Forums
| BadPhorm - When good ISPs go bad! :: Forums :: Tips & Breaking News :: Media Sightings |
|
<< Previous thread | Next thread >> |
| interesting post on beta bt | ||
|
Moderators: Jim Murray, narcosis, felixcatuk, Sammy
|
| Author | Post | ||
| andy2008 |
| ||
 Registered Member #217 Joined: Tue Mar 18 2008, 02:59PMPosts: 24 | Not sure if Chris Lowe partakes on these forums but thought i would duplicate his post here ..... A few weeks ago I could find virtually no trace of any redirecting in my logs. Last week I started noticing some sites redirecting through 3 IP ranges I later identified as BT Midband servers. The last two days I've noticed almost everything bar a couple of sites redirecting through those BT servers, even my anti-virus updates from AVG and my Yahoo emails (which I access via a webpage).... Yahoo's images I could understand if BT are "targetting" their ads but AVG updates? No images or ads involved there. Someone isn't telling the whole story at BT and the more I see during my travels online, the less I'm liking it. All through this I've read so many different answers to similar and identical questions that it's leaving a very bad taste in my mouth. Since the account holder here is tied into an 18 month contract that started 2 months ago and I'm sure BT will kick up an almighty stink when I consider pulling out, I'm reading up on my rights as a consumer for the day I may have to pursue legal action to stop this company from trying to hold me over a barrel whilst selling my privacy away. Consumers have rights, readers. Don't ever, ever forget that. What BT are doing is wrong. For those who have an IP blocker (e.g. PeerGuardian 2 is one that I use often) see if you get any of these following IP ranges appearing if you add them to your blocklist (all blocks will occur on port 80 so if you do use PG2, make sure HTTP is set to 'blocked' - this may cause several sites to be blocked that are not the result of blocking the BT servers, just to warn you in advance): BT Midband Management 212.140.233.0 - 212.140.233.255 BT Midband tman 213.123.84.0 - 213.123.84.255 BT Midband BtnMidband 217.41.216.0 - 217.41.218.255 original link: http://www.beta.bt.com/bta/forums/thread.jspa?threadID=2612&tstart=0&start=315 (mod edit: clicky linky) [ Edited Fri Mar 21 2008, 11:03AM ] "I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes." | ||
| Back to top | | ||
| phormweezil |
| ||
 Registered Member #147 Joined: Mon Mar 10 2008, 11:13AMPosts: 36 | I noticed while reading that Cableforum thread that someone said that serving notice on Virgin by email was invalid "as Virgin removed that from their T&C some time ago." Bad News for Virgin then - I had a conversation about DPA section 11 notices ("Stop processing" notices to be served on Data Controllers) with the ICO this week due to a matter unrelated to Phorm, and was told very clearly by the lady at ICO that service of a section 11 notice by email is considered VALID by the Information Commissioner, and that failure to act on a notice served by email would be actionable. I was surprised that it was acceptable which is why when she mentioned it I went over it with her. Its Kinda related to the problem here as anyone serving a section 11 notice to the data controller at an ISP CAN do so via email without affecting the validity of such notice. Hope this is useful | ||
| Back to top | | ||
Powered by e107 Forum System