Changing from BT ADSL home to ADSL business (a warning)

I thought this would be a good idea. As it's much more useable with voip for
instance and the price is almost the same

The people at wholesale said that I could take my email addresses with me,
however, it now seems that they requre an extra £1.50 a month to do this.

The last thing you want to loose is email addresses which in my case I have
had for many years.

jasee wrote:
> I thought this would be a good idea. As it's much more useable with voip for
> instance and the price is almost the same
>
> The people at wholesale said that I could take my email addresses with me,
> however, it now seems that they requre an extra £1.50 a month to do this.
>
> The last thing you want to loose is email addresses which in my case I have
> had for many years.

I am not sure if you are warning that the original email address may be
lost or of the charge.

I have protected a series of email addresses for the £1.50 a month -
seems good value to me.

>
> I have protected a series of email addresses for the £1.50 a month - seems
> good value to me.
>

Not when freeserve (wanadaoo, Orange) ones cost you 20p a year or less.

It's Me wrote:
>> I have protected a series of email addresses for the £1.50 a month - seems
>> good value to me.
>>
>
> Not when freeserve (wanadaoo, Orange) ones cost you 20p a year or less.

Which makes you wonder how long that will last - what are the monthly
direct debit collection costs on 20p?

Colin Forrester wrote:

> Which makes you wonder how long that will last - what are the monthly
> direct debit collection costs on 20p?

there aren't any, its derived from phone call charges for dialling in
to keep it alive. Seems you can easily resurrect it from the web
without even doing the dial-in trick.

Also the BT Basic email option is free just to preserve an
@btinternet.com account and vie wit with webmail.

Phil

Colin Forrester wrote:
>> The people at wholesale said that I could take my email addresses with
>> me, however, it now seems that they requre an extra £1.50 a month to
>> do this.
>> The last thing you want to loose is email addresses which in my case I
>> have had for many years.
> I am not sure if you are warning that the original email address may be
> lost or of the charge.
> I have protected a series of email addresses for the £1.50 a month -
> seems good value to me.

But buying your own domain name would be even better value.

Owain

PhilT wrote:
> Colin Forrester wrote:
>
>> Which makes you wonder how long that will last - what are the monthly
>> direct debit collection costs on 20p?
>
> there aren't any, its derived from phone call charges for dialling in
> to keep it alive. Seems you can easily resurrect it from the web
> without even doing the dial-in trick.
>
> Also the BT Basic email option is free just to preserve an
> @btinternet.com account and vie wit with webmail.

OK, we needed to protect eight linked email addresses and are charged
£1.50 per month for the lot. Still feel this is good value though.

"It's Me" <spam@spam.spam> wrote in message
news:45092943$0$1378$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
>
> >
> > I have protected a series of email addresses for the £1.50 a month -
seems
> > good value to me.
> >
>
> Not when freeserve (wanadaoo, Orange) ones cost you 20p a year or less.

Then move to Freeserve you cheapskate. You want your cake and eat it and for
nothing. You are not the kind of customer that they want to attract on a
business package.

Regards
Andrew

Andrew Crane wrote:
> "It's Me" <spam@spam.spam> wrote in message
> news:45092943$0$1378$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
>>
>>>
>>> I have protected a series of email addresses for the £1.50 a month
>>> - seems good value to me.
>>>
>>
>> Not when freeserve (wanadaoo, Orange) ones cost you 20p a year or
>> less.
>
> Then move to Freeserve you cheapskate. You want your cake and eat it
> and for nothing. You are not the kind of customer that they want to
> attract on a business package.

As the OP, my complaint was that I wasn't informed and I don't require the
extra email addresses of Business Broadband anyway or the flashy Outlook Web
Acess, access.

Actually enabling this requires only a small change in their DNS, so I don't
see why it has to be a monthly burden

"jasee" <jasee@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:4mt1fhF7nuemU1@individual.net...
> As the OP, my complaint was that I wasn't informed and I don't require the
> extra email addresses of Business Broadband anyway or the flashy Outlook
Web
> Acess, access.
>
> Actually enabling this requires only a small change in their DNS, so I
don't
> see why it has to be a monthly burden

Pricing is market led, not down to resource usage. Most people don't penny
pinch and so will stand the cost. If you want it for nothing I'm sure there
are companies out there who are misguided enough to think they can make the
money back off you elsewhere. Like everything in life you get what you pay
for.

Also, there will be more to change than the DNS. A little knowledge is
dangerous.

Regards
Andrew

On 14 Sep 2006, Colin Forrester wrote:

>OK, we needed to protect eight linked email addresses

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 - it's really close to being a "protection
racket" when ISPs have a monthly fee for such things!

The other silly fee that some ISPs charge for is a static IP address - I've
seen as much as 3 quid a month for that... with the ISP I'm using I can
switch from dynamic to static anytime I want without any fee being
charged at all Odd that some ISPs can be flexible while others make
it costly or "impossible"...

--
Change to DSL Max the way I did: switch ISP <http://www.dslmax.info/>

On 14 Sep 2006, "jasee" <jasee@btinternet.com> wrote:

>The last thing you want to loose is email addresses which in my case I have
>had for many years.

I think it's about the first thing I'd *want* to lose. While you class it
as important, I'd say they become a millstone, kept for mainly
sentimental reasons, and you are now slave to it.

I had an ISP-related mail address which was fine, until the day that ISP
was bought by a much larger concern from another State (it was a small
or medium sized USA ISP) I'd had the mail address close on 8 years, and
then could no longer use it (if the domain had been available I might even
have registered it, but the expiry date is 2011, so it's now just history.)

