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".