1 |
On Tuesday, 31 December 2019 12:42:26 GMT Peter Humphrey wrote: |
2 |
> On Tuesday, 31 December 2019 11:04:57 GMT Mick wrote: |
3 |
> > On Tuesday, 31 December 2019 10:24:48 GMT Peter Humphrey wrote: |
4 |
> > > I'm puzzled. Why should a DSL modem be tied to a particular ISP? The |
5 |
> > > only |
6 |
> > > thing I can think of is that one uses PPPoA and the other PPPoE. But the |
7 |
> > > modem should sort that out for itself when it connects upstream. |
8 |
> > |
9 |
> > ISPs looked into reducing their operating costs providing support to an |
10 |
> > ever increasing population of technically clueless users and in |
11 |
> > conjunction with router OEMs came up with a remote router provisioning |
12 |
> > scheme. This allows firmware updates and remote control of the CPE |
13 |
> > without the customer even knowing what is happening. |
14 |
> |
15 |
> I hadn't come across that before. I did wonder whether it was another |
16 |
> example of control-freakery, but perhaps not. |
17 |
|
18 |
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TR-069 |
19 |
|
20 |
In the UK I'm thinking of the 2Wire routers issued by BT to their business |
21 |
account users. You could configure them for different ISPs, set them up in |
22 |
fully bridged mode, etc., but then you had to also poison the DNS addresses |
23 |
used for their provisioning servers to stop BT updating the firmware and |
24 |
crippling some of its functionality. |
25 |
|
26 |
I can't recall the ritual you had to entertain when changing their settings |
27 |
from BT to another ISP, but it was not as simple as pressing the reset button. |
28 |
You had to navigate to some (hidden?) menu option and change settings from |
29 |
there. |
30 |
|
31 |
-- |
32 |
Regards, |
33 |
Mick |