, and from then on you're responsible for how other people look upon your IP address.


There are no fresh IPv4 addresses to add to pools - the supply has run out. I don't know how much spare IPv4 address space PlusNet has, but every organisation will be making strenuous efforts to reuse address space wherever possible.

An 'opt out of problem pools' switch is clearly doomed, as increasing numbers of customers will select the option and not unselect it. I'd like to know how you define a problem address, especially as recent allocations of IP blocks to organisations were increasingly likely to have come from reclaimed rather than virgin space.

In reply to a post by superspeed:

Another blasted bad IP again, in the same range as before. 146.90.**.** How long does it take to go through? And are your sure the whole block has been submitted?

I'll nudge Dave but as far as I'm aware he asked Neustar to consider the entire 146.90.xxx.xxx netblock. There's a possibility still that Sky are using an outdated database I guess?

Rgds,

Thanks but David, you didn't really have to explain all that. As said to roberto, I don't want a static IP or should I have to pay for one. I prefer a dynamic IP but if you read my first post, you will see what it's all about. Nothing to do with having more than, one free postal check a day or getting round some ban.
http://forums.thinkbroadband.com/plusnet/t/4193817-p...


The pro's and con's of dynamic VS static IP have been debated to death. I have my view and others have there�s, no one can ever agree on it. Just so you know, Plusnet had a court order a few years ago among many, to obtain some customers details but that was before I became a customer. Your IP alone is not 100 proof you did wrong. I even have a copy of that court order from the web. http://s6.postimage.org/y7s6d6fsx/IA_30_OF_2010_SEAL...

Anyway the IP's I am assigned should work out the box but many don't.

Edited by deleted (Wed 23-Jan-13 17:15:19)

Thanks bob. That all depends on how long Neustar take to sort this out? Well even if it's still sky, someone from PN will need to get hold of them at sky.

I have already tried to contact sky about it and not much good. I don't have the correct contacts like an isp would have. It's not really down to the customer anyway.

Why should anyone from Plusnet expend effort when it's Sky's problem?

The IP address you have does work. It is correctly registered as being in the UK and Plusnet have made sure that the organisation that handles the location information for Sky has the correct information. It's Sky you need to have a go at, not Plusnet!

Please read my other comments. It's not a customers job to chase up another company like sky, when it's plusnet giving me the IP's that are causing me the problem. I have already tried to contact sky if you care to read this thread right through and got nowhere. PN can email sky about it as they would have the correct contacts.

SKY retail does not deal with this problem. Now stop trying to pass the buck about who is responsable. And again I keep getting new problem IP's, so not old ones thank you very much. (rolleyes)

Edited by deleted (Wed 23-Jan-13 19:12:44)

PlusNet are not responsible for the use other organisations make of incorrect geolocation data. I'd agree that they have a moral obligation to make reasonable efforts to update data with major geolocation providers when errors are drawn to their attention, but that is as far as their obligation goes. You would certainly have no grounds for contractual action against PlusNet if this wasn't sorted out, and it's most unlikely you would have grounds to allege PlusNet were negligent - they cannot be held responsible for the actions of a third party with whom they have no business relationship, whilst making reasonable efforts to update the geolocation data would discharge any duty of care they owed you.

If you have a cause of action against anyone, I'd argue it is against Sky for failing to take reasonable care to implement their country blocking correctly, thereby denying you access to a service you're paying for (I believe - if you're not paying for the Sky service your rights are weaker as it's debatable whether there's any consideration and therefore any contract). I doubt you'd be able to prove breach of contract (if there is a contract) or negligence to the satisfaction of a court, as geolocation relies on databases that are inherently fallible.

For all we know, the data has been updated and Sky haven't downloaded updated geolocation files from Neustar.


PlusNet are providing you with a valid IP address, which is sufficient to fulfil their contractual obligations to provide you with Internet access. It's your choice to remain with dynamic IP, though static IP tends to help with this sort of problem as, at most, you have to solve the problem once. If this is important enough to you to post here, I'd suggest it is important enough to spend £5 on a static IP address - though, as I say, it's your choice to stay with dynamic IP. The availability of static IP is likely to nullify any claim you have against PlusNet, as there's an option reasonably available to you which should minimise these problems.


The order from Winegarten CM in the Chancery Division that you linked to required a reasonable search of ISP records to reveal links between IP addresses and individual subscribers. So as not to open themselves to accusations that reasonable efforts were not made, also to assist in identifying the party responsible for any defamation, I would expect ISPs to keep RADIUS logs sufficient to link IP addresses to subscribers for at least six years (the limitation period for most civil action under the Limitation Act 1980). If that is the case, dynamic IP would leaves you in the same position as static IP in any legal action.

If you are the subscriber implicated in any legal action relating to the Internet, there's multiple possible defences. I haven't researched the recent case law, however.


(If you hadn't realised, I have a legal background, though stress I'm writing here off the top of my head without proper legal research).

If you have a problem with your television do you contact the electricity company to fix it because they supply the electricity that runs it?

Plusnet have fulfilled their obligations, they are providing you with an IP address that works, it is correctly registered as being in the UK, they are correctly forwarding the gets when you request the Sky page to Sky's website, it is Sky that are doing the blocking. Just because Sky are so awful that they refuse to talk to you and do anything about it is not Plusnet's problem!

In reply to a post by jelv:

If you have a problem with your television do you contact the electricity company to fix it because they supply the electricity that runs it?

If they supply the wrong voltage and it ruins your TV then of course you contact the electricity company.

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

If they supply the wrong voltage and it ruins your TV then of course you contact the electricity company.

But it's not the wrong voltage (in this over-stretched analogy!) it's the right voltage. It's just that the picture tube in his TV has decided it doesn't like that voltage and refuses to light up!

