One third of routers potentially faulty?

<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/22/zen_ar7_infineon_bt_fault/>:

"Zen Internet has uncovered a potential problem with the Texas
Instruments AR7. The chip is at the heart of about a third of routers
in use worldwide today - including Linksys and Netgear kit.

Zen has told its customers not to buy models that contain the chip
because they provide an unstable connection.

Phil Long, a technical support manager at the firm, said: 'The
evidence is saying there's something about these chips that causes
intermittancy.'

Long explained that Zen fingered the issue when BT engineers were
called to test lines for subscribers suffering repeated
disconnections. BT staff test for a wiring problem using hardware
based on chips made by Speedtouch, a rival of the AR7.

In many cases, the BT man would report back that there was no problem
with the line, and the customer would be stung with an £169
unnecessary call-out charge"
--
Martin Jay


Martin Jay

Martin Jay wrote:

> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/22/zen_ar7_infineon_bt_fault/>:
>
> "Zen Internet has uncovered a potential problem with the Texas
> Instruments AR7. The chip is at the heart of about a third of routers
> in use worldwide today - including Linksys and Netgear kit.

Conexant chipset here thankfully.

Graham

"Martin Jay" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/22/zen_ar7_infineon_bt_fault/>:
>
> "Zen Internet has uncovered a potential problem with the Texas
> Instruments AR7. The chip is at the heart of about a third of routers
> in use worldwide today - including Linksys and Netgear kit.
>

ROFL, the dg834g is the most stable mid level router on the market place,
and it contains the ti ar47.

Gaz

"Gaz" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "Martin Jay" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/22/zen_ar7_infineon_bt_fault/>:
>>
>> "Zen Internet has uncovered a potential problem with the Texas
>> Instruments AR7. The chip is at the heart of about a third of routers
>> in use worldwide today - including Linksys and Netgear kit.
>
> ROFL, the dg834g is the most stable mid level router on the market place,
> and it contains the ti ar47.

The V1 and V2 versions of it do, but the V3 does not. I wonder what
proportion of DG834Gs in use are V3?

Mortimer wrote:

> "Gaz" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > "Martin Jay" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
> >
> >> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/22/zen_ar7_infineon_bt_fault/>:
> >>
> >> "Zen Internet has uncovered a potential problem with the Texas
> >> Instruments AR7. The chip is at the heart of about a third of routers
> >> in use worldwide today - including Linksys and Netgear kit.
> >
> > ROFL, the dg834g is the most stable mid level router on the market place,
> > and it contains the ti ar47.
>
> The V1 and V2 versions of it do, but the V3 does not. I wonder what
> proportion of DG834Gs in use are V3?

Tsskk tsskk. Whem nanufacturers make significant changes, the least they could
do is change the model number. I recently came across that very same criticism
in another group unrelated to broadband.

Graham

"Eeyore" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>
> Mortimer wrote:
>
>> "Gaz" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> > "Martin Jay" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
>> >
>> >> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/22/zen_ar7_infineon_bt_fault/>:
>> >>
>> >> "Zen Internet has uncovered a potential problem with the Texas
>> >> Instruments AR7. The chip is at the heart of about a third of routers
>> >> in use worldwide today - including Linksys and Netgear kit.
>> >
>> > ROFL, the dg834g is the most stable mid level router on the market
>> > place,
>> > and it contains the ti ar47.
>>
>> The V1 and V2 versions of it do, but the V3 does not. I wonder what
>> proportion of DG834Gs in use are V3?
>
> Tsskk tsskk. Whem nanufacturers make significant changes, the least they
> could
> do is change the model number. I recently came across that very same
> criticism
> in another group unrelated to broadband.

I agree. Any significant change like this, especially one which requires
different firmware upgrades to be downloaded from the web site, should
always trigger a change in the model number as opposed to just the
version/revision number. But marketeers thing only of "branding", not of any
after-sales support problems that they may be storing up for the company!

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 14:50:11 +0100, Martin Jay
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

><http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/22/zen_ar7_infineon_bt_fault/>:
>

>In many cases, the BT man would report back that there was no problem
>with the line, and the customer would be stung with an £169
>unnecessary call-out charge"


If a BT engineer was called out for a line fault that was actually a
problem with the customer's router then the call charge would in fact
be "necessary" as it was not BT's fault

jim

jim wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 14:50:11 +0100, Martin Jay
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/22/zen_ar7_infineon_bt_fault/>:
>>
>
>> In many cases, the BT man would report back that there was no problem
>> with the line, and the customer would be stung with an £169
>> unnecessary call-out charge"
>
>
> If a BT engineer was called out for a line fault that was actually a
> problem with the customer's router then the call charge would in fact
> be "necessary" as it was not BT's fault
>
> jim

The charge should be levied on the isp however, and the ISP recover it from
the customer, as the customer has no broadband contract with BT.

Gaz

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 21:13:27 +0100, Gaz <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>jim wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 14:50:11 +0100, Martin Jay
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/22/zen_ar7_infineon_bt_fault/>:
>>>
>>
>>> In many cases, the BT man would report back that there was no problem
>>> with the line, and the customer would be stung with an £169
>>> unnecessary call-out charge"
>>
>>
>> If a BT engineer was called out for a line fault that was actually a
>> problem with the customer's router then the call charge would in fact
>> be "necessary" as it was not BT's fault
>
>The charge should be levied on the isp however, and the ISP recover it from
>the customer, as the customer has no broadband contract with BT.

I guess that would depend whether it was the customer or the ISP that
requested an engineer visit.

--
-- Michael "Soruk" McConnell Eridani Star System
MailStripper - http://www.MailStripper.eu/ - SMTP spam filter
Mail Me Anywhere - http://www.MailMeAnywhere.com/ - Mobile email
Second Number - http://secondnumber.matrixnetwork.co.uk/

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 21:13:27 +0100, in uk.telecom.broadband , "Gaz"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>The charge should be levied on the isp however, and the ISP recover it from
>the customer, as the customer has no broadband contract with BT.

The callout is to test the physical line, not the broadband.
--
Mark McIntyre