Not good really !!
Don't even think about it TalkTalk !!
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/broadban...rce=newsletter
Not good really !!
Don't even think about it TalkTalk !!
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/broadban...rce=newsletter
Any ISP that tries to force that on me will get kicked into touch as the system would not be fit for my purposes anymore.
How the hell could we end up here? How long does it take to switch from IPv4 to IPv6 for crying out loud?!?!?!?
Main PC: Asus Rampage IV Extreme / 3960X@4.5GHz / Antec H1200 Pro / 32GB DDR3-1866 Quad Channel / Sapphire Fury X / Areca 1680 / 850W EVGA SuperNOVA Gold 2 / Corsair 600T / 2x Dell 3007 / 4 x 250GB SSD + 2 x 80GB SSD / 4 x 1TB HDD (RAID 10) / Windows 10 Pro, Yosemite & Ubuntu
HTPC: AsRock Z77 Pro 4 / 3770K@4.2GHz / 24GB / GTX 1080 / SST-LC20 / Antec TP-550 / Hisense 65k5510 4K TV / HTC Vive / 2 x 240GB SSD + 12TB HDD Space / Race Seat / Logitech G29 / Win 10 Pro
HTPC2: Asus AM1I-A / 5150 / 4GB / Corsair Force 3 240GB / Silverstone SST-ML05B + ST30SF / Samsung UE60H6200 TV / Windows 10 Pro
Spare/Loaner: Gigabyte EX58-UD5 / i950 / 12GB / HD7870 / Corsair 300R / Silverpower 700W modular
NAS 1: HP N40L / 12GB ECC RAM / 2 x 3TB Arrays || NAS 2: Dell PowerEdge T110 II / 24GB ECC RAM / 2 x 3TB Hybrid arrays || Network:Buffalo WZR-1166DHP w/DD-WRT + HP ProCurve 1800-24G
Laptop: Dell Precision 5510 Printer: HP CP1515n || Phone: Huawei P30 || Other: Samsung Galaxy Tab 4 Pro 10.1 CM14 / Playstation 4 + G29 + 2TB Hybrid drive
But, unless I Iotally misunderstand this, it's not about dynamic v static IP's, but about dynamic v shared?
i.e .... dynamic in that your IP might change over time (and sometimes quite short periods of time), but while it's your IP, it's ONLY you using it. The "shared" option implies that not only is it dynamic (not static) but that even when it's yours, others will have it at the same time. I.e. for lack of a better term, shared dynqmic rather than unique dynamic.
Unless I misunderstood the point of the article???
As for "IP address = piracy", well, surely .... maybe, but maybe not.
Right now, as I understand it, that equation relies, for dynamic IP's, on log evidence from ISP's showing that at a given date and time, coincident with an alleged piracy offence, that IP address = a specific account holder.
So, depending on exactly what log information this ISP-NAT retains, it may still be possible for log evidence to show that a particular activity, on a particular date and time = a specific account holder.
Hence, maybe, maybe not.
But if it's not possible, then I suspect piracy is the least of the issues. What about tracking, tracing, identifying and convicting terrorists, paedophiles, fraudsters, international crimibal gangs, drug dealers, and the whole pantheon of unpleasant characters?
If it can't be logged, it kinda sounds like a sort-of mini anonymous proxy built right into basic ISP accounts. Surely, that won't stand?
As BT said in that article, if it causes problems for you, they will switch you to a regular dynamic IP instead of a shared one. Suddenly you have no more problems. I can't see the issue with it personally.
Terrible move. No, this isn't about static vs dynamic IP addresses, it's about sticking you behind NAT and giving you a non-routable IP address (as the article says very clearly). It might work OK for mobile devices because you're generally dealing with basic client-server connections, which are fairly well-suited to NAT - the same can't be said for a whole host of things you do at home, not least of which is gaming of course.
Glad we didn't jump to Infinity if they're seriously considering enforcing this. VM have said (largely as an excuse to put off IPv6 deployment I expect) they still have plenty of IPv4 space, so why not BT? This is something you'd expect from some tiny super-budget ISP looking to save costs anywhere possible, not the biggest ISP in the country.