Whilst I appreciate the difficulty and frustration of a customer trying to get any kind of meaningful response out of Sky to fix what seems to be a problem at their end, and also that an ISP like PlusNet may have better routes into Sky to get it sorted, I also think PlusNet seem to have done everything that could reasonably be expected of them in their role as a responsible ISP. The problem is ultimately that Sky seems to be blocking a valid IP, which is something Sky is responsible to sort out.

The fact remains that if something supplied is unsuitable for the purpose, it's the supplier whose fault it is, not the customer. I'm sure someone with claimed legal training will be able to confirm that

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

The fact remains that if something supplied is unsuitable for the purpose, it's the supplier whose fault it is, not the customer. I'm sure someone with claimed legal training will be able to confirm that

Sure. Absolutely correct. But what is "unsuitable for the purpose" about the OP's internet service? I haven't checked, but I don't think PlusNet's T&C state "we guarantee access to every server on the internet". If Sky decides to block certain IP addresses, that is PlusNet's fault? It is totally outside PlusNet's control. They are being helpful and trying to make sure that the third party geo database provider has the correct information about their services. But again, the responsibility for the accuracy of that information rests with the supplier of the database.

Anyway, let's hope the issue gets resolved. I can understand the OP's frustration, but I think it should be directed at Sky.

ISTR that AOL used to supply IP addresses that were located outside of the UK and after lots of complaints they changed them.

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

ISTR that AOL used to supply IP addresses that were located outside of the UK and after lots of complaints they changed them.

Relevance? Nil, that I can see. Plusnet are supplying UK-located IP addresses. Sky are ignoring the relevant data on the databases they use to determine country of origin.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

ISTR that AOL used to supply IP addresses that were located outside of the UK and after lots of complaints they changed them.

Relevance? Nil, that I can see. Plusnet are supplying UK-located IP addresses. Sky are ignoring the relevant data on the databases they use to determine country of origin.

I was talking about the obligations of the supplier and one example that I remember when the supplier met their obligation.

That supplier was handing out non-UK IP addresses. That is clearly their responsibility to sort out.

It is irrelevant to the case in point. Plusnet have more than fulfilled their obligations in this matter, and appear still to be doing so.

Short of mounting a raid on Sky's offices and taking physical control of their systems, in order to correct Sky's failure to deal with the issue, I can't think what Plusnet are supposed to do.

Can you, and if so, please give details?

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

I was talking about the obligations of the supplier and one example that I remember when the supplier met their obligation.

Indeed, but in this case the supplier (PlusNet) has met its obligation to provide a valid (UK) IP and access to the internet. Since Sky isn't charging for its online news stream, which the OP wants to access, I can't see that they have much incentive to resolve the problem. My advice would be to watch the news on a different channel

Looks the same to me.

In reference to iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.uk/help/outside_the_uk/aol_problem:

I'm an AOL user. Why am I having problems playing BBC iPlayer programmes?

If you are an AOL user located within the UK and cannot play programmes via BBC iPlayer due to on-screen messages stating that you are outside of the UK, AOL has advised that upgrading to their latest AOL software should resolve this problem.

If you continue to experience problems or have any questions related to upgrading your AOL Software, AOL is best placed to answer them.

Looks totally different to me, but maybe I'm not following your argument. Are you suggesting that PlusNet is allocating IPs to superspeed that belong to a different organisation based outside the UK?

From what I have read in this thread, it seems that Sky (probably) uses a geo-locate service from Neustar. And Neustar has the IP addresses in question marked as "in the UK" in their database, but with a low degree of confidence in the information.

Perhaps Neustar's ISP allocated them an IP address that RIPE has blocked, so they were unable to verify the information they offer to their customers

In reply to a post by Bright:

Looks totally different to me, but maybe I'm not following your argument.

No, I think you haven't read the OP.

The range of IP concerned has been a Plusnet IP for a long time and also shown on RIPE as UK.

See http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools#ipInformation/type=dom...

In the AOL case they were allocating non-UK IPs so that is totally different.

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

In reply to a post by Bright:

Looks totally different to me, but maybe I'm not following your argument.

No, I think you haven't read the OP.

Ah... so you mean the symptoms look the same to you. Whereas I meant the cause looks different to me. Perhaps you haven't read the rest of the thread...?

In reply to a post by Bright:

Ah... so you mean the symptoms look the same to you.

That's it !

Whereas I meant the cause looks different to me. Perhaps you haven't read the rest of the thread...?

I assure you I have read the entire thread.

I can see the easy solution would be to get a static IP address, and I understand why Plusnet mat be reluctant to sort out the problem with Sky if they perceive them as a competitor, but this is Sky TV, not Sky BB.

Although Sky TV would be a rival of BT Vision, but that's a very distant link.

Anyway, I'm glad you have understood what I was getting at.

In reply to a post by superspeed:

It's not a customers job to chase up another company like sky, when it's plusnet giving me the IP's that are causing me the problem.

As has already been mentioned, it's Sky's mistake to fix, and Plusnet have already made sure that the geoip location services which Sky use are up to date (they didn't even need to do that).

Plusnet don't get to choose what IPs they get give, RIPE issue them to Plusnet, Plusnet can't say to RIPE "hey, I don't like these, they have a 5 in them!" because RIPE will just say "fine, don't have any then".

And funnily enough, this issue even affects Sky's broadband customers, so if they can't figure out what IP addresses their own customers have, what hope for the rest?

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

As has already been mentioned, it's Sky's mistake to fix, and Plusnet have already made sure that the geoip location services which Sky use are up to date (they didn't even need to do that).

As has already been mentioned, in reality the BBC took the same position and the ISP had to fix it.

