Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Alex Atkin UK]

Had a couple of young women turn up on our doorstep trying to sell us EE.

When I pressed that I'm happy with Zen and just waiting on them to offer 1.8Gbit to re-contract (as I'm currently paying more than the current rate for Gigabit), they just went on about how they would buy-out the contract and that EE offer 1.6Gbit speed (which indeed it seems EE do but BT don't, which is confusing). 

I said it was too much hassle and I don't want to use a mainstream ISP due to their haphazard court order site blocking, to which they said "well don't you use a VPN?" and kept going on about I wouldn't get stuck with them as many ISPs will buy-out contracts.

Its kinda strange as it felt like a hard-sale but caught me completely off guard being two women, makes you wonder if that was deliberate as they expect it to be mostly men dealing with broadband?  Perhaps a double whammy in that women may trust women more than men too?

I just felt really uncomfortable at the end of it, not helped by the fact I had just gotten up so had no top on. The only good thing is I checked now know EE do not offer a static IP on residential, so that will be the top of my list to mention I need if it happens again.

[dee.jay]

The VPN comment is strange. We all know they exist but I would not as a representative of an ISP condone their use... But there we go

[j0hn]

We all know they exist but I would not as a representative of an ISP condone their use... But there we go

There are VPN adverts during the break on Coronation Street.
It's a perfectly legitimate thing to use with an internet connection.
I can't think why an ISP shouldn't condone their use?

Recommending a VPN in general isn't a problem.
An ISP suggesting a VPN as a way to get round a court enforced block isn't what I would expect.

The VPN comment is strange.

Taking the context in to account it certainly is.

[Alex Atkin UK]

I mean I was specific about not liking the court enforces blocking because its been done poorly in the past, blocking legitimate content because it happens to be hosted on the same site as something bad.  But still.

The whole point I was trying to make was that when I pay for an "Internet" service provider, I expect the whole Internet, not some government condoned subset of it.  Its just one more think to think about if a site doesn't work, is it down or has to been blocked for some spurious reason.  It probably doesn't happen any more (the blocks are more defined), but it DID happen on Plusnet at least once which at that point I decided to never use an ISP that does any filtering again.

I also mentioned that I don't believe blocking content is a good thing, as it makes people complacent thinking the Internet is safe.  I forgot the key reason though that I feel if every once in a while people stumbled onto nasty content by accident - maybe they'd be a bit more cautious about letting their kids online unsupervised.