Kitz Forum
Announcements => News Articles => Topic started by: Bowdon on February 23, 2016, 03:54:59 PM
-
Entanet Laments Loss of BT Openreach Approved VDSL Modems (http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2016/02/entanet-laments-loss-of-bt-openreach-approved-vdsl-modems.html)
Shropshire-based communications provider Entanet has today warned of the “potential for confusion and misunderstandings” when BTOpenreach finally withdraws its VDSL Modem from their own FTTC “fibre broadband” installation service at the end of March 2016.
-
AFAIK there's no such thing as "VDSL2+". It's VDSL2. "potential for confusion and misunderstandings" - especially if people can't get the basics right!
-
Neil Watson, Entanets Head of Service, said:
“A further point of concern for us comes with the key phrase “BT approved and Openreach compatible modem/routing device”. What this actually means is that any device supplied needs to support VDSL2+ technology and have passed Openreach’s Modem Conformance Test (MCT). While Entanet partners are able to identify approved devices through our partner portal (synergi), consumers are largely clueless about this requirement and indeed what constitutes an approved device.
And here once again, the onus falls on the reseller to educate consumers on what could happen if they choose to use a device that supports VDSL2+ but that hasn’t passed the MCT. Should a problem occur that requires BTs involvement to achieve a resolution, they will easily identify unapproved equipment through loopback testing. If unauthorised equipment is detected, BT can:
* Request that the device is disconnected
* Limit or disconnect the FTTC service
* Refuse to fix problems
* Levy charges for either an abortive visit as well as any special faults investigation charge.”
Just a couple of thoughts on this.
Would it be beneficial if router manufacturers applied for MCT direct and stamped in their boxes or whatever which are sold in the likes of PCWorld.
I agree that the list of approved routers isnt easy for the consumer to find. The last list I saw was from the ISPforum, which indicates that all the ISPs should be fully aware of what modems have been tested.
The other point - would Openreach really refuse to fix a problem because of the type of modem used?
I thought thats why Openreach carried test gear, so they should be able to see if when they plug in their JDSU or whatever if there is a problem.
Hasnt it always been the practice back to the days when they used to carry an old frog modem. I dunno but is the rule in place in case the EU has some real unworthy & crappy modem on the line. I don't foresee any engineer who once he puts his jdsu on and spots a problem with the physical line suddenly refuse to fix it just because the EU is using say a TP-link VR900. If that was ever the case then I would imagine any EU/SP would have serious cause for complaint.
-
That Draytek I was looking at earlier has the stamp on it's web page http://www.draytek.co.uk/products/business/vigor-2860
-
Excellent. So it does.
Even better it then links to this page - What is BT SIN 498 MCT Approval (http://www.draytek.co.uk/information/our-technology/bt-sin-498).
Surely you'd think all the router manufacturers would be trying to get MCT approval.
-
Does Entanet go through BTWholesale, or are they doing it direct with Openreach? I thought the devices in the ISP forum slides were put through the testing by BTWholesale.
The main thing I thought about this article was why are they complaining about this now? It seems a bit late to suddenly realise they've got to get devices tested, I thought devices supplied by ISP were always required to have passed the testing.
I not sure if Draytek have actually released the SIN 498 MCT approved firmware yet.
I think with FTTC, the problem is that there's greater potential for non-compliant modems to causes problems with other lines, especially if vectoring ever gets enabled - what if someone's TD-W9980 that doesn't support vectoring is slowing down someone else's line?
-
I agree that the list of approved routers isnt easy for the consumer to find. The last list I saw was from the ISPforum, which indicates that all the ISPs should be fully aware of what modems have been tested.
The ISP Review article has been updated with a list of approved modems:
One ISP has been kind enough to supply us with the latest list of approved VDSL routers and they also raised another question with regards to the seeming absence of BT’s Home Hub, as well as the new Sky Q router and so forth (apparently neither two are available to buy and so that’s why they don’t appear below, except you can buy a HH5 here).