Plusnet don't get to choose what IPs they get give, RIPE issue them to Plusnet, Plusnet can't say to RIPE "hey, I don't like these, they have a 5 in them!" because RIPE will just say "fine, don't have any then".

Do you have a link where that has happened?

And funnily enough, this issue even affects Sky's broadband customers

Again, do you have a link?

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

]As has already been mentioned, in reality the BBC took the same position and the ISP had to fix it.

How can Plusnet fix Sky's systems? Are you suggesting Plusnet have some kind of backdoor to Sky's databases?

Again, do you have a link?

http://helpforum.sky.com/t5/Sky-Broadband-Setup-Conn...

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

]As has already been mentioned, in reality the BBC took the same position and the ISP had to fix it.

How can Plusnet fix Sky's systems? Are you suggesting Plusnet have some kind of backdoor to Sky's databases?

You mean the BBC had a backdoor to AOL's databases?

Again, do you have a link?

http://helpforum.sky.com/t5/Sky-Broadband-Setup-Conn...

You never know, the link may suggest another way forward for the OP.

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

You mean the BBC had a backdoor to AOL's databases?

AOL were issuing USA IP addresses to UK customers which was obviously a bad idea, quite different to Plusnet, who are issuing UK IP addresses.

I don't think IP addresses are country specific.

I assume the RIPE conversation never happened?

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

I don't think IP addresses are country specific.

They are. Or more accurately, the country in which they are being issued is clear, and various sites block access from overseas to some or all of their services based on picking that up.

The Beeb being a case in point that you have brought up yourself, and Sky in this case by not updating their database to reflect the fact that the IP addresses in question are now UK allocated, not overseas.

I don't think they are country specific

Each region of the world has an organization that is responsible for assigning IPs in their region. For example, North America has ARIN. There are Asian, European Africa etc versions as well.

If i can't use my connection for what it was ment to be used for, then PN would not be providng me with a, fit for purpose service. I would have a right to terminate a contract on that if the issue continued.

I'm not going to get into legal technicalities about it and I have rights. If this issue was to continue in next few months, then PN may not have a leg to stand on. I never had this stupid problem with my last isp and I know my last isp would of gone out of their way to get it sorted. I think they would even email sky about it for a start.

You obviously didn't read that court order properly. It has nothing to do with defamation but to do with copyright infringement.

Edited by deleted (Thu 24-Jan-13 13:18:16)

Nice try but is as I said. Anyway I have noticed a pattern.

All the problem IP's start with either 31.185.any.any. or 146.90.any.any

If i have an IP thats starts with 87 or 91, they seem to work.

And I have another proble IP today thats starts with 146.90.

You just don't get it, do you?

You buy a horse. You go to ride it along a public bridleway, but the landowner has padlocked the gate shut.

In your analysis, the horse is not fit for purpose because the seller has not made the landowner open the gate, and you hold the horse-seller responsible.

Edited by RobertoS (Thu 24-Jan-13 13:33:02)

I'm not sure why you think we'd have contacts/influence. They are a competitor after all!

I've dropped an email to a personal contact I have there to find out who to talk to.

I've already given a link once in this topic to look up the RIPE information. When you take a block of IPs you have to put a lot of information on to the RIPE database and that includes the country code.

If you look at http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools#ipInformation/type=dom... you will see that 146.90.0.0 to 146.90.255.255 is clearly shown as being GB and has been since at least July 2011.

It is Sky that are at fault for not correctly looking at the RIPE information.

I know it fashionable to blame Plusnet for absolutely everything but your refusal to read the information people have given is getting tiresome.

The IPs Plusnet are allocating are all registered on the RIPE database as being GB.

The IPs AOL allocated were registered as being USA.

I get quite cross about things like this. I wish Plusnet staff spent all their time addressing issues that are actually their responsibility instead of bending over backwards to help customers who see Plusnet support as a soft touch when the support for the people who are responsible (Sky in this case) have told the user to go away.

In reply to a post by jelv:

The IPs AOL allocated were registered as being USA.

That's exactly the point. They may have been registered as being in the USA but they were actually in the UK. They are not country specific.

In reply to a post by KellyD:

I'm not sure why you think we'd have contacts/influence. They are a competitor after all!

Sky TV are absolutely not a competitor to Plusnet.

You write a letter to someone and you've put your address in say Cornwall on the back. You put it in the postbox. Royal Mail attempt to deliver it and the person at the other end says Cornwall isn't in the UK and tells the Royal Mail to return it so sender.

Is it Royal mail or the recipient that is at fault?

That is exactly what is happening here. Plusnet have given you a UK registered IP address, Sky are refusing to recognise it.

The point is that the RIPE database said they were in the USA.

You do realise that you've just totally destroyed your own argument? The Plusnet addresses not only are registered as being the the UK but were actually in the UK!

What I'm saying is that when the BBC had a similar problem, it was AOL (the ISP) who had to fix it.
This time Sky TV has the problem and the precedent set means that Plusnet (the ISP) should fix it.

Sorry.

I'm a soft touch!

Of course AOL had to fix it! They were issuing IP addresses which were registered as being in the USA when they were actually in the UK. They had two choices, either allocate different IP addresses so that only UK registered IP addresses were given to UK users or change the registration of the IP addresses they are allocating to say they were in the UK. Either way UK users end up with UK registered IP addresses.

Plusnet has already done that - the responsibility lies with Sky to check where the IP address is registered as being from the RIPE database.

There is no precedent because the reason for the issue is totally different.

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

What I'm saying is that when the BBC had a similar problem, it was AOL (the ISP) who had to fix it.
This time Sky TV has the problem and the precedent set means that Plusnet (the ISP) should fix it.

The BBC didn't have a problem. AOL had the problem. This time Sky has the problem.

This is getting quite surreal. I'm beginning to think I've stepped into a parallel universe where the normal laws of logic no longer apply...

