Is it just me or is the Smart Hub 2 just not good enough. I'm on Full fibre so no need for a VDSL modem which means I lost an ethernet port to connect to the ONT, which means I don't have enough ports for all my wired devices. I and sure I can't be the only person who needs to be able to separate 2.4Ghz and 5Ghz networks. I have Lifx smart bulbs which along with several smart plugs and of course Alexas dotted around the place, all of which need 2.4Ghz. As anyone who has tried setting up smart devices on a merged network will tell you, it causes nothing but problems as the setup needs the phone or tablet to be on 2.4Ghz when you perform setup or it doesn't work. This has rendered the Hub 2 totally unusable, of course if there are any issues with my broadband BT will say they can't support me if I'm using my own router (which I have to given the massive shortcomings of the Hub 2). Can anyone tell me if there is an updated Hub (maybe a Hub 3) for FTTP customers as it just seems insane to ship such a limited piece of kit in todays world of smart devices being almost ubiquitous. Surely as a very minimum any router for an FTTP connection should have at least 4 Gigabit Ethernet ports (preferably 😎 have the basic functionality of splitting 2.4Ghz and 5Ghz, and be able to select the channels and channel width of both networks. Don't get me wrong, I'm very happy with my own router but given BT give barely any support if you use your own router, they should at least ship a half decent router capable of delivering what customers need.
Hi @handsomeinked Just checking that you are aware that you can buy a simple unmanaged gigabit Ethernet switch with 5/8/16 ports for your Ethernet devices. I use Netgear GS108UKs but there are cheaper ones available.
@handsomeinked it's not most elegant solution, but use BT SH2 just as "gateway" with wifi off, and manage whole home network on router of your choice.
Like this, BT will be happy, because they will still see their own SH2 when looked up into the line.
Firstly, you will find, as You will get full ownership of decision, what You wanna setup and how, which will never happens with any broadband provided router, doesn't matter how good and friendly might be.
Problem of SH2, as well as all other similar routers are, as they decide to lock them into fixed choice of Wifi channels 36,42,48 on 5GHz and especially at city area, this will cause nothing else then trouble. I counted 52 different BT, Sky, TalkTalk routers at our building, fighting over these 3 channels, with any moment at least 11 routers visible all over my apartment.
Even more farce on 2.4 GHz
"Smart" mode doesn't help either. Plus they smash full power at any time, on top of which also smashing 3 other "BT-Wifi" networks, and "hidden" network, even if you switch off WiFi on them (!!!) - you must manually unsubscribe from BT-Wifi and it will stops after week or so later.
Your own router, connected into SH2 and DMZ (plus port forwarded) will give you much more options, even if it will be 2 band AC router, and better performance. Split of 2.4 and 5 GHz wifi is absolutely necessity (as advanced option - I can imagine as BT looking here for "plug and play" users to lower unnecessary strain to Customer Services - most of the people will never need). With 3 band AC router, or if you have enough new devicesd supporting Wifi6 and respective package (over 300 Mbps download speed), AX router, will give you much much more performance.
I have FF900 and SH2 never give me more then 350 Mbps over the wifi and with only 35+ devices, 2/3 of them legacy 2.4 GHz "smart home" devices, it's tend to have dropouts, restarts, etc, especially, when other devices, connected over 5 GHz was demanding at same time.
Most of the time, speed never goes over 200 Mbps over the wifi, and even over the ethernet, it's fluctuate a lot (I am aware as it's normal, but I wasn't prepared to see speed dropping continuously to 300 Mbps on such powerful package.).
With separate router, which handling my network, I have 2.4 Ghz set to 40 Mhz wide, low power (perfectly enough to cover my apartment and not go so far beyond) and both 5 GHz to 80 Mhz wide, and on channels 52 and 100 respectively (which are completely FREE here, nobody using them whilst all other users 300 yards around are competing over standard "A" band channels 36,42,48 on provider's routers). While have only 4 Lan ports on router, gigabit managed (even unmanaged should be fine) router is the must...
Problem which I had was IPV6, which unfortunately not all routers are compatible with BT own /56 addressing. I overcome it in way, as IPV6 is handled on SH2, and router is at bridge mode (only for IPV6).
