Good point about the router: I binned mine as it didn't do NAT loopback. I just used one that had been supplied by a previous ISP, so it didn't cost me anymore though.

I would guess most people now have a cupboard full of old routers, but might be an issue if this is your first ISP or you need/want the latest router.

In reply to a post by hk11:

Good point about the router: I binned mine as it didn't do NAT loopback. I just used one that had been supplied by a previous ISP, so it didn't cost me anymore though.

I would guess most people now have a cupboard full of old routers, but might be an issue if this is your first ISP or you need/want the latest router.

Indeed, it seems like the Technicolor is basically the same Thomson but the name has been rebadged.

This was the router I had https://www.leenukes.co.uk/2008/08/12/thomson-tg585v... And it was a nightmare with Be Unlimited* ISP before O2 took over. I was using Port Forward tool to verify if the ports were open and they were blocked.

I was trying to play at that time Gears of War, Shadowrun, Halo 2 and Resident Evil 5 multiplayer using Games for Windows Live and there was NAT strict even with UPNP enabled. Ports were blocked.

I had no choice but to buy a new Netgear DGN2000 router at that time and immediately I managed to join the multiplayer servers and have the ports opened without any difficulty. Games like Shadowrun are multiplayer only, so it was impossible to see myself sacrifice a whole year with a bad router that doesn't allow port openings.

I am specially wary of the router supplied by an ISP. I do google searches on their supplied routers to see if there are problems. For example Now TV supply a Hub 2 router which has only 2 Ethernet LAN ports which is a disaster for me as I have 3 computers and a satellite receiver which you cannot conveniently use Wi-Fi. Yes, I know I can use an Ethernet switch, but that means spending another £20 on a new network switch, which frankly doesn't seem like a normal way of having more ports. It just over-complicates situations.

Even if the ISP package was cheap, I would not go with an ISP with 2 LAN ports instead of 4 or if it cannot do port forwarding or for example overheats and then reboots by itself, or has only 300Mbps LAN port speeds.

You are lucky that you were able to use your previously supplied router with your new provider. Most ISPs lock their routers to their ISP. If this issue with ISPs locking their routers did not exist, I would not be too concerned about joining any ISP that didn't supply a quality router. Otherwise you have to spend more money on your own router which we all would like to avoid whenever possible.

Is locking a router a recent thing? I've had loads of ISOs over the years and (I think) the only problem I have had with a locked router is Sky, but I think their routers would be pretty useless with any other ISP, even if they weren't locked.

In reply to a post by hk11:

Is locking a router a recent thing?

No, it has been common practice amongst ISPs for a long time. TalkTalk typically don't lock their routers, but the latest one will not connect with PPP on VDSL2 which limits its reuse potential.

In reply to a post by hk11:

Is locking a router a recent thing?

No, but remember that most ISP supplied routers are lowest cost possible. You have the large ISPs with a couple of million customers (e.g. Virgin Media, BT etc) but most of the others are quite small. Buying your own VDSL router that meets your needs, has good WiFi etc is a "no brainer" for anyone whom wants more. Some have 8 ethernet ports for example. You have more choice if you also buy a standalone VDSL modem, even a used HG612 from ebay.

I think most are happy enough with the ISP provided router. If you want more than buying your own makes sense if you are not lucky enough to have a cupboard full of routers.

In reply to a post by hk11:

I think most are happy enough with the ISP provided router. If you want more than buying your own makes sense if you are not lucky enough to have a cupboard full of routers.

A cupboard full is interesting, but mostly useless, as throughput goes up, the CPUs in the router can't keep up. Then you have WiFi security, unless you use separate access points, e.g. my Asus supports WPA 3, none of the older routers do.

My ISP (Virgin Media) provides a router, but in terms of features it is similar to the Plusnet Hub 1, basically nothing. I would replace it, but it has a modem mode.

I think Openreach missed a trick with FTTC, which is not an issue with FTTP, in that the "demarcation point" is an Ethernet port.

True. If you keep upgrading your connection then old routers are useless. Luckily I still use ADSL rather than fibre, but I wonder how long that will be provided?

Virgin Media eh? Happy days with VM cable: router was just a modem and I used a separate box for WiFi.

In reply to a post by hk11:

True. If you keep upgrading your connection then old routers are useless. Luckily I still use ADSL rather than fibre, but I wonder how long that will be provided?

It makes little sense. “Fibre” is really VDSL, and G.Fast is the top of that range over copper wires. Each of which needs a different modem part to the router. Either you have an ethernet router and swap the modem (ADSL, VDSL, G.Fast) or you have to keep replacing the router if you want faster speeds.

Virgin Media eh? Happy days with VM cable: router was just a modem and I used a separate box for WiFi.

Back in 1999 I had to buy the cable modem, the 3Com CMX, which cost me £150, but it could only cope with upto 2 Mbps, so eventually it had to go. The CMX was only a modem, and then cable world supplied a rented modem for a while. Eventually they moved to an all in one box (the UK generic term is ‘hub’) but thankfully they have a “modem mode”

With FTTP the “modem” equivalent is the ONT that is fixed to the wall, and converts an Ethernet RJ45 jack to the optical fibre. This is real fibre into the home, not the “fibre” used as a branding for higher speeds.