Still, I kind of understand BT's reasoning that a lot of customers wouldn't notice any difference, but I don't think it's all that simple to judge who does/doesn't require a proper IP address. A simple opt-in system sounds OK in theory, but I can see the whole thing causing a massive PR and customer support headache - a lot of people won't understand why a lot of applications suddenly don't work properly, e.g why they can't connect to a lot of their friends on their games console.
Wonder how many people will ring up technical support due to this problem only to go through a whole 10 minute long procedure (if your lucky) with them saying the problem is on your end only for it to end up with IP sharing !!! Then they will switch you to a regular dynamic IP instead of a shared one which it a total waste of time for both parties .. especially the paying customer !
Looks like their support team really aren't prepared for it, and it's costing them money (check last post): http://community.bt.com/t5/Other-BB-...ME/td-p/852362
My point is that whether they use a dynamic or a shared IP should make absolutely no difference to the end user. I accept that if the technology provides a different experience, i.e. it's faulty, then that's a problem, but then the trial should be halted until a better solution is found.
If there are people who get upset about the use of such technologies, and I appreciate that some people may do, then I would expect those people to get a static IP address as an alternative - there's a very vibrant broadband market, cable aside.
I don't think it would materially change the legal process, but there is a tendency of copyright holders towards sending accusations based on IP evidence alone - and the repudiation is usually to claim that IP addresses are not unique to individuals, but to addresses. If this happens, then the fallacy of that argument becomes even clearer as they're not even unique to addresses.As for "IP address = piracy", well, surely .... maybe, but maybe not.
Right now, as I understand it, that equation relies, for dynamic IP's, on log evidence from ISP's showing that at a given date and time, coincident with an alleged piracy offence, that IP address = a specific account holder.
So, depending on exactly what log information this ISP-NAT retains, it may still be possible for log evidence to show that a particular activity, on a particular date and time = a specific account holder.
Hence, maybe, maybe not.
Agreed, and I very much doubt that it would be the case. I'm sure they've already figured out how to do the logging.But if it's not possible, then I suspect piracy is the least of the issues. What about tracking, tracing, identifying and convicting terrorists, paedophiles, fraudsters, international crimibal gangs, drug dealers, and the whole pantheon of unpleasant characters?
If it can't be logged, it kinda sounds like a sort-of mini anonymous proxy built right into basic ISP accounts. Surely, that won't stand?
Call me cynical, but I'm hoping they don't use this as an excuse to charge people for something they already had. I really can't see it being feasible to force this onto people, as it essentially breaks an awful lot of things, but I can still see it causing major headaches for customers, their support teams, and the support teams of affected systems like XBL.
@snootyjim: Dynamic vs shared IP makes a *massive* difference to the end user. With a dynamic IP, it just means it's not guaranteed to stay the same, although it often does for quite some time depending on ISP. But you still have a proper routable IP address. This 'shared IP' means you're behind NAT - it changes a lot, and breaks a lot of things.
I'm not sure I follow?
If you mean the NAT system could be designed to overcome the obvious issues, then to an extent it's possible, but the only real way to provide equal functionality to a public IP, is to pair a relatively static public-facing IP with each private IP, which kind of defeats the object of using NAT in the first place.
I saw the outrage as a general backlash against something we're familiar with being taken away. My point is that if it doesn't affect the end-user, then I don't think the outrage is fair. If it is irremediably broken, then I agree with you - it shouldn't be used.
Having said that, maybe there is a market for cheaper broadband packages that don't offer a unique IP. If, for instance, you only browse the web and send emails, then £1 off the bill each month for a shared IP might be a fair trade off.
I just don't think the situation is necessarily that bad yet, but then again they're probably just testing the water to see what they can do if/when they do need to implement it - maybe as a backup address for when IPv6 is rolled out properly.
My outrage is because of what it means, i.e. it breaks functionality, not just because it changes something we're used to. If we're that desperate for IPv4 addresses, *force* companies to give back most of their /8 address pools, i.e. not just wait for them to kindly donate them. Yes, we should be switching to IPv6 soon, but the situation needn't be as dire as some are making out.
I don't necessarily have a problem with a *small* discount for giving up a routable v4 address, as an incentive to stop everyone unnecessarily opting out.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)