Unresolved support ticket open for more than six months - RESOLVED: after 8 mths
Quote from: HPsauce If it was me I'd put that back into use and flash it with DGTeam firmware for better control and more detailed diagnostics.
I wouldn't!
I tried flashing my DG834v1 with DGTeam firmware and totally fouled it up.
Then found that the recovery tool wouldn't work on my PC. Several very sweaty hours later I found the recovery tool worked on my wife's PC and managed to breath life in to the thing.
Well lots of people do flash them without problems; and even you recovered so maybe it was a problem with your PC? 
DG834V4 is a good tool for diagnosis. If you can get it back you might get some more clues.
DG834V4 is a good tool for diagnosis. If you can get it back you might get some more clues.
The fact that the recovery tool wouldn't work on my PC (trying to put back on the original official Netgear firmware) is nothing to do with the fact that DGTeam firmware totally trashed the router in the first place.
I used my PC to install V3.01.38 on to the router without any problem.
I used my PC to install V3.01.38 on to the router without any problem.
Ah well you didn't say that before.
Quote from: jelv DGTeam firmware totally trashed the router
Surely given the length of this problem it's a minor risk worth taking? And he has a V4 not a V1 anyway; different chipset.
Quote from: HPsauce
Quote from: jelv DGTeam firmware totally trashed the router
Agreed. I actually said:
Quote from: jelv I tried flashing my DG834v1 with DGTeam firmware and totally fouled it up.
I'd be interested in your analysis of the difference between "totally fouled it up" and "totally trashed".
Well we could start another thread on English language and grammar, but I don't think it would be productive or help the OP. 
I'm aware of very many people flashing DG834GT's and DG834Gv4's (which are essentially the same) with great success and apart from you don't recall anyone having problems, except with the initial "unlocking" of Sky-branded units.
But it's the OP's choice at the end of the day.
I'm aware of very many people flashing DG834GT's and DG834Gv4's (which are essentially the same) with great success and apart from you don't recall anyone having problems, except with the initial "unlocking" of Sky-branded units.
But it's the OP's choice at the end of the day.
Well, I'm just sitting back and waiting to see who will get post #100 
Hi all,
well you've got to laugh a bit at that banter between those two Catweazle , anyway -
I'm flabberghasted -
Don't they understand that untwisted cable pairs can be a source of interference pickup, never mind the potential impedance changes and possibly higher capacitance of this bit of cable. I supposed they were too lazy to get the ladder off the van and check that external white box either
I suppose the filter they fitted may ensure you router isn't troubled by Aircraft/Beacon or other radio transmissions!
I don't think those two properly understand broadband, however I may have the answer to this -
It is likely that the engineer logged in as bt_test@startup_domain. This will bypass the normal Target SNRM and other settings fixed by the DSLAM.
Now did he get the 2M throughput limit logged into the startup_domain or
logged into bt_test_user@plusdsl.net? If the former, then it is totally down to BT kit.
There could be a dodgey line card or something else in the DSLAM.
I'd like to know what speed he'd sync at if he connected directly to the MDF, because it seems less likely that there's a line problem limiting the sync speed, which we've all said before should be at 8M, and another problem with the DSLAM/line card clobbering throughput. Apart from a competent engineer going to the exchange, I'm still of the opinion that that old bit of cable in the roof through to the pole should be replaced.
well you've got to laugh a bit at that banter between those two Catweazle
, anyway -I'm flabberghasted -
Quote They also checked the red/black phone wires in the roof and suggested that this was actually an old-style phone cable that didn't need replacing; however, they did fit an RF filter instead of the snap-on connectors -
Don't they understand that untwisted cable pairs can be a source of interference pickup, never mind the potential impedance changes and possibly higher capacitance of this bit of cable. I supposed they were too lazy to get the ladder off the van and check that external white box either
I suppose the filter they fitted may ensure you router isn't troubled by Aircraft/Beacon or other radio transmissions!
I don't think those two properly understand broadband, however I may have the answer to this -
Quote from: Jameseh The realm that the engineer uses should make absolutely no different to the sync speed.
I'm curious to find out how he got the faster sync speed, if he did at all!
It is likely that the engineer logged in as bt_test@startup_domain. This will bypass the normal Target SNRM and other settings fixed by the DSLAM.
Now did he get the 2M throughput limit logged into the startup_domain or
logged into bt_test_user@plusdsl.net? If the former, then it is totally down to BT kit.
There could be a dodgey line card or something else in the DSLAM.
