In reply to a post by Michael_Chare:

You would be able to use the TP-Link wifi to access the Internet via the Now TV router.

It can be a cheap way to improve your wifi. especially if you already have the router.

As a solution it would cost less than buying a new wireless access point, though there are some good Wifi access points that you can get these days

Ah I get you now, Would I turn off the Now TV Hub WiFi in order not to have it conflict the other router ?

I was and am perfectly calm. I see nothing "uncalm" in what I previously said.

Note that my original post was a reply to:-

In reply to a post by TTTJJJ:

If you're not planning on having the supplied router, you could always just use a VDSLmodem/router, there's plenty available online that combine the two so you needn't have a separate OR modem.

I think the only reason the OR existed back then was purely because devices capable of being a router and a modem for VDSL were too expensive and not widely available.

In my reply to you which upset you, my "both" was referring to the OP's ECI and the Huawei he is considering. The fact that both OR FTTC modems are in fact modem/routers locked down in bridge mode was irrelevant to the answer I was giving to the second paragraph in the quote above.

The mention of the Frog was merely pointing out that BT (did Openreach exist at the time?) didn't allow tinkering with the Frog either and it was the only allowed device.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

The mention of the Frog was merely pointing out that BT (did Openreach exist at the time?) didn't allow tinkering with the Frog either and it was the only allowed device.

Was that on the 512kbps service?

I was given an Alcatel modem. Black box, standalone, all locked down. I can't remember what I used as a router, though I'm pretty sure the Alcatel was just a modem ... perhaps I used a Linux server to perform routing.

However, that was for the original Demon trial, where they put us on the 2Mbps service.

The difference with the frog was that it was pretty much a dumb modem. All the settings you would generally tinker with in a router were controlled via the PC - so tinkering was possible because the interface to manage it all was the PC rather than in the modem. Barring flashing the firmware there was nothing else that could be done directly with the modem as there was nothing on it to change.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

The mention of the Frog was merely pointing out that BT (did Openreach exist at the time?) didn't allow tinkering with the Frog either and it was the only allowed device.

Ah I remember the Green Frog modem, I remember a company I worked for had ALL their PC's connected to a switch which I think in turn connected to one PC which the modem was connected to... so that we could share their internet.. that was back in 2002/2003..... I first had ADSL (so new at the time) with Metronet... and my partner (at the time) and I had to buy our own router!

Great service though, no "dialling in"

The main point in mentioning the Frog was that it was the only device you were supposed to use. As were the two FTTC "modems". I simply expressed it in a way that could be (and was) misinterpreted.

This continuing discussion of it is ridiculous. I reiterate for the second time, with a parenthesised insert in the quote from the post I was replying to for clarity as the post-chain isn't obvious, and mine with a suitable strikeout, that I was giving the reason for Openreach insisting on them being used . The mention of the Frog was purely that they did the same on ADSL when it was introduced.

In reply to a post by TTTJJJ:

I think the only reason the OR (Huawei and ECI "modems") existed back then was purely because devices capable of being a router and a modem for VDSL were too expensive and not widely available.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Openreach wanted full control of the modem, which is why they were locked down. The same happened when ADSL was introduced, with the Frog.

Is everybody happy now?

..... except they were turquoise.

It's only a discussion Bob, you seem to be taking umbrage at something where no slight was intended.

I almost made a similar response but I know that some people see turquoise as turquoise, some as blue and others as green. It is a colour that seems to largely be in the eye of the beholder and I have had "discussions" with family members in the past on just that subject.

In reply to a post by Zarjaz:

..... except they were turquoise.

Oh so they were....

https://offog.org/notes/speedtouch-revival/speedtouc...