BT Home Hub 2.0 Question

Hey guys,

I just got a HH 2.0 and got it set up no problem at all. I am using a
iMac running OS 10.4.11. I was previously using a Netgear DG834G and
was getting a download speed of 284kb/s. With the HH I am getting the
following results:

Download 1.51 mb/s
Upload 0.32 mb/s


Now, I am aware of the 10 day thing however my question is does this
apply to me seeing as how I have been using BT Broadband for the last 5
or 6 years? I recently renewed my yearly contract with them and that
is why I got the HH. I have only plugged the HH in today so maybe I
have to leave the HH plugged in for at least 10 days before my speed
will increase?

"Gared Haus" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:0065e204$0$8252$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hey guys,
>
> I just got a HH 2.0 and got it set up no problem at all. I am using a
> iMac running OS 10.4.11. I was previously using a Netgear DG834G and was
> getting a download speed of 284kb/s. With the HH I am getting the
> following results:
>
> Download 1.51 mb/s
> Upload 0.32 mb/s
>
>
> Now, I am aware of the 10 day thing however my question is does this apply
> to me seeing as how I have been using BT Broadband for the last 5 or 6
> years? I recently renewed my yearly contract with them and that is why I
> got the HH. I have only plugged the HH in today so maybe I have to leave
> the HH plugged in for at least 10 days before my speed will increase?
>

You clearly re not aware of the 10 day thing if you have to ask how long
10 days is!

On 2009-07-25 21:51:27 +0100, "Clive" <(E-Mail Removed)> said:

>
> "Gared Haus" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:0065e204$0$8252$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Hey guys,
>>
>> I just got a HH 2.0 and got it set up no problem at all. I am using a
>> iMac running OS 10.4.11. I was previously using a Netgear DG834G and was
>> getting a download speed of 284kb/s. With the HH I am getting the
>> following results:
>>
>> Download 1.51 mb/s
>> Upload 0.32 mb/s
>>
>>
>> Now, I am aware of the 10 day thing however my question is does this apply
>> to me seeing as how I have been using BT Broadband for the last 5 or 6
>> years? I recently renewed my yearly contract with them and that is why I
>> got the HH. I have only plugged the HH in today so maybe I have to leave
>> the HH plugged in for at least 10 days before my speed will increase?
>>
>
> You clearly re not aware of the 10 day thing if you have to ask how long
> 10 days is!

I wasn't asking how long it is, I was asking if it applies to me as
I've been with BT Broadband for the last 5 or 6 years......

Pete Zahut wrote:
> Gared Haus wrote:
>> Hey guys,
>>
>> I just got a HH 2.0 and got it set up no problem at all. I am using a
>> iMac running OS 10.4.11. I was previously using a Netgear DG834G and
>> was getting a download speed of 284kb/s. With the HH I am getting the
>> following results:
>>
>> Download 1.51 mb/s
>> Upload 0.32 mb/s

I've got a HomeHub 1.5 - it won't provide anything like the throughput
provided by my current Modem/Router (Draytek 2800VG). The line stats
(SNR Margin, Loop attenuation) are similar, but the HH consistently
negotiates a lower rate with the DSLAM at the exchange. Needless to say,
the HH has been retired.

There are modem parameters which can be set to give slower (but more
stable) speeds (Coding Gain etc). The Draytek gives access to some of
these, but the HH doesn't. My guess is that BT have set these to provide
slower speeds to make the line seem more stable - and hope users won't
notice the difference. Remember that BT can control the settings of your
HH without your knowledge via their remote management capability on the Hub.

There's another thing to consider about the HH. (This rather depends on
your level of paranoia and your trust in BT's integrity).
The aforementioned remote management port is effectively a back door
into your router. It's on the public record that BT have done some very
underhand, and possibly illegal things in terms of secretly intercepting
web browsing. You should consider this before putting too much trust in
the HomeHub - and in BT itself.

Even if BT are not implementing questionable "Features" in the HH,
remember that the remote management port is potentially hackable, and
you'd never know if someone had quietly installed a bit of packet
sniffing code to intercept your entire traffic stream......

On 2009-07-26 15:06:23 +0100, Gaius <bin@127.0.0.1> said:

> Pete Zahut wrote:
>> Gared Haus wrote:
>>> Hey guys,
>>>
>>> I just got a HH 2.0 and got it set up no problem at all. I am using a
>>> iMac running OS 10.4.11. I was previously using a Netgear DG834G and
>>> was getting a download speed of 284kb/s. With the HH I am getting the
>>> following results:
>>>
>>> Download 1.51 mb/s
>>> Upload 0.32 mb/s
>
> I've got a HomeHub 1.5 - it won't provide anything like the throughput
> provided by my current Modem/Router (Draytek 2800VG). The line stats
> (SNR Margin, Loop attenuation) are similar, but the HH consistently
> negotiates a lower rate with the DSLAM at the exchange. Needless to
> say, the HH has been retired.
>
> There are modem parameters which can be set to give slower (but more
> stable) speeds (Coding Gain etc). The Draytek gives access to some of
> these, but the HH doesn't. My guess is that BT have set these to
> provide slower speeds to make the line seem more stable - and hope
> users won't notice the difference. Remember that BT can control the
> settings of your HH without your knowledge via their remote management
> capability on the Hub.
>
> There's another thing to consider about the HH. (This rather depends on
> your level of paranoia and your trust in BT's integrity).
> The aforementioned remote management port is effectively a back door
> into your router. It's on the public record that BT have done some very
> underhand, and possibly illegal things in terms of secretly
> intercepting web browsing. You should consider this before putting too
> much trust in the HomeHub - and in BT itself.
>
> Even if BT are not implementing questionable "Features" in the HH,
> remember that the remote management port is potentially hackable, and
> you'd never know if someone had quietly installed a bit of packet
> sniffing code to intercept your entire traffic stream......

Oh wow, I never knew that BT could do that. Well, I will remove the
hub at once and just keep my old Netgear

G