Cisco (chipset firmware all 39m_B_38h3_24h):
C887VA-K9
C897VA-K9
CISCO887VA-K9
CISCO887VA-M-K9
CISCO887VA-SEC-K9
C887VAM-K9
C887VA-W-E-K9
C887VAM-W-E-K9
C887VA-V-K9
C887VA-V-W-E-K9
C887VA-CUBE-K9
C887VAG+7-K9
C887VAMG+7-K9
C887VAGW+7-E-K9
C887VA-WD-E-K9
C887VAG-4G-GA-K9
C897VAW-E-K9
C897VAM-W-E-K9
C897VAG-LTE-GA-k9
C897VAMG-LTE-GA-K9
EHWIC-VA-DSL-A
EHWIC-VA-DSL-M
Zyxel:
VMG8324-B10A
VMG8924 (Z-400UK)
VMG1312-B10A
Huawei:
HG633
Technicolor:
TG589Vac
TG789Vac
TG588v2
Kenton Comtrend:
VR-3030
Draytek (all firmware 05.07.06.0D.01.07):
Vigor 2860
Vigor 2860vn Plus
Vigor 2860n
Vigor 2860n Plus
Vigor 2860L
Vigor 2860Ln
Vigor 2860ac
Vigor 2760
Vigor 2760vn
Vigor 2760n
Vigor 130
-
The ISP Review article has been updated with a list of approved modems:
May I also add this link from BTW which gives the list and the firmware versions of each device tested
http://www.fcs.org.uk/image_upload/files/BTW%20List%20of%20Approved%20Modem%20CPE%20v7.pdf
-
Thank you for that useful link, Dave.
-
Just for clarification, is the BT Home Hub 5 type A (lantiq chipset) SIN 498 compliant?
Is the mandatory downstream G.INP actually supported? Or is this likely to be a feature of the imminent Home Hub 6.
-
Just for clarification, is the BT Home Hub 5 type A (lantiq chipset) SIN 498 compliant?
Yes.
Is the mandatory downstream G.INP actually supported?
Yes.
Dave's link - an official BT Wholesale document - helpfully states:
This list only covers those devices that are generally available to BTW Customers and excludes those devices which have been developed by a single Customer for their own use.
Which confirms why the modems issued by the likes of BT and Sky don't appear.
-
So BatBoy over on ThinkBroadband is just talking BS then yeah?
He is adamant that:
"Amongst the differences are the Type A has a Lantiq chipset, the Type B has a Broadcom chipset.
The Type A is better on an ECI cabinet, the Type B better on a Huawei cabinet.
They Type A doesn't do G.INP, the Type B supports G.INP.
The wifi is better on The Type A than the Type B."
http://forums.thinkbroadband.com/dslrouter/t/4484879-re-difference-between-type-a-and-b-for-bt-home-hub-5.html (http://forums.thinkbroadband.com/dslrouter/t/4484879-re-difference-between-type-a-and-b-for-bt-home-hub-5.html)
-
Pretty much, I for one saw a speed increase on a HH5a when my G.INP was activated.
Plus you can't really argue with official documentation.
-
Your line with G.INP on is slower than your line with G.INP off :cool:
-
The other points may well be true - but the following isn't:
They Type A doesn't do G.INP, the Type B supports G.INP.
The Type A supports downstream G.INP - do you really think Openreach would allow their biggest customer to introduce something which didn't meet SIN498 (and if they did, you would expect Sky to be shouting about it claiming its another reason BT/Openreach should be separate)
BatBoy has been told this by many people lots of times over several months. Kitz has also confirmed it on these boards.
However, (if I recall correctly) because BatBoy claims his line doesn't get g.inp with the HH5A and doesn't seem to understand that the IP profile: Sync ratio is different on modems which don't support g.inp both ways than those which do - so he refuses to accept anyone elses views/evidence etc.
I think most just ignore him now when he makes the same unfounded comment again and again
For instance see:
http://forums.thinkbroadband.com/bt/t/4471363-new-firmware-for-hh5a.html
http://forums.thinkbroadband.com/bt/f/4462243-myths-exploded.html?fpart=all&vc=1 though there will be plenty of other examples.
Of course, its a shame that the BT firmware doesn't specifically say if g.inp is on/off but I guess they never saw the need when designing it
-
Your line with G.INP on is slower than your line with G.INP off :cool:
With my sneaky resync yes, if I hook up my ECI modem the G.INP line will sync at 65min.
I plan to never resync the other line :D
I even got the non-g.inp line to 79999/20000 but the noise margin of 0 screwed up my plans :'(