You suddenly appear to know a great deal about the problems that the BBC had with AOL that doesn't appear online. I wonder where you're getting this information from?

I'm sure that everyone who is experiencing this problem with Sky TV would benefit from your guidance. Note, it's not just the OP and it's not just Plusnet.

I agree. Even more surreal when even the ISP says they're a soft touch!

In reply to a post by jelv:

The point is that the RIPE database said they were in the USA.

Actually, the RIPE database wouldn't even know about these AOL IPs.
They were registered on the ARIN database. All RIPE could say about them is "not in Europe".
Quite different from the current situation.

edit - ah found it, although it took some digging.
AOL browser used to use uk.proxy.aol.com as proxy server. However, the IP address of that proxy (205.188.146.146) has not been assigned by RIPE but by ARIN. And as I said, a query to the RIPE database returns: "If you see this object as a result of a single IP query, it means that the IP address you are querying is not managed by the RIPE NCC [...]". And of course ARIN reports it as US (Virginia to be precise).
So completely different from this case which is correctly registered with RIPE etc etc.

Edited by deleted (Thu 24-Jan-13 19:10:34)

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

You buy a horse. You go to ride it along a public bridleway, but the landowner has padlocked the gate shut.

In your analysis, the horse is not fit for purpose because the seller has not made the landowner open the gate, and you hold the horse-seller responsible.

Ah, but see, they are saying that somebody 10 years ago bought a 3-legged horse, and that couldn't go on the public bridleway either, and somehow they see it as evidence that any horse who cannot go on the bridleway, for whatever reason, must be missing a leg.

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

I assume the RIPE conversation never happened?

Plusnet asks RIPE for a block of UK IP addresses, RIPE complies. As far as RIPE's responsibility goes, that's it.

What happens when Plusnet purchases a block of IP's previously allocated to e.g. Nortel Networks?

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

What happens when Plusnet purchases a block of IP's previously allocated to e.g. Nortel Networks?

If the IP addresses were previously allocated by RIPE to Nortel Networks, the RIPE database would be updated to show they are now allocated to Plusnet.

Or to be more precise, there would be two updates, one showing as "unallocated" and the second one as "allocated to plusnet".
This could cause a different type of problem when some sited have seen the first update but not the second and decide you don't exist.
(/notes that about 13 ranges have gone from "allocated" to "unallocated" this week... you have been warned )

Kelly I would be greatful if you can get some kind of email from your mate and just email sky about it, providing them with the block of problem IP's as well if needed.

Sky may be a competitor but it is irrelevant to this problem. Plusnet don't sell TV services yet, only BT. if I was with sky and had a problem like this, I would expect sky to do the same sort of thing if it continued.

I'm not asking you to kick skys doors down or spend hours on sky but alert them to this problem and ask them to sort it, if as you say, it's not PN.

As a member of the public and as I don't run an isp/networks, I have no way to contact sky about this. Most isp's are in contact with other admins for many reasons anyway.

Thanks

Edited by deleted (Thu 24-Jan-13 20:48:38)

I think you should have your bright spark award removed because, all you have done, is complain about the problems I am having and that it's not down to PN to try and sort it.

You haven't even bothered to maybe find a proper way to contact sky or advise some other way about it but moan that, PN should not be helping. Not much of a bright spark are you then.

I am not asking PN to spend hours on this other than to contact sky�s admin about it, which, is a bit of common sense. I have tried but sky retail does not know how, to deal with it or could they help.

It seems that as soon as someone has legitimate problems with plusnet, you pounce on anyone that says anything like an angry cat. I am so happy for you that you never seem to have a problem with your service or PN and can do no wrong. You seem to be another one of them Plusnet fanboys.

The day you have problems I will tell PN not to bother helping you, as PN are perfect in your eyes.

Edited by deleted (Thu 24-Jan-13 20:42:55)

If i'm sold a horse and a route down that bridleway but find it's locked, then it would be down to seller and my contract is with them, not the land owner.

On the other hand, If I was sold a horse and a route but was told that on some days, it is closed and in my contract, then I can't really complain.

Edited by deleted (Thu 24-Jan-13 20:50:03)

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

If the IP addresses were previously allocated by RIPE to Nortel Networks,

They weren't, they were allocated by ARIN.

But you've already provided evidence that Plusnet is providing a fully working route to Sky. It is the route you use to read Sky's refusal to talk to you. And Plusnet cannot guarantee that Sky will talk to you because in the end, it is Sky's decision (a bad and unreasonable decision which they make despite evidence provided by Plusnet, but what else do you expect them to do?)
By the way, just because I feel it I've decided to block these IPs on my servers. Don't forget to blame Plusnet for that.

In which case they would be returned to ARIN, not RIPE, and Plusnet would not be given these IPs.

Actually, I think it's happened before, and will again now that the ipv4 pool has been exhausted.

Yes, it happens, but it takes some time and many steps. Addresses returned to ARIN, then transferred to RIPE, then reallocated.
In the meantime, the various geolocation databases have plenty of time to keep up to date. If they want to, which Sky doesn't appear to

I'm not convinced that Sky TV are using a geolocation database, given that Plusnet have ensured that it's up to date and anyway the IP addresses were allocated years ago.

In reply to a post by superspeed:

If i can't use my connection for what it was ment to be used for, then PN would not be providng me with a, fit for purpose service. I would have a right to terminate a contract on that if the issue continued.

I'm not going to get into legal technicalities about it and I have rights. If this issue was to continue in next few months, then PN may not have a leg to stand on. I never had this stupid problem with my last isp and I know my last isp would of gone out of their way to get it sorted. I think they would even email sky about it for a start.

Whatever your last ISP did on this matter does not bind PlusNet to the same actions, nor to doing anything about it at all.

