Network type changed to MER. No longer Dynamic IP?

[Scubbie]

I've made no secret of using my own router until recently because it packed up on the WiFi & is out of warranty.

What's I've not mentioned previously on this forum was the set of circumstances that saw me without a Sky router when I first got connected. I was unaware of how the routers were embedded with the login details and that they weren't actually logged to your account until you first use the router.

This left me without the means to use my BB connection for several days, yet I had a perfectly functional router of my own connected to the line already. DLM had kicked in and the router was synchronising. It just couldn't sign in to the Sky BB service.

I trust that most members would agree that by supplying a known router, any support issues are made much easier. I suspect that many would agree that for the majority of people, it is also a sensible idea to remove features that would allow many to muck up their connections.

However, it would be nicer if for those who know what a router can be used for, the following were immediately available:

* Full WiFi n facilities (300mbps, dual frequency, stronger signal)
* Gigabit LAN
* Option to set up a 2nd WiFi connection that doesn't have access to your LAN (something that guests can access, without seeing your LAN)
* Improved reporting facilities which can email problem reports
* Ability to bridge another router via WiFi
* A couple of USB ports to allow for (a) a 3G dongle for backup BB service (b) a printer to be shared & (c) an External Drive or USB memory stick to be fully accessed

[I_Hate_Sky_Awnsers]

Fully agree Scubbie with what the sky routers should have.

Also think that a QOS packet scheduler should be there as well.

I agree that customers should be provided with a router if they require one. Until the sky routers have all the features mentioned by you and others. When that happens most customers wouldn't mind using the Sky supplied router.

Most 3rd party routers are cheaper and better quality.

There are always going to be acceptions such as people that have their own routers configured the way they want.

[Scubbie]

Yep - I forgot about QoS.

Perhaps a better way forward would be to offer two routers to be made available to all the Sky BB customers.

Option 1 - Free Router - similar as is currently shipped, but fully WiFi n. Perhaps a single USB port could be added too

Option 2 - Charged for router, with all the features mentioned above

Both could be then fully supported by staff within Sky.

[I_Hate_Sky_Awnsers]

Sounds like a good idea but chances are people would choose the free one, or complain that they could get a better router cheaper.

[Scubbie]

Sounds like a good idea but chances are people would choose the free one, or complain that they could get a better router cheaper.

That would very much depend on how well the router is priced.

The current pricing for routers meeting the specs I posted is around £150 mark. Take off say £30 (the cost customers are charged for a Sky router at present), leave a router pegged at around £120. Put in bulk purchasing discounts, I'm sure that they could get the price down to £80.

[fuzzy logic]

Fully agree Scubbie with what the sky routers should have.

Also think that a QOS packet scheduler should be there as well.

On top of all that, I think a major omission in Sky routers is an effective, easy to configure parental controls. The router is the most logical place to implement that.

Also a decent firewall implementation:- While the firewall rules on the original Netgear are a bit limited, with the D-link (with the V1.11 firmware at least) the firewall rules are a joke. It won't even let you configure two rules with the same service name, you have to create a new service for the same set of ports with a different name to get around that. Which makes it tricky if you want to configure two inbound rules applying to the same ports for different source address ranges.

Also a better designed user interface would be desirable, the original Sky (Netgear) router is well thought out, with most of its configuration pages listed down the side, and has proper buttons to click on, the new design is much less convenient.

[Scubbie]

Yep - Forgot about parental controls.

Certainly they could be improved across the board.

Now I wonder if the developers at BSkyB ever read this forum?

[I_Hate_Sky_Awnsers]

Starting to build a rather large list now of the sort of router that should be available.

[SadBloke]

Starting to build a rather large list now of the sort of router that should be available.

And there is the problem. Offering a cheap, basic router is enough for most people. Gets them online with the least hassle and relatively easy for the ISP to troubleshoot if there is a problem.

The alternative is to leave customers to make their own arrangements, which could add £100+ to the connection price if they don't already have the kit; or offer a 'top of the range' router but that will come out around the same price, and multiply the number of things that could go wrong. That all has to have a cost, which we end up paying for out of our monthly subscriptions.

You may guess from my post that I'm ok with the current situation. My £32 refurbed D-Link router is happily providing me with N connectivity at 5GHz and gigabit through DD-WRT while the Sky Sagem handles the internet connection and 2.5GHz wireless.

[Scubbie]

I understand your scepticism 'SadBloke', but if the router were made available as an option, there would be many who would not wish to take one, simply because of the extra price.

However, I would agree that there would be a certain number who would spend the money on it, simply to increase their status symbols.

How significant the number is not known to you nor I at this stage.

The BT HomeHub v2 offers significantly more options that any Sky router. It is supplied as standard to all new BT customers.

Are you therefore suggesting that Sky customers are to forever subject to inferior products?