NoNeedToKnow wrote:
> On 14 Sep 2006, "jasee" <jasee@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> The last thing you want to loose is email addresses which in my case
>> I have had for many years.
>
> I think it's about the first thing I'd *want* to lose. While you
> class it as important, I'd say they become a millstone, kept for
> mainly
> sentimental reasons, and you are now slave to it.
>
> I had an ISP-related mail address which was fine, until the day that
> ISP was bought by a much larger concern from another State (it was a
> small
> or medium sized USA ISP) I'd had the mail address close on 8 years,
> and then could no longer use it (if the domain had been available I
> might even have registered it, but the expiry date is 2011, so it's
> now just history.)

There is nothing permanent of course, I've got a few gmail addresses which
is possibly an answer. I've kept my old demon account for (mainly)
sentimental reasons so I'm paying £100+ for that...

>>
>> I have protected a series of email addresses for the £1.50 a month -
>> seems good value to me.
>>
>
> Not when freeserve (wanadaoo, Orange) ones cost you 20p a year or less.

Then you are being rippped off too ;-)
I simpley restore my suspended Freeserve accounts by going to this URL
https://www.orange.co.uk/signup/noties/ar60.cfm
there is also a link on the main Orange page.
No need to dial up.

I always warn people not to use their current ISP's email address as their
main
address. I know several people who feel "stuck" with the likes of AOL etc.
because thet didn't heed my warning.
I have had my Freeserve emails for eight years and I have lost count
of the ISP's I have used in that time.

Graham.

%Profound_observation%

NoNeedToKnow wrote:
> On 14 Sep 2006, Colin Forrester wrote:
>
>> OK, we needed to protect eight linked email addresses
>
> 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 - it's really close to being a "protection
> racket" when ISPs have a monthly fee for such things!

A monthly fee for a service they provide every month, which uses their
resources and therefore costs them something to provide.

NoNeedToKnow wrote:
> On 14 Sep 2006, Colin Forrester wrote:
>
>> OK, we needed to protect eight linked email addresses
>
> 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

We needed to protect these addresses - which were used many years ago
and some people still send to them. The last thing we want is to give
them up and have someone else use them.

As I mentioned I do not consider the charge excessive and would prefer
to pay for a well maintained service (which it has been) rather than a
free service with no support and less chance of longevity.

Owain wrote:
> Colin Forrester wrote:
>>> The people at wholesale said that I could take my email addresses
>>> with me, however, it now seems that they requre an extra £1.50 a
>>> month to do this.
>>> The last thing you want to loose is email addresses which in my case
>>> I have had for many years.
>> I am not sure if you are warning that the original email address may
>> be lost or of the charge.
>> I have protected a series of email addresses for the £1.50 a month -
>> seems good value to me.
>
> But buying your own domain name would be even better value.

Since I can't buy btinternet.com I will continue to rent specific
addresses to prevent others from using them.

On 14 Sep 2006, Colin Forrester wrote:

>which were used many years ago and some people still send to them.

So set yourself a limt - perhaps a generous limt of 18 months - during
which you use some mail rule (eg in your mail client) that forces any
mail sent to those specific addresses to be stored in some specific
"ask-them-to-send-to-our-new-mail-address" folder. At the end
of that time, you can stop paying for the service - while I will
accept you don't want to lose their business, you might also
take steps (which you seem unwilling to do) to stop their ever-
continuing use of those same old mail addresses.

On 14 Sep 2006 17:37, "jasee" <jasee@btinternet.com> wrote:

>There is nothing permanent of course, I've got a few gmail addresses which
>is possibly an answer.

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.

>I've kept my old demon account for (mainly) sentimental reasons so I'm
>paying £100+ for that...

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.

NoNeedToKnow wrote:
> On 14 Sep 2006, Colin Forrester wrote:
>
>> which were used many years ago and some people still send to them.
>
> So set yourself a limt - perhaps a generous limt of 18 months - during
> which you use some mail rule (eg in your mail client) that forces any
> mail sent to those specific addresses to be stored in some specific
> "ask-them-to-send-to-our-new-mail-address" folder. At the end
> of that time, you can stop paying for the service - while I will
> accept you don't want to lose their business, you might also
> take steps (which you seem unwilling to do) to stop their ever-
> continuing use of those same old mail addresses.

You know that's a good idea - but our customers are always right and
some still use those old addresses. We need just one such customer to
generate less than 15 minutes work per annum to cover that cost. I
guess we will keep paying BT £1.50 per month for the time being.

On 14 Sep 2006 18:25, Paul Cupis <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote:

>A monthly fee for a service they provide every month, which uses their
>resources and therefore costs them something to provide.

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

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:

>I guess we will keep paying BT £1.50 per month for the time being.

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:
> On 14 Sep 2006 17:37, "jasee" <jasee@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> There is nothing permanent of course, I've got a few gmail addresses
>> which is possibly an answer.
>
> 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.

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 ;-)
>
>> I've kept my old demon account for (mainly) sentimental reasons so
>> I'm paying £100+ for that...
>
> 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.

There are quite a few others I believe

On 2006-09-14, Paul Cupis <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote:

>> 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...
>
> 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).

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.


> NoNeedToKnow wrote:
>> 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

That's good advice.

>> - it's really close to being a "protection
>> racket" when ISPs have a monthly fee for such things!

Paul Cupis <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote:

> A monthly fee for a service they provide every month, which uses their
> resources and therefore costs them something to provide.

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:
> On 2006-09-14, Paul Cupis <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> 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...
>>
>> 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).
>
> 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?

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

Adam Funk wrote:
> On 2006-09-14, Paul Cupis <paul@cupis.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> 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...
>> 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).
>
> 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?

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:
> (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.)

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:
> Adam Funk wrote:
>> (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.)

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


> 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.

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