You have no rights beyond those that exist by agreement of parties in contract and those granted to you by law (implied contractual terms such as the one implied by section 13 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 that a service be delivered with reasonable care and skill, also tort rights such as those created by the law of negligence). Any other purported rights are unenforceable in the courts.


PlusNet are providing you with a broadband connection with an IP address which is globally routable (i.e. has correct BGP route advertisements) and sufficient peering to give you access to the Internet. The failure of a third party's service to work due to incorrect geolocation is beyond PlusNet's control and would not amount to a breach of contract by PlusNet, let alone a breach of a contractual condition (something so fundamental to the contract that a breach entitles you to end the contract). PlusNet have submitted an update to the geolocation service when the error was brought their attention, which would defeat a 'reasonable care and skill' claim by you.

Unsurprisingly, PlusNet's residential terms and conditions limit their liability for faults and acknowledge that Internet access may not be error free for reasons beyond PlusNet's control:

32.Unfortunately, we cannot guarantee that the service or the equipment we provide will never be faulty.

36. Sometimes we may not be able to do what we have agreed because of something beyond our reasonable control. In these cases, we do not accept responsibility for not providing you with your chosen communications services.

Those conditions look entirely reasonable, and I cannot see a court striking them down as unreasonable under sections 3 and 11 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. Further, a contract only creates an obligation to perform the services detailed in the contract and PlusNet do oblige themselves to update geolocation services in their terms. You accepted these terms when you ordered PlusNet broadband.

Any claim you have against PlusNet would therefore have to be based in the tort of negligence. I cannot see a court being willing to impose negligence liability on PlusNet for your inability to use a third-party service for reasons outside PlusNet's control, considering the test for negligence is defined in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] UKHL 2 as, in part, being that it is "fair, just and reasonable" to impose a duty of care.

In reply to a post by superspeed:

You obviously didn't read that court order properly. It has nothing to do with defamation but to do with copyright infringement.

I read the court order (well, the cover page that you posted a link to). It makes no difference which sort of tort (civil wrong) is alleged - the position on disclosure and - particularly relevant in this case - Norwich Pharmacal orders is the same.

Assuming that PlusNet keep their RADIUS logs for six years, which they likely do for reasons I've already explained, dynamic IP offers you no defence in legal action relating to your Internet usage that isn't available to a static IP user. The only difference is that Plusnet have to check their RADIUS logs to see which customer had the dynamic IP address at the time, rather than their records of static IP allocation.


I suggest you stop trying to tell those who know something about a subject about that subject. I may not be correct in everything I say and am willing to accept corrections from those who can demonstrate I'm wrong, but I have studied the law of obligations (contract and tort) and my answers are based on cited facts rather than an assertion that "I have rights".

I would agree with that. Which leaves the question, how are they deciding which IPs are UK and which ones aren't, and how can one inform them when it's wrong. The latter question, in particular, seems to be unanswerable.

Absolutely, that's why I think Plusnet need to talk to Sky because, although there is only one customer complaining at the moment chances are that others will be affected.

I suppose it may result in less complaints overall if they address it now.
The problem seems to be that they aren't having much more success talking to Sky than the OP.

I presume you exhausted the various contact options on the Sky News website?

http://news.sky.com/info/contact-us

In reply to a post by superspeed:

If i'm sold a horse and a route down that bridleway but find it's locked, then it would be down to seller and my contract is with them, not the land owner.

On the other hand, If I was sold a horse and a route but was told that on some days, it is closed and in my contract, then I can't really complain.

The horse seller sold you a horse, not a horse and access to a bridleway owned by himself. Quite independent of who you bought the horse from, you are entitled to a reasonable expectation that to get from Point A to Point B you could pass along this particular public bridleway which belongs to Lord Skylands.

However, Lord Skylands has barred, by a padlocked gate, access to that bridleway.

I suggest you google "public bridleway".

So I'm a Plusnet fan who thinks they never do wrong?

Explain if you will then my motivation in making this post. It's been going on for months and I think it utterly pathetic that it's still going on.

Them emails seem to be to, send in news or videos. Nothing like a technical sort of email. when I contacted sky, they said nothing about them, maybe because they are not the correct contact.

Even then, after sky failing to help, not sure they will. Lets hope kelly can get hold of sky's proper admin and tech for this sort of issue.

Edited by deleted (Fri 25-Jan-13 01:23:21)

Yeah ok whatever Lol. I don't go walking round the country or public footpaths much at all.

Anyway back to topic.

I must congratulate you.

That must be the best example of massive sig content to minimal post content yet.

-----

Roberto...I finally agree with you on the disabling of speed tests in sigs. Not to mention coloured backgrounds on text.

Whatever your last ISP did on this matter does not bind PlusNet to the same actions, nor to doing anything about it at all.

David, I am allowed to compare my good experiences from my old isp with the new one you know. It's not unlawful. I was saying how this problem only occurred when I moved to plusnet. It's not a great start is it when you move and have issues like this, when no such issue with my old isp.

OK David, you are obviously not familiar with the shenanigans of ACS law at that time. I was just pointing out that plusnet had already, had a court order years ago when you said about it . Here you go, I have uploaded the full PDF file of it, so you can have a look. It's still to do with copyrights ok. http://www.filedropper.com/ia30of2010sealedordermedi...

Edited by deleted (Fri 25-Jan-13 01:49:37)

What you mumbling on about? You mean like the one I replied to? I am not going to post more than I have to and I can't help that, my speed test's spread out so much.

Better take it up with SEB. Now back on topic.

Edited by deleted (Fri 25-Jan-13 01:45:10)

In reply to a post by superspeed:

Whatever your last ISP did on this matter does not bind PlusNet to the same actions, nor to doing anything about it at all.

