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.