1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

email account blocked, setting up new account

Discussion in 'A Question to the community!' started by nukecad, Apr 6, 2016.

  1. nukecad

    nukecad Established Techie7 Member

    Mainly typing this to clear my thoughts but if anyone has any suggestions it will be appreciated.

    Here's the background.
    I am having a billing dispute with my old mobile phone provider (cancelled but still being billed), I also have my, seperate, email account with this provider.
    I gave them until 4th April to reply to the complaint before I escalated it to to the industry Ombudsman.
    Come 4th April I am suddenly unable to login to the email account, I get a message asking if I have changed my details which of course I have not. I had logged in OK on the 3rd with the same details.
    I can only assume that this has been done in retaliation; to block access to my email records and make it more difficult to escalate my complaint to the Ombudsman.

    Obviously this means I now cannot access other, important, emails which is going to take some time to sort out.

    I have most of my old emails backed up and am resigned to the fact that I am going to loose any recent ones sent to that address.

    OK, so now the pressing problem.

    I need to set up a new email account.

    I already have a microsoft account (setup for Windows 10 login) so it makes sense to set up an Outlook account on that.

    But when I originally setup the MS account I used the old email address, so when I now attempt to create a new Outlook account it is asking me to verify this old address in order to send a security code.
    Of course this is no use because I am unable to access the old email account to retrieve the code.

    Am I being thick here?
    How can I activate an Outlook email address without having access to the email account that I originally registered?

    I have tried to change my details by requesting a text be sent to my (new) phone, but this just sent me a 4 digit code to change my security details, which I entered and now the MS account is temporarily unavailable.

    Hopefully this will remove the old email verification once the new code is processed.

    But just in case these are my thoughts at the moment:

    Delete the current MS account and register a new one. (but this needs access to the old, inaccessible, email account to verify the deletion?)
    Temporarily use a disposable email account (urgh) to get the outlook account up, but this would have the same verification problem.
    Get an email account from elswhere, again the same verification problem.

    I should have realised earlier that this unethical provider might pull a stunt like this with the complaint.

    Anyone else had to do anything like this?
  2. Digerati

    Digerati Super Moderator Techie7 Moderator

    Not sure what to suggest here. Note you do not have to use a Microsoft account to log into Windows. You can use a Local account instead. See this if interested. And note too, if you do want to use a MS account, it can be tied to any email address (even gmail). You might also see if this helps: Change the email for your Microsoft account.

    As for your ISP, I have no advice to offer there. Sorry.
  3. nukecad

    nukecad Established Techie7 Member

    Cheers, as I said I was mainly spounting to get my thoughts clear.

    The change email option you link to is the one that sends a verification code to the old email which of course I can't access.

    More than that, because I changed the security details on my MS account, in an attempt to get rid of the link to the old email, MS is now telling me that I can't access the full account until 06/05/2016.
    Realy? a month to update a security code, in this day and age?
  4. nukecad

    nukecad Established Techie7 Member

    Unbelieveably this 30 day crap is true.

    If you want to change the password, email link, or other 'security' info on a Micrsoft account then you have to wait 30 days for the change to take effect.
    There is no warning about this 30 days, you only find out once you have done it.

    During this 30 days you can still access the MS account (with the old security details you are trying to change) but are limited as to what you can do in it.
    (Note that this is your MS account, your PC is not affected other than this).

    Microsoft say that this is a security feature so that you have 30 days to notice if someone has hacked into your account and is trying to reset the passwords to shut you out.

    There are quite a few complaints online about this, especially from people like myself who are just trying to delete an inactive email and add (or get) a new, active, one.

    The comments from one man businesses who suddenly find themselves locked out their Hotmail or Outlook email account for 30 days can be quite interesting.

    Anyway my current thinking is:
    1. Get a gmail address,
    2. Get my own domain and thus my own website and email address.
      I've been thinking about doing it for a while, this may be just the push I needed.
  5. Digerati

    Digerati Super Moderator Techie7 Moderator

    Then if me, I would create a new account.

    I don't think there is any technical reason for the 30 day delay. Because clearly, it could be done in a couple seconds. It might take a couple hours for the changes to propagate around the world, but certainly not weeks.

    I think it is all about protecting user's security. Since they cannot verify you are who you say you are, they implement this wait period to ward any badguys wanting to take over accounts.

    You can certainly get your own domain and email - but there are several free alternatives that work. My ISP allows 10 email addresses per account. And there's always gmail. I use my gmail account for my MS account.
  6. nukecad

    nukecad Established Techie7 Member

    Well it has prompted me to get my finger out.

    Got another free email account with mail.com.
    But I'll probably delete that or let it go inactive; because-

    I've finaly got around to registering my own domain with it's own email address.
    No webpage for now, will do that later if I can think of anything to put on it.

    Just need to get used to it now, inform all my contacts of the change of address, and change it in all the forums and websites where the old one is registered.
  7. Digerati

    Digerati Super Moderator Techie7 Moderator

    Yeah, changing a primary email address can be a pain - don't forget banks, utilities, and everywhere else if you have "paperless" billing. Even the IRS!
  8. nukecad

    nukecad Established Techie7 Member

    Yes a real PITA.