David, I am allowed to compare my good experiences from my old isp with the new one you know. It's not unlawful. I was saying how this problem only occurred when I moved to plusnet. It's not a great start is it when you move and have issues like this, when no such issue with my old isp.

No - you went much further than comparing your experiences:

In reply to a post by superspeed:

If i can't use my connection for what it was ment to be used for, then PN would not be providng me with a, fit for purpose service. I would have a right to terminate a contract on that if the issue continued.

I'm not going to get into legal technicalities about it and I have rights.

You alleged that you had legally enforceable contractual rights you could use against PlusNet in this dispute. I explained why you have no legally enforceable rights, though you are, of course, allowed your opinion.

In reply to a post by superspeed:

OK David, you are obviously not familiar with the shenanigans of ACS law at that time. I was just pointing out that plusnet had already, had a court order years ago when you said about it.

Of course I'm familiar with the ACS Law affair, including the disciplinary action subsequently taken against Andrew Crossley for his conduct in that matter.

This type of order is known as a Norwich Pharmacal order, as I explained in my previous post. I also explained that the position with respect to obtaining one of these orders is pretty much the same no matter which tort is involved, whether it is breach of copyright, defamation or something else. In Lockton Companies International & Others v Persons Unknown and Google Inc [2009] EWHC 3423 (QB), a Norwich Pharmacal Order was granted in respect of alleged defamatory e-mails.

I've further explained that I would expect ISPs to have the same retention time for static IP allocation details and dynamic IP RADIUS logs. If that is the case, static IP does not make you more vulnerable to a Norwich Pharmacal order.


Please read what I write, rather than making spurious assertions.

You seem to think having a fixed IP would be worse when it came to disclosure under a NPO.

As far as Plusnet are concerned it would make not a scrap of difference. They are required to keep records that identify who was using an IP address at any time and would be able to do so if required regardless of whether you had a fixed or dynamic IP.

When you are on a dynamic IP it is possible for two Plusnet broadband lines to connect at the same time using the same username and password. We have seen this a few times where someone has passed on a router without removing the credentials and disabling the TR069 and they've suddenly had a lot of unexplained usage. If your username/password escaped you could therefore be blamed for someone else's activity. If you are on a fixed IP, although the connection will be established when a second connection is attempted both connections will have severe routing issues and it rapidly becomes apparent. You'd therefore probably be safer on a fixed IP.

Unless of course you engage in activities that could leave you vulnerable to action to someone like ACS. Your obsession with this aspect has led me to conclude you have something to hide.

In reply to a post by superspeed:

I am allowed to compare my good experiences from my old isp with the new one you know

I can't believe that this thread has gone on so long without the penny finally dropping that most people don't agree with your analysis of who's to blame!

Let's try another analogy:

You move from an established road to a newly built house, in a new estate built by Housing Developments Ltd.

As part of the planning and building process Housing Developments made arrangements to provide water, gas, electricity and sewage services and these work flawlessly.

When they built the estate they also applied to the Post Office for a new postcode and this was duly supplied and the road details entered into the master postcode database.

You move in and the new house is wonderful - Everything works and you start getting new products delivered to you from all parts of the world as you're a shop-a-holic who loves mail order.

Then, horror of horrors, you try to order a new free widget from Bigcorp.com but they say "Sorry mate, we can't deliver to you as the postcode database we use doesn't have you listed".

But, say you, the Post Office know all about the road? Ah but, says Bigcorp, we don't use that database, we use 3rdPartyPostcodeDatabase.com and they haven't got you listed correctly yet.

But I didn't have a problem at my old address, says you! What's that got to do with the price of fish, says Bigcorp, just because your old road was OK doesn't mean your new one is!

Let's look at the parties involved:

You (obviously!) - The agrieved customer of Bigcorp
Housing Development - The supplier of your address who've done everything they could to get official data updated.
Bigcorp.com - they won't send you the goods but they choose to use an independent data source rather than the official database.
3rdPartyPostcodeDatabase - Have a contractual relationship with Bigcorp to supply accurate data and have failed.

Who would you complain to? Bigcorp obviously as they have a problem with their supplier of data. Housing Development may give 3rdPartyPostcodeDatabase a nudge as a favour to you if asked nicely, but it's really none of their business as they've done eveything correctly!

Just because Bigcorp is difficult to deal with and makes it difficult for you to complain to them doesn't mean that you give up and try to palm off the responsibility for fixing the problem to Housing Development...

Edited by ferretuk (Fri 25-Jan-13 09:24:32)

That's good and very similar to the post I made some time back which he totally ignored:

In reply to a post by jelv:

You write a letter to someone and you've put your address in say Cornwall on the back. You put it in the postbox. Royal Mail attempt to deliver it and the person at the other end says Cornwall isn't in the UK and tells the Royal Mail to return it so sender.

Is it Royal mail or the recipient that is at fault?

That is exactly what is happening here. Plusnet have given you a UK registered IP address, Sky are refusing to recognise it.

You'll know if your point has hit home because he'll ignore the post!

In reply to a post by superspeed:

Yeah ok whatever Lol. I don't go walking round the country or public footpaths much at all.

Anyway back to topic.

My two posts about the horse and bridleways were spot on topic, plus similar ones from at least two other posters, showing how pathetic is your inability to understand this is Sky in error not Plusnet.

The help you have already received from Plusnet is amazing. Most ISPs would have replied to you right at the start, correctly telling you that it isn't their problem. Threatening them with legal action is not going to help you, and might just cause them to ignore you. They have other customers with problems, who appreciate non-obligatory help. Your crying wolf about this is like a 3-year-old stamping its foot and yelling because it can't get its own way. (Though these days that seems to work ).

