From: aa on

"PA Bear [MS MVP]" <PABearMVP(a)> wrote in message
> From your headers: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
> I'd get that WinXP SP1 box fully-patched at Windows Update before worrying
> about the physical address of Ethernet Adapter if I were you, d00d!
My question was not about the best operating system, d00dy

From: aa on

"Sid Elbow" <here(a)> wrote in message
> aa wrote:
> > is there a way to change physical address of Ethernet Adapter which
shows up
> > in ipconfig /all like 00-11-2F-00-11-2D ?
> >
> > My Internet provider uses this address to set something on their end
> > manually. For the moment I am testing another computer and every time I
> > switch between the two computers I have to call the provider
> Just a thought, since you didn't make it clear: Is the adapter in the
> original machine integrated into the MB or is it a plug-in card? If it's
> the latter of course, you could simply switch it between machines for
> the duration of your testing. (Bit of a chore but not *too* bad and
> better that calling the isp each time).
These are two standard destops of the same model and swapping the adapters
cards is possible, but as u rightly pointed out, calling ISP is easier

From: aa on

"VanguardLH" <V(a)nguard.LH> wrote in message
> Device Manager
> Select your NIC
> In its properties, change its network address.
Tried to follow your instructions on my w2k sp4. There is no NIC there. If
you mean network adapters, yes there is VIA Rhine II Fast Ethernet Adapter,
but its properties show niether its network address not a buttim to change

From: Sid Elbow on
aa wrote:

> It's not just a cost, it is time to buy it, space on the desk and an exctra
> electrical socket - I already have too many of these

I know what you mean - and it's not just sockets per se. Most of my
equipment is in the two back bedrooms on the top floor of my house. The
whole area is fed off one electical circuit!
From: Sid Elbow on
John John - MVP wrote:

> As for traffic shaping (throttling) they aren't the only ones to do it,
> Rogers has also been engaging in these same shenanigans.

Absolutely .... but Rogers is doing it to its own customers (most of
whom have the obvious option). Bell otoh isn't confining throttling to
its Sympatico customers but is also doing it to individual customers of
the third-party ISP's who purchase bandwidth on the Bell-owned (but
originally funded partly by the taxpayer) infrastructure.

While it might be legitimate for Bell to limit the overall bandwidth
used by those ISP's at the wholesale level (depending on their legal
agreements with the ISP's), to interfere on an individual user basis
with the clients of those ISP's smacks of monopoly-abuse, anti-trust and
limiting competition (with Bell). Let's face it, Bell ultimately
controls the overall rates the ISP's can charge; the major service
differential those ISP's can offer on a competitive basis is (was)