    Got most of it done, just need 1 utility (water), the DWP (disability benefits) and the TV licensing (don't think you have that one in the US). Having slight problems with those 3.
    I don't do online banking, no need for me.
    There's a couple of contacts and an ongoing 10 year medical survey I can't find without access to the old account, cest la vie.

    And lets face it there are a couple who I am not bothered they don't have my email anymore, marketing and the like.:p

    Our tax system in the UK is different, so unless you are self-employed you hardly ever need to contact HMRC, they certainly have never had my email or even my phone number.
  9. Digerati

    Digerati Super Moderator Techie7 Moderator

    No, but I was stationed at RAF Mildenhall in East Anglia years ago, so I know what "TV tax" is. It was £75/year back when I was there (82-86). I suspect it is a bit more today.
  10. nukecad

    nukecad Established Techie7 Member

    It's £145.50/year now.

    We all expect that its going to be abolished soon, they can't justify it anymore.
    It's a bit like the old 'Radio' licence that was abolished when transistor radios came in back in the 1960's.
    With watching TV on tablets and smartphones these days its much the same as the transistor radios were back then.

    Quite a bit of what we pay for the licence goes to funding the BBC world service (your welcome for now) which our government wants to keep going.
    So put the cost of this on the tax budget and stop charging us for things we will never see or hear.
    The BBC also makes a fortune making programmes and selling them overseas. (Downton Abbey, Dr Who, and so on).

    I believe that the BBC also used to be freeview in the US, but now you only get it through a paid for cable/Sky etc, package?

    For those who don't know you can be imprisoned for not paying you TV licence fee to the BBC - can you imagine if Sky, etc. were able to imprision you for an unpaid bill?
    (And you need the licence to watch anything, not just the BBC).
  11. Digerati

    Digerati Super Moderator Techie7 Moderator

    It was all about the BBC in the beginning, right? But even when I lived there, there was only BBC1 and BBC2, ITV, and Channel 4 and the BBC channels had almost as many commercials as the other two. I remember even if you didn't own a TV but had a car radio, you had to pay a "radio tax" for the privilege of listening to the BBC on the radio. And you could get a discounted TV tax if you only had a black and white TV.

    I am not aware of the BBC ever being completely free here. For that to happen, they would have to have their own over-the-air (RF) broadcast stations and I am not aware of any. So AFAIK, you could only get it via cable or now the Internet. So we too are paying for the BBC in our cable and ISP fees. You guys are not footing the entire bill. The BBC is making a fortune off of us (and US) too.

    I get BBC America though my cable service which is really great as I've been a long time Whovian and really liked Top Gear, though pi$$ed with Clarkson for ruining it with his stupid and puerile anger management issues. But BBC America puts on lots of other good shows too. Plus their nature and science shows are second to none and no doubt expensive to produce.

    Yeah, I remember seeing their "detector vans" running through neighborhoods. But I also remember hearing they were just a hoax - a ruse to scare people to pay up.

    Either way, I believe we are all over taxed and much of that is to fraud, waste and abuse. But I do think, in many cases, I would rather pay a small fee than be bombarded with ads that wildly exaggerate (if not totally lie about) the virtues of products, show shysters promoting lawsuits, or worst of all, try to get me to vote for this or that politician who is totally unwilling to make compromises.
  12. nukecad

    nukecad Established Techie7 Member

    Forgot about Top Gear there, will have to see what it is like when it starts again, should be in May.
    I'm not a fan of the 'Ginger Nija' (Chris Evans) and they say there will be up to 6 other presenters. We'll have to wait and see.
    Clarkson got a bit like Trump, too much money (although nowhere near as much as Trump) so nobody/nothing else matters except what he wants.

    Detector vans were a laugh, just an over promoted scare tactic as you say.
    There was nothing to 'detect', although the later ones had spy type microphones so they could point them at your windows and hear if you were watching to TV.
    Nowadays they just assume that everyone has a TV and if they don't have a record of a license for your address they send a letter every year threatening to prosecute/imprision you.
    (Believe it or not I actually know 2 people who don't even own a TV and they get this letter all the time).

    The point about the fee is fine, but most people here are already paying for cable/Sky/BT TV/Amazon Fire/etc. so get annoyed at having to pay this extra to the BBC who are already charging the paid for service providers.
  13. Digerati

    Digerati Super Moderator Techie7 Moderator

    Well, yes, laser beam pointed at windows can detect vibrations from sound sources within so yes, they can "listen" to hear if watching TV. But radio receivers (including TV "tuners") emit (transmit) a signal as a by-product of heterodyning and that can be detected with the right equipment too - so listening for sound was not necessary - that is, using headphones would not prevent a detector van from detecting you.

    The problem today is fewer and fewer viewers actually watch broadcasted over-the-air television. They use cable boxes and monitors, or TVs in monitor modes.