Any chance of revealing which ISP? On Wed, 2006-11-15 at 08:55 +1100, Horst Herb wrote: > On Wednesday 15 November 2006 00:01, Ian Cheong wrote: > > I thought B4H mandated static IP - that's the whole reason it's expensive. > > 1.) No. GPCG strongly recommended to mandate it, but the bureaucrats opted to > ignore all sensible recommendations > > 2.) There is absolutely no justifiable reason to charge extra for a static IP > number for an "always on" connection - and honest good ISPs don't do that. In > fact, Dynamic IP numbers are an anachronism from the dial-in era. I use this > as one of the criteria to distinguish between reasonable and crappy > providers. > > I pay A$80/month for my ADSL 512/512 and my 1500/256 "plans". They came with > a > static IP address, and for an extra $10 I got a block of 12 usable static IP > addresses. I have full control over all ports, can operate any servers or > VPNs or VoIP I want, and support has been flawless when I requested some > complex routing to mu static IP addresses. The plan used to be "unlimited", > but now they charge after the first 60 GB/month ($2 per extra GB), though > upload is unmetered - no way you get anything like this from B4H for even > twice the money. > > The sole purpose of B4H in my view was yet another means of stealthily > shoving > taxpayers money in to Telstra's bottomless throat in order to make it > financially more attractive for the privatization > > Horst > _______________________________________________ > Gpcg_talk mailing list > [email protected] > http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk >
_______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