I'd like to know what speed he'd sync at if he connected directly to the MDF, because it seems less likely that there's a line problem limiting the sync speed, which we've all said before should be at 8M, and another problem with the DSLAM/line card clobbering throughput. Apart from a competent engineer going to the exchange, I'm still of the opinion that that old bit of cable in the roof through to the pole should be replaced.
Interesting.
I was under the opinion that the profile (IP and noise) would be determined by the circuit (CBUK/BBIP) rather than the realm (startup_domain).
Would be very interested to find out if it makes any difference.
I am happy to supply definitions of different words in the English language for those that are interested, but suspect that this isn't the thread for it
I was under the opinion that the profile (IP and noise) would be determined by the circuit (CBUK/BBIP) rather than the realm (startup_domain).
Would be very interested to find out if it makes any difference.
I am happy to supply definitions of different words in the English language for those that are interested, but suspect that this isn't the thread for it
Quote from: jelv I'd be interested in your analysis of the difference between "totally fouled it up" and "totally trashed".
Well, if you must know, you said:
I ... fouled it up
then later:
DGTeam ... trashed
Sorry Catweazle, just noticed your comment, not deliberate honest!
Quote from: Catweazle Well, I'm just sitting back and waiting to see who will get post #100
I just knew you were going to get that last word (for the time being )
)
Well, that's the first century out of the way - let's hope it doesn't reach #200...
PN support updated the ticket today to say that BT will "try a lift and shift in the exchange to make sure that the port your line is on isn't faulty" tomorrow afternoon (Thursday), so let's hope that makes a difference. Synch speed is still in the doldrums - 1600kbps at the moment.
I did try to explain but they were adamant that the RF filter would sort out any problems with the cable or any other sources of local interference (which they couldn't find anyway, using the portable radio).
The engineer (and some of those who visited before) stated that they were using the BT domain i.e. they were bypassing my ISP deliberately to ensure they did a "clean" test. When I pointed out that synch rates might be high but throughput was very poor they tried to blame this on PlusNet i.e. "your ISP is responsible for throughput, we're just responsible for synch rate" (not the exact words, but you get the gist). I don't know whether they used the login details that you mentioned.
Might be something to do with 4-6 inches of snow and a biting wind - BT engineers aren't what they used to be! To be honest, I was really surprised that they turned up at all. But I do think they're just working to a script and don't use experience/intelligence to diagnose problems i.e. they're given various pieces of equipment and software, but they really don't seem to know how to interpret the results or suggest further tests. It's just a guessing game for them at the moment, it seems.
PN support updated the ticket today to say that BT will "try a lift and shift in the exchange to make sure that the port your line is on isn't faulty" tomorrow afternoon (Thursday), so let's hope that makes a difference. Synch speed is still in the doldrums - 1600kbps at the moment.
Quote from: Anotherone Don't they understand that untwisted cable pairs can be a source of interference pickup, never mind the potential impedance changes and possibly higher capacitance of this bit of cable.
I did try to explain but they were adamant that the RF filter would sort out any problems with the cable or any other sources of local interference (which they couldn't find anyway, using the portable radio).
Quote from: Anotherone It is likely that the engineer logged in as bt_test@startup_domain. This will bypass the normal Target SNRM and other settings fixed by the DSLAM.
The engineer (and some of those who visited before) stated that they were using the BT domain i.e. they were bypassing my ISP deliberately to ensure they did a "clean" test. When I pointed out that synch rates might be high but throughput was very poor they tried to blame this on PlusNet i.e. "your ISP is responsible for throughput, we're just responsible for synch rate" (not the exact words, but you get the gist). I don't know whether they used the login details that you mentioned.
Quote from: Anotherone I supposed they were too lazy to get the ladder off the van and check that external white box either
Might be something to do with 4-6 inches of snow and a biting wind - BT engineers aren't what they used to be! To be honest, I was really surprised that they turned up at all. But I do think they're just working to a script and don't use experience/intelligence to diagnose problems i.e. they're given various pieces of equipment and software, but they really don't seem to know how to interpret the results or suggest further tests. It's just a guessing game for them at the moment, it seems.
Quote from: Catweazle i.e. they're given various pieces of equipment and software
What you have to remember is that people who write diagnostic software are a highly elite group of the most talented programmers in the world. After all to write software that will run all day without showing any errors on clapped out, damaged equipment and lines has got to be very clever.
Quote from: jelv
Quote from: Catweazle i.e. they're given various pieces of equipment and software
Is that why they were supplied with a tranny
to locate rf interference?
