UKVoIPTalk.com

On 14 Sep 2006 18:25, Paul Cupis <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote:
[color=blue]
>A monthly fee for a service they provide every month, which uses their
>resources and therefore costs them something to provide.[/color]

Nice bit of snipping... so now take the example of a static IP address,
where one ISP charges a single (25 pounds) setup fee, another ISP is
charging 3 pounds a month, while another ISP makes no charge for me
to use a static, or multiple static, or switch to dynamic...

It's not as if the monthly fee of 14.99 is high (if it were treble the cost
with some comment that it pays for the flexible facilities, I'd not have
chosen the same ISP, but it's a standard facility for all users, AFAIK).

Every business plan will be different, and some simply "absorb" the cost
of providing this service, but it makes me wonder how many people go
round with their eyes shut if they are willing to accept these charges,
arguably justified (by you) but seemingly unnecessary (to me).

We may best "agree to disagree", as it seems we are unlikely to see
much common ground on such matters, and I'm not ready to waste
too much time on discussing it, even if you might (based on very long
threads I've seen in the past, belabouring some point :-)

NoNeedToKnow wrote:[color=blue]
> On 14 Sep 2006 18:25, Paul Cupis <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> A monthly fee for a service they provide every month, which uses their
>> resources and therefore costs them something to provide.[/color]
>
> Nice bit of snipping... so now take the example of a static IP address,
> where one ISP charges a single (25 pounds) setup fee, another ISP is
> charging 3 pounds a month, while another ISP makes no charge for me
> to use a static, or multiple static, or switch to dynamic...[/color]

If an ISP has more IPs than users, then there is little/no cost
difference to them whether the user has one dynamic IP or one static, if
they have more users than IPs (i.e. they are not promoting the service
as always-on), then they do have a higher cost for static.

As far as multiple IPs is concerned, some ISPs will build this into
their basic charges (i.e. everyone pays) and some will charge them as
extra (i.e. only the people who require them pays).

On 14 Sep 2006 19:15, Colin Forrester wrote:
[color=blue]
>I guess we will keep paying BT £1.50 per month for the time being.[/color]

I guess so, but at least you're big enough to consider the idea, not just
dismiss it and stick your head in the sand the way many might. When I
hear/read someone saying they "cannot" do something I will sometimes
go into overdrive to give them cause to rethink... Having customer you
consider to "always be right" on this, is just a cross you'll have to bear.

NoNeedToKnow wrote:[color=blue]
> On 14 Sep 2006 17:37, "jasee" <jasee@btinternet.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> There is nothing permanent of course, I've got a few gmail addresses
>> which is possibly an answer.[/color]
>
> registering some domain (as little as a pound if you look around) may
> be another answer, as suggested by more than one poster... send any
> mail to your <current> favourite mail service, whether it be Gmail
> or some other free/chargeable service.[/color]

Yes, I know what's available. I still think it's not right for BT to be
charing for this. Obviously, if I were with someone else but this is bt to
bt! It's one particular address too (that I shall be sorry to loose) and I
don't want anyone else to have it! The equivalent of the cherished number
plate ;-)[color=blue]
>[color=green]
>> I've kept my old demon account for (mainly) sentimental reasons so
>> I'm paying £100+ for that...[/color]
>
> What do they say... something about a person and his money... Yes,
> that's certainly true "sentiment" and I can think of other things to
> spend 100+ pounds on.[/color]

There are quite a few others I believe

On 2006-09-14, Paul Cupis <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Nice bit of snipping... so now take the example of a static IP address,
>> where one ISP charges a single (25 pounds) setup fee, another ISP is
>> charging 3 pounds a month, while another ISP makes no charge for me
>> to use a static, or multiple static, or switch to dynamic...[/color]
>
> If an ISP has more IPs than users, then there is little/no cost
> difference to them whether the user has one dynamic IP or one static, if
> they have more users than IPs (i.e. they are not promoting the service
> as always-on), then they do have a higher cost for static.
>
> As far as multiple IPs is concerned, some ISPs will build this into
> their basic charges (i.e. everyone pays) and some will charge them as
> extra (i.e. only the people who require them pays).[/color]

Surely broadband providers have almost as many IP addresses in use as
customers. Why do so many of them offer static IPs to "business"
(i.e. expensive) accounts only?

I think you're both right, in a way.

