I realize that the path I set myself down for the past few posts is somewhat problematic. Before going much further in this post, I wanted to mention that I'm not in any way against things like modem-only devices or plain network bridges that give a network service's customer maximum control over their own home network. Rather the opposite, I actually think it's unfortunate that the telco selling these particular services and doing remote management of customer networks isn't also selling a more plain service. It's apparently available, but you need to ask really hard for it and not all installers are going to have the equipment available. In addition the simple device does not do pair bonding, because that telco relies pretty heavily on pair bonding, you need to have a leased device if you want to have their fastest services.
That having been said, it mystifies me a little bit that the telcos, who typically sell all of their devices for approximately the same price, have such a huge variety of equipment. Most of them seem to take the strategy of just putting their name on whatever's convenient and cheap, rather than working with an equipment builder to provide a piece of equipment that's good. Many of the points in here apply both to cable and DSL systems, but as always, I've personally done a lot more research into DSL type systems than cable ones.
As a quick note on this matter: up to a few years ago, most of the cable operators seemed content to lease a stock Motorola Surfboard device which was a plain bridge. In recent years, it appears more of the cable operators have started leasing gateway devices that replicate the functionality of a router and wireless access point as well. This has been common among the DSL providers for a few years now, as well.
In a situation like the one I've been talking about where the provider is leasing equipment (and even in a situation where the provider sells branded equipment) it is interesting to see when there is such a wide variety of equipment available. For example, one of the telcos sells no fewer than seven devices, depending on where you live, the service you have, the alignment of the moon, and your luck, in addition to the preferences of your local installers and technicians. In no particular order, that telco currently provides…
- The ADSL2+ gateway with 802.11N wireless networking and 10/100 Ethernet from one manufacturer.
- The ADSL2+ gateway with 802.11N wireless networking and 10/100 Ethernet from the other manufacturer.
- The VDSL2 gateway with 802.11N wireless networking and gigabit Ethernet from one manufacturer.
- The VDSL2 gateway with 802.11N wireless networking and gigabit Ethernet from the other manufacturer.
- The bonded VDSL2 gateway with 802.11N wireless networking, gigabit Ethernet, MoCA, VoIP, and a gigabit WAN connection from one manufacturer.
- The bonded VDSL2 gateway with 802.11N wireless networking, gigabit Ethernet, MoCA, VoIP, and gigabit WAN connection from a third manufacturer.
- The pure Ethernet gateway with 802.11N wireless networking and gigabit Ethernet from the other manufacturer.
Because they charge the same price for each of these devices but there are fairly large discrepancies in configuration and capabilities, it makes relatively little sense for me that they have all of them available. The Telco could collapse this list of seven devices down to one or two and provide all of their customers with more desirable equipment. On the flip side, once they're working with just one or two manufacturers on just one or two devices, they can also put more effort into having the device manufacturer build them a better device. I vaguely bet more people would be willing to give The Telco's modems/gateways the time of day if they were built like a $99 device instead of like a $29 device.
I don't know if this is related to the fact that there are so many devices, if my sense of time is skewed, or if something else is going on entirely, but I'll also note that it looks like it's taking the telcos a fair amount of time to get their equipment updated from 802.11N to 802.11AC wireless networking standards. Netgear is notable for building an unbranded device that's already on sale which sports an ADSL2+ modem (Why they didn't build it with a VDSL2 modem, I won't ever know, but that's unrelated), USB storage and printer sharing functionality, and 802.11AC wireless networking. 802.11AC wireless networking will never make a 1.5M ADSL or 24M/3M ADSL2+ connection go faster, but it will make transfers from one local computer in the home to another go faster, and it can help when multiple people are using the LAN for different tasks at once. I don't have any devices with 802.11AC yet (and may not for the immediately near future) but it'll make me sad when I need to replace my single-device network with two or more devices when it's time to grab an 802.11AC wireless access point.
The other advantage, I think, for the telcos to take more interest in the devices they're providing their consumers is that they can take the time to design something that's theirs. Some European carriers actually brand their devices as $PROVIDER $MODELNAME, rather than as $PROVIDER $MANUFACTURER $MODELNAME. In addition, the model names are a bit more than a mishmash of letters and numbers. (For example, a carrier in Sweden calls their device the "Smart" rather than the "TG799VAC+." I don't know if there's anybody doing this yet, but with the carrier (rather than a manufacturer) at the helm of designing a device, the carrier can also build the device into a custom shape. Ideally, the provider would also foresee the need for things like a need for both PSTN pass-through and VoIP along with niceties such as network storage, MoCA LAN access, and flexible WAN options (ADSL up through bonded ADSL2+/VDSL2, gig-ethernet) and there are even home gateways that now allow pairing with DECT 6.0 handsets for access both to PSTN and VoIP service, which means that a "connected home" (as it were) can have that many fewer physical devices running around.
