IP address makes websites think I'm in the USA

[#1]

---

HarryB wrote: 

Hopefully we won't be waiting long for them to update their records.

---

You have more faith than I do.

AFAIK the problem is not so much with the geolocation data base providers, it's more with the very many websites which use old out of date geolocation data.

My VOIP provider was informed over two years ago that their geolocation data was inaccurate. After coming back to plusnet a few months ago I find that service provider still has incorrect geolocation data which forced me to purchase a static IP to make the service usable.

In theory this shouldn't be a problem if the  web masters kept their data bases in order. Unfortunately they don't and the support at these affected websites don't have a clue when you try to report the issue.

In short I don't see this issue going away any time soon, and I think it's time Plusnet give more help to those affected -- option of a free static IP would be a good start.

Compiling and publishing a list of troublesome web sites may also be useful.

[#2]

---

@mikecro wrote:
Is it, is it really out of your control?.
So RBS systems, Pokerstars and everyone else has a problem... But not plus net despite that IP address being on record as being at an address in el segundo in california?

How's about something that is in your control? Maybe you could have forced my IP address to renew to a less ambiguous one?

---

There is one totally fail proof system Plusnet could employ - not buy any new IP ranges and therefore not accept new users immediately but put people on a waiting list until other users to leave. Hardly a solution that would be acceptable to the company.

The other solution would be CGNAT - but there would be howls of protest if they implemented that!

[#3]

The other solution would be CGNAT - but there would be howls of protest if they implemented that!

Didn't we have a CGNAT trial, that basically failed

[#4]

Why did it fail? Granted, it wasn't implemented in the end, but I don't recall there being any significant/unexpected problems

[#5]

Ok, maybe fail was a bit OTT. Voip didn't work, but maybe that was expected...

[#6]

It worked for all basic internet use but there were a number of issues with some protocols. See https://community.plus.net/t5/CG-NAT-Trial/bd-p/CGNAT

[#7]

Thanks @jelv, as I remembered it: the majority of what didn't work was expected.

[#8]

So what would the charge be for people that would still want a static ip then ?

http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2016/09/uk-isp-hyperoptic-scraps-static-ip-shared-cgnat-interne...

[#9]

There is just a one off charge of £5 for a static IP