[color=blue]
> NoNeedToKnow wrote:[color=green]
>> So you'll carry on paying them, for years and years, to "keep the same
>> e-mail addresses" when in truth you could get a domain and have all the
>> e-mail addresses you use now, and more, and also phase out those which
>> currently cost some monthly fee[/color][/color]

That's good advice.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> - it's really close to being a "protection
>> racket" when ISPs have a monthly fee for such things![/color][/color]

Paul Cupis <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote:
[color=blue]
> A monthly fee for a service they provide every month, which uses their
> resources and therefore costs them something to provide.[/color]

And that's a reasonable explanation.

(But I wouldn't be surprised if the charges for keeping e-mail
addresses "alive" were out of proportion to the costs, simply because
they can take advantage of their less technically knowledgeable
customers.)

Adam Funk wrote:[color=blue]
> On 2006-09-14, Paul Cupis <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote:
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> Nice bit of snipping... so now take the example of a static IP
>>> address, where one ISP charges a single (25 pounds) setup fee,
>>> another ISP is charging 3 pounds a month, while another ISP makes
>>> no charge for me
>>> to use a static, or multiple static, or switch to dynamic...[/color]
>>
>> If an ISP has more IPs than users, then there is little/no cost
>> difference to them whether the user has one dynamic IP or one
>> static, if they have more users than IPs (i.e. they are not
>> promoting the service as always-on), then they do have a higher cost
>> for static.
>>
>> As far as multiple IPs is concerned, some ISPs will build this into
>> their basic charges (i.e. everyone pays) and some will charge them as
>> extra (i.e. only the people who require them pays).[/color]
>
> Surely broadband providers have almost as many IP addresses in use as
> customers. Why do so many of them offer static IPs to "business"
> (i.e. expensive) accounts only?[/color]

It's got advantages and disadvantages. The main disadvantage is any hacker
knows where _you_ are

Adam Funk wrote:[color=blue]
> On 2006-09-14, Paul Cupis <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote:
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> Nice bit of snipping... so now take the example of a static IP address,
>>> where one ISP charges a single (25 pounds) setup fee, another ISP is
>>> charging 3 pounds a month, while another ISP makes no charge for me
>>> to use a static, or multiple static, or switch to dynamic...[/color]
>> If an ISP has more IPs than users, then there is little/no cost
>> difference to them whether the user has one dynamic IP or one static, if
>> they have more users than IPs (i.e. they are not promoting the service
>> as always-on), then they do have a higher cost for static.
>>
>> As far as multiple IPs is concerned, some ISPs will build this into
>> their basic charges (i.e. everyone pays) and some will charge them as
>> extra (i.e. only the people who require them pays).[/color]
>
> Surely broadband providers have almost as many IP addresses in use as
> customers. Why do so many of them offer static IPs to "business"
> (i.e. expensive) accounts only?[/color]

Not necessarily. For example some ISPs will give their users RFC1918
space by default and you have to get a business product in order to get
one or more public/routable IP address(es).

Adam Funk wrote:[color=blue]
> (But I wouldn't be surprised if the charges for keeping e-mail
> addresses "alive" were out of proportion to the costs, simply because
> they can take advantage of their less technically knowledgeable
> customers.)[/color]

Charges do not have to be proportionate to costs - only market demand
will normally suggest this.

As an example, do you think that TalkTalk/Sky levy charges for their
broadband products which are proportionate to their costs?

If BT wanted to charge £10/month for this service, they could. They
might not get the same number of customers utilising the service, but on
the other hand, they might. Perhaps they think that 1.50/month is what
the market/their customers will stand for.

On 2006-09-15, Paul Cupis <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote:[color=blue]
> Adam Funk wrote:[color=green]
>> (But I wouldn't be surprised if the charges for keeping e-mail
>> addresses "alive" were out of proportion to the costs, simply because
>> they can take advantage of their less technically knowledgeable
>> customers.)[/color][/color]

I didn't say I *knew* what the charges were, just that I wouldn't be
surprised if....

[color=blue]
> Charges do not have to be proportionate to costs - only market demand
> will normally suggest this.
>
> As an example, do you think that TalkTalk/Sky levy charges for their
> broadband products which are proportionate to their costs?
>
> If BT wanted to charge £10/month for this service, they could. They
> might not get the same number of customers utilising the service, but on
> the other hand, they might. Perhaps they think that 1.50/month is what
> the market/their customers will stand for.[/color]

Actually I am surprised; I thought they'd charge more than that.