As for arguing law with David_W, that at least gives me, and I expect all the others, some comic relief from your blind stubborness.
_{Edit - Bad punctuation in one place allowed an opposite meaning to be understood from what I obviously meant. Corrected.}

Edited by RobertoS (Fri 25-Jan-13 11:28:59)

A clip I often link to in similar cases:

That's Life?

50 seconds in...

And that is the reason I have just disabled viewing sigs - talk about taking the Michael his sig is just ridiculous

In reply to a post by superspeed:

What you mumbling on about? You mean like the one I replied to? I am not going to post more than I have to and I can't help that, my speed test's spread out so much.

Better take it up with SEB. Now back on topic.

My bold.

Agreed that seb may has been over generous with sig space ( on a to-do list I think) but quite frankly four is in my opinion two too many, so in that respect you can help it. Old and latest is reasonable but I see no need for three that are almost Identical.

And you don't shout SEB... I, you will note, whisper his name ....show some respect.

LOL

All I could think of for the SEB was Southern Electricity board. I joke not! I just couldn't be fussed to check for other acronym meanings.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

As for arguing law with David_W, that at least gives me, and I expect all the others, some comic relief from your blind stubborness.

Replying feels a bit like shooting fish in a barrel. It doesn't exactly qualify as a sporting contest (watch the video in the link...).


I know the law can be opaque to an outsider, which is why I care so much about communicating the law to the lay person. However, this task is difficult with someone that concentrates on fallacious 'proof by assertion' rather than reading the information and references provided.

You appear to forget a precedent has been set.

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

You appear to forget a precedent has been set.

If you identify the precedent you believe has been set, I can try to respond to it.

It's in the thread.

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

It's in the thread.

That's a mere 153 posts (at the time I started to write this) that I would I have to trawl through.

If you want a sensible reply, please make my task easier - or is this a case of argumentum ad nauseam?


I can see two possibilities for an alleged precedent in this thread - either you're talking about the actions of the original poster's previous ISP, or ACS Law's use of Norwich Pharmacal orders. Which of these do you wish me to address?

I think BatBoy's referring to the "precedent" that BBC iPlayer blocked some UK AOL users who were accessing the service from an AOL proxy which had a US IP address. As I understand it, AOL fixed the problem for their users by changing the proxy to a UK IP address. Therefore, the logic apparently goes, since AOL fixed a problem their customers were having with accessing iPlayer, so PlusNet should fix problems one (or more) of their customers is having with accessing Sky News.

I don't personally see any relevance since in the AOL case, the problem was caused by AOL effectively allocating a US address to UK users, whereas in this case the problem is caused by Sky erroneously blocking valid UK addresses. It's a very different situation. Ferretuk's analogy illustrates this well. It's not a relevant "precedent", and even if it was.... so what? What one ISP chooses to do surely doesn't bind all other ISPs to follow.

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

It's in the thread.

Well link to it.

It is one thing to be a constant devil's advocate but you can have too much of a good thing.

Adversarial for good purpose is one thing, but with you it is a habit, a habit that needs to be broken.

It's easily found with Ctrl-F "precedent", but it's not just the one post - it's the whole conversation. It's rather pointless discussing the situation with someone whose only replying to the latest post, rather than having been involved in the whole thread.

http://forums.thinkbroadband.com/plusnet/t/4203501-r...
http://forums.thinkbroadband.com/plusnet/t/4203306-r...

Edited by deleted (Fri 25-Jan-13 12:23:01)

Post deleted by billford

Post deleted by billford

Edited by deleted (Fri 25-Jan-13 11:41:09)

So you actually emailed them with the issue? Or you just assumed they were editorial input?

The chances of the people answering those email addresses knowing who to forward the email to are pretty high I would suggest, given a simple coherent email in the first place.

Sky is so large that I am guessing that the Sky broadband admin will be nothing to do with their Geo restrictions that apply to the news video streaming.

I agree, Sky broadband are a totally different entity to Sky TV.

When informed that 4 speed tests in a sig is excessive, adding another is not the sort of attitude we wish to see.

Reduce it to two.

Post deleted by billford

Post deleted by billford

Edited by deleted (Fri 25-Jan-13 11:55:40)

No need.

Moderators have the right to ask you to change things like signatures if they think there are excessive.

You have been asked politely and can I suggest that a link to a page that has a bit of text to explain the context of the tests might be more useful, as at this time it is just random speedtests which to most people will mean nothing.

In reply to a post by superspeed:

I have broke no forum rules so if you ahve an issue with the amont of TB speed test's in my sig, then please take it up with your boss Seb. Thank you.

I have left three in now anyway untill Seb changes the rules.

The rules are inclusive, not exclusive:

In reference to forums.thinkbroadband.com/faq_english.php#rules:

They are only guidelines that moderators use to ensure that our forums are an enjoyable place to be. We ultimately reserve the right to decide what is acceptable or not and working around the technicalities of rules may not be tolerated by moderators.

I've given you a little time to think about it.

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

It's easily found with Ctrl-F "precedent", but it's not just the one post - it's the whole conversation. It's rather pointless discussing the situation with someone whose only replying to the latest post, rather than having been involved in the whole thread.

http://forums.thinkbroadband.com/plusnet/t/4203501-r...
http://forums.thinkbroadband.com/plusnet/t/4203306-r...

Well correct me if I am wrong but on a simple reading...

AOL supplied a non UK IP that was not acceptable to the BBC in the UK...so were responsible for the change.

Plusnet supplied a UK IP that should be acceptable to Sky other than the fact that Sky have blocked it in error.

How is it a precedent that an error by one ISP is the responsibility of a different ISP to correct? Not that they have any power to unblock it anyway other than inform Sky of their error..which they are doing I understand.

Even you aint that daft.

In reply to a post by Sadoldman:

the fact that Sky have blocked it in error.

How do you know that?