Just to itemize it, if I had to build the ultimate residential or small business network gateway, it would have the following:
- Dual WAN options: Single or bonded ADSL through VDSL2, supporting vectoring and all profiles; and gigabit Ethernet
- PSTN pass-through for DSL ports, as well as VoIP analog telephony adapter
- DECT 6.0 base station functionality, ideally supporting several handsets and allowing for handset-to-handset calling (Selling branded handsets would be a plus)
- Voicemail for the PSTN and VoIP functions
- Four to eight port gigabit LAN switch
- 802.11AC wireless networking
- Coax connector to use with MoCA home networking
Multiple configurable USB 2.0/3.0 ports for…
- 3G/4G WWAN fallback (Many of the Telcos are also wireless carriers, it would dovetail nicely, especially in a small business gateway)
- Printer sharing
- Hard disk sharing
One or more 2.5/3.5-inch SATA bay for home network storage
- Computer backups, might also be certified for use with Apple's Time Machine
- E-mail caching
- File sharing/BitTorrent
Excellent LAN management, including…
- QoS
- Transfer logging/monitoring
On the other hand, if the telco is going to commission multiple devices, it would be nice if there were some sort of actual differentiation between them. For example, if they could make a plain modem/bridge available, like the Surfboards that are so common on cable networks, I suspect a lot of customers would appreciate it. One telco has them but only qualifies them with some services, and another had them previously, but has discontinued them in favor of wireless gateways. (I happen to like wireless gateways better, but if you're going to build something, make it available across different physical implementations of your service and make it discoverable.) And, if they design and build a big, all-encompassing gateway, there's no reason that they couldn't also build a smaller modem-only device in the same visual style. The enclosure from such a device might also be used for accessory peripherals such as an Ethernet switch, a MoCA media adapter, or a wireless extender which finds and connects to the gateway and gets its wireless settings therein (wow, so seamless.)
The unfortunate thing, I suspect, and the main thing that keeps advanced home networks using separated devices is that building a single device that does all of the things I want is likely to end up in a really expensive gateway, and few people are going to want such a device at the center of a network connection they likely view as already too slow anyway. Though, if there's any reason for a reseller to offer many different gateways, it's arguably to provide different types of in-home service to customers, and not to accommodate different WAN connections. You can still collapse seven devices into three and build better devices at all price points:
- $70 modem-only, supporting bonded VDSL2 and feeding the connection either directly to a single computer via USB 2.0/3.0 or Ethernet, or to a customer router using the same. Depending on the telco, this might also have POTS pass-through.
- $100 gateway, supporting bonded VDSL2, 802.11N or AC networking, gigabit Ethernet LAN and WAN options, POTS passthrough and VoIP.
- $130-200 gateway, supporting bonded VDSL2, 802.11AC networking, gigabit Ethernet LAN/WAN, POTS pass-through, VOIP, storage, MoCA, DECT, the veritable works.
I would buy it, but space is at a premium in my home, and even if space weren't at a premium (to the point where finding a good way to save space often outweighs a more flexible technological solution) I still value coalescing network devices for convenience, because I might want to put my device in a public space, and for energy and wiring efficiency. Ideally, the trio of devices would be branded with the service provider's markings, have a simple naming scheme (such as "Telco Modem", "Telco Gateway" and "Telco Gateway Plus" or an EXTREMELY simple and easy to use numbering scheme, such as a 3/5/7-series system, similar to BMW/IBM), and be built to last and support the types of data transfers customers are likely to do with their connections. (The gateway and gateway+ devices are going to need fairly beefy processors, the gateway+ device even more so if it's going to be handling bittorrent, e-mail, and point-to-point on-premises VoIP for customers, as well as presumably being the gateway that is provided/recommended for customers with video services.)
The other option, I suppose, is to open networks for third party gateways. As I've mentioned before, two of the major Telcos seem to have no problems with this, and the third uses arcane authentication schemes that makes third party gateways impossible on their network, even if their network is otherwise physically identical to the other two telcos. Broadband Internet is not a regulated, common carrier service, however, so that telco is allowed to do whatever it wants.
I happen to be with a telco that allows third party modems to connect to its network, however even with this, there are no gateways to my knowledge that actually manage to cram all of this functionality in. I've mentioned the Netgear D6200 in this post, which is an ADSL2+ gateway that has 802.11AC and USB ports, but I'm leery of purchasing an ADSL2+ gateway, as ideally my area will be upgraded to VDSL2 service at some point. (Also, it doesn't have a VoIP adapter, built in storage, or MoCA, but I suppose Netgear wants you to buy their other products too.) Ideally, this will happen within the useful lifetime of 802.11AC, and it would be a shame for me to have to give up on a good piece of networking equipment so soon.