IPV4 is handled on TP Link router.
One might have problem, while like this, I can't fully switch off Firewall on SH2, but that's not problem at all...
Speeds when only 1 device is demanding, rest are on stand-by:
60-110 Mbps down / 70 Mbps up on 2.4 Ghs - enough for legacy devices.
350-500 Mbps down / 110-119 Mbps up on "A" band 5 Ghz channel 52
400-670 Mbps down / 110-119 Mbps up on "B" band 5 Ghz channel 100
700-910 Mbps down / 110-119 Mbps up on LAN ports.
When more 5 GHz and LAN devices starting be demanding, as expected, speeds will drops, but I am happy with 150-200+ Mbps stable at any time...
Never happens with SH2, at such point, it start to restart self.
Regards SH3, I will be sceptical, if BT will allows band split, especially when it's expected as it will be AX router with new 6 GHz band. As mentioned, most of the people expecting plug and play, and many not even change any password. And BT will try to go this way, because it's easy for them....
Plus, with shortage of chips now, pandemic, I do not expect as SH3 will show up earlier then next year, and even, don't forget, as now You don't getting automatic upgrade of router, even when you rereview contract. It will be for sure, something like Halo 4/4+ chained, at least at first, or ridiculously priced, if You will ask for upgrade of router in middle term.
Like this, own router is way to go, at least for next year or so...
Yeah, I did consider using the Hub 2 as a gateway however it's just one more device sucking power hahaha. Ironically I've not had any issues that would require BT stepping in for support. I suppose my post was more a vent / stream of consciousness about how monumentally inadequate the Hub 2 is. It's certainly nice to see I'm no the only one who finds it's lack of any real advanced controls to be incredibly limiting.
And whilst yes, I could have the Hub 2 sitting there as a "gateway" I just don't want to have yet another device plugged in sucking up energy... Given BT's commitment to becoming carbon neutral, surely having a stock router that is so bad customers need to go out and buy a more capable router whilst leaving the stock router plugged in working as a "gateway. This is certainly not sustainable or doing anything to help the company be carbon neutral. (sorry another rant... )
You all seem to be missing the point that the device is a mass produced cheap device that is entirely suitable for the vast majority of BT's customers that just want a plug and play box without any frills. Anybody wishing anything more configurable should be using a third party router of their choice.
@licquorice I understand where you're coming from however shipping a router with no advanced features (you don't need to use them if you don't need them) creates electronic waste, the manufacture of them creates carbon emissions as well as all the chemicals involved in the manufacture of the components that make them run, as does the shipping the units. By creating a router that's only got basic functionality we are further polluting the planet because anyone who needs more advanced features must buy a third party router and, if they want to make sure BT will support them, they have to keep both devices plugged in on the network, drawing more power. So it's about 1. a router should really be suitable for all users not just standard users. 2. Not creating more waste and power demand when not needed.
Adding advanced features doesn't stop users who don't need them just plugging the router in and not worrying about the advanced features. It just means they are there for those who need them. The previous smart hub had the advanced features hidden away in a sub menu, seems like a perfectly sensible option.
Why would an ISP spend at least twice the cost of a basic device to provide facilities that only probably 1% of the customer base require?
If you don't wish to use the BT hub it can be returned to BT for re-use, no waste.
For the hub 2, it would simply be a case of updating the firmware to allow those users who want access to more advanced features access to them. Of Course it would still only have 3 usable network ports but that is what it is, not everyone needs as many network ports so that would serve most people who need for example to be able to split 2.4 and 5Ghz bands, this is something most people with smart tech will need to do, so far more than 1% of the user base... I understand where you're coming from, you don't want the advanced features, but adding them to the firmware on the device doesn't get rid of the basic functions. Heck, even third party routers like the one I use (TP-Link AX6000) have the option just to use a basic setup or go into advanced configuration. As for spending twice what they do on the current router, I really don't think this is the case, adding a dedicated WAN port would maybe increase the price by a few pence and having advanced features on the firmware would probably save money as I'm guessing they paid to have that removed.
By creating a router that's only got basic functionality we are further polluting the planet
A strange complaint to make by someone who has littered their place with "Lifx smart bulbs which along with several smart plugs and of course Alexas dotted around the place".