NETGEAR is aware of a growing number of phone and online scams. To learn how to stay safe click here.
Forum Discussion
Modems and static IP addresses
I was informed by my MSP (Sparklight) that if I want to use static IP addresses with my business subscription, that I have to use one of their devices... which are router/firewall/WAP/modem devices: ...
I believe the ISP is correct in there policy. If you have a Business account, they seem to require the use of there equipment. That would be there policy. Technically, the static IP would be assigned to your service account and tied to the modem they associate with it. Then any external router connected would get this passed to the router, if they install a modem only unit. They may have modem/router units as well. However if there Business service requires the user of there HW, then thats up to them.
I'm on SL as well, however only use a home service so Dynamic WAN IP here. I've had my CM1200 online with them for a long time here and there. I just removed it as I got my CAX80 back from NG.
If they're charging you for static IPs and requiring you to rent their modem, why not just include the cost of the modem in the static IP fee structure? Otherwise it starts to feel like you're being nickel and dimed.
Something to ask them about. However ISPs I presume are in the business to make money as well. ISP along with other tech service companies are well known for nickel and diming customers. I.e. Cell phone service companies. Anything they can legally get away with, they seem to scrape what they can from us customers.
Thankfully my cell phone provider (Verizon) charges me a flat-rate of $30/mo per line. Maybe there's a lesson there...
And my [small] business service from Sparklight isn't cheap: $193/mo with 5 static IPs, for 300/50mbs service (during the day more like 180/20mbs).
4 miles away I was getting 100/100mbs G.PON for $60/mo. That was a bargain.
As I said, I asked my MSP about the limitation on modems and it was word salad. See the original posting. Their reasoning ran counter to current best practices in network security.
"Something-something more secure" but what they really meant was, "because we say so."
It's not more secure, very much the opposite.