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

How do you know that?

It's in the thread... Touch�?

Edited by ferretuk (Fri 25-Jan-13 13:48:30)

I think you'll find it's an acronym for a Franglais phrase: superspeed est bonkers

I did a Ctrl-F for "fact" but unfortunately, I failed to find the post that you are referring to. I'm guessing that it's not in this thread.

You are doing precisely what you have had multiple warnings about again.

That is not acceptable.

In reply to a post by superspeed:

Thought I would post my line stats here and for future so other can give advice and let me know if I am getting what I shoud.

I reconnected my HG610 modem today for the stats. I still disconnected after about one and a half hours again. I called PN for the DNS and had to set up an IP in windows. Think that has sorted it, as cross fingers, it has stayed connected for 7 or so hours.

This modem does not seem to work on acquire ip automatically.

My stats for about an hour ago. From XP

If Superspeeds DNS is wrong on his old router, couldn't that be a factor in his geo location error with sky?

No - it has nothing to do with the allocation of his IP.

That would only affect his ability to access sites by name. He's reaching Sky's site and it's when Sky look up the information about his IP that Sky get it wrong.

Purely a Sky News IT department issue and how they manage their geographic restrictions

Just found this on the Sky Help forum which amused me (it's message number 8):

In reference to helpforum.sky.com/t5/Sky-Broadband-Setup-Connection/IP-Addressing/t...:

I also got an IP from the new range, and at first I was blocked from the BBC, National Lotter and funny enough from watching news.sky.com.



I emailed all the websites explained... all but sky now allow this IP range to access content. Sky news... just ignored me! It's been a month now, and nothing from sky tech support or sky news.... I appreciate the need for new IP ranges but you would like to think that skys own websites would allow them!

If Sky's own customers get blocked out and Sky News refuses to communicate with them what hope have Plusnet got?

Post deleted by MrSaffron

Personal insults have no place here

In reply to a post by superspeed:

Now back on topic.

I've had a better read of this thread now.

The problem is not Plusnet's. The problem is a combination of sites wishing to block IP adresses or IP address ranges, coupled with people who use dynamic IPs wishing to remain anonymous. Roberto's analogy is fair. Here's another. I buy a car, but a guy that mans a bridge with a gate doesn't like my car, so he denys me access over the bridge. The car manufacturer is not to blame for that. If the manufacturer offers another car for a small fee (not their fault, remember), and I accept, I will get access to the bridge. The manufacturer might be able to phone the bridge chappie and ask him to allow me through, but there are no guarantees.

Anonymity online is all very well, and it has its benefits and its drawbacks. You have discovered one of the drawbacks. If this static IP thing is a question of principles, by all means stick to them and put up with the drawbacks.

The solutions are simple:

1) Get a static IP.

2) Change ISP.

The former will not result in any negative issues for you, unless you're planning to use your IP for things that Plusnet would probably prefer you didn't (e.g. Copyright infringement).

Put your hand in you pocket and pay a fiver for a static IP, and pay for the music/software and you* have no problem.

*you - the collective, as I have no idea if you (the OP) are engaging in copyright infringement. Suffice it to say, I doubt a dynamic IP is much of a proof against being tracked down. If it's a case of avoiding security issues of having a public IP which never changes (DDNS, other malware, site bans etc.) I suggest you invest in suitable firewall and anti-virus security, and employ a router with NAT enabled on the IP.

What's a fiver once, versus all that lovely news content? You might save a tenner keeping up to date with current happenings.

(My own guess is that you want a cheap ISP, and anonymity for more freebies, but what do I know? Opinions are based on the evidence provided, coupled with past experiences of others avoiding static IPs. If this is not the case, feel free to put me right.)

In reply to a post by camieabz:

I doubt a dynamic IP is much of a proof against being tracked down.

Indeed. Golden Eye went after O2 customers, who mostly use dynamic IP addresses.

Which were extremely sticky at the time, making things simple.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Which were extremely sticky at the time, making things simple.

I believe Davenport Lyons and ACS:Law also went after dynamic IP addresses as well as static ones. Indeed, they don't even know which are static and which are dynamic when applying for a court order, although they do know which ISP they are registered to. It's up to the ISP to read their logs and work out who used which IP address and when, static or dynamic.

What I meant was it is easier to trace if a user has the same "dynamic" IP address for months, if not years, on end, than it is when it changes possibly several times a day. Which with someone wanting to avoid being traced is rather simple on true dynamic.

You seem to have misunderstood the point of my post . Which was that maybe they chose O2 precisely because of the relative ease of tracing, and lack of excuse by the ISP that it could be difficult.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

What I meant was it is easier to trace if a user has the same "dynamic" IP address for months, if not years, on end, than it is when it changes possibly several times a day. Which with someone wanting to avoid being traced is rather simple on true dynamic.

Oh right. I don't think the companies monitoring p2p check to see if you are sharing the works for a few days, I suspect after 5 minutes of downloading from an IP address they will add it to the list with a timestamp.

Same point. They know with O2 they will get a higher probability of proving who it was. Far less hassle than ISPs with highly volatile dynamic IPs.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Same point. They know with O2 they will get a higher probability of proving who it was. Far less hassle than ISPs with highly volatile dynamic IPs.

Either that, or they thought O2 would be a soft touch in court, which indeed proved to be the case, as they chose not to object to the court order.

Either that, or they thought O2 would be a soft touch in court, which indeed proved to be the case, as they chose not to object to the court order.

Just for the record neither did Plusnet.

In reply to a post by wingco1:

Either that, or they thought O2 would be a soft touch in court, which indeed proved to be the case, as they chose not to object to the court order.

Just for the record neither did Plusnet.

Probably because Golden Eye didn't go after Plusnet customers, they chose only to persue O2/BE customers.