Sky Q failing box replacement - given V1 Es140 box!

[rhammond84]

For info:

My V2 box was experiencing hard drive issues/error messages and freezing whilst downloading/playing UHD.

Sourced replacement hardware per the online link. On setting up today, Sky have provided a V1 box! No HDR any longer (and 100 mbps on ethernet vs 1gbs limiting wifi capability for my G.Fast connection).

Have called to understand - no HDR capable boxes in stock and no outlook date as to when they will be available.

At best, all that could be offered was a £15 goodwill gesture!

Very unhappy and not what you would expect from a fully supported service for the monthly subscription.... Not least because this was not clear at the outset.

[bob1234]

@rhammond84 I have escalated this to Sky and hopefully they will come back to you, Private message or email, and be able to sort something out for you.

[Doc5907]

This is getting ridiculous now !

Sky thinks its customers are stupid by offloading old stock non-UHD boxes onto them without any note of this. Of course many unsuspecting customers won't even realize, that is until they try to view UHD content or try to record 4 programmes at once.

This has happened to my sister 

Well out of order Sky....

[rhammond84]

Thanks @bob1234. Look forward to this being resolved.

@Doc5907 The V1 box is still Uhd capable but not HDR and has 100mbps vs 1 Gbps ethernet port (which compromises the 160 mbps max of GFast if the Q box is used as a WiFi access point).

As you state, though, not really acceptable, despite the telephone support's assertions that HDR was not a chargeable service and hence no difference. 

[Doc5907]

---

@rhammond84 wrote:

@Doc5907 The V1 box is still Uhd capable but not HDR and has 100mbps vs 1 Gbps ethernet port (which compromises the 160 mbps max of GFast if the Q box is used as a WiFi access point).

---

Oh right, apologies for that. Well they are also sending out old non UHD boxes for new customers not taking out the UHD package which is wrong

[rhammond84]

@bob1234 @Looks like the chat technical support is unable to offer any help and I'll essentially be with compromised service until the supply chain issues (or refurb of boxes like my V2 that I've just returned) sorts it self out and new box can be provided. Thanks for trying though.

I have a manager callback in the next 24 hours, but if all as stated, seems only the £15 'goodwill' will be the discussion.... Which isn't going to do anything to resolve my borked tv and wifi service.

Extremely frustrated that this support is by design/not clear to the customer.... And even moreso at the brickwall of customer service given the large monthly subscription fees. 

[bob1234]

@rhammond84I would stick out for the correct replacement box when available you previously had one that was HDR capable there is no excuse for not replacing it with one that is HDR capable.

If they are that short of supplies perhaps they should stop all sales until they can provide the correct boxes. It is not as though you are trying to get a free upgrade from a V1 box to one that is HDR capable.

[rhammond84]

Yes, it's been indicated they can provide an HDR capable box when they're available, but am not really sure how that's going to be triggered.  Was explicitly told there was no capability to place a "back order".

Your comment on new installs is interesting - I see new installs are still going ahead, so are they being completed with the old hardware?  What actually is going on in the supply chain that they presumably only have old, originally unused stock of V1 boxes left (or are these refurbished/returned boxes?).  I presume the V1 boxes have not been manufactured since the V2 release in 2017/18, more than 3 years ago...?

[bob1234]

@rhammond84There should be replacement boxes available for people in your circumstances.

Have you had the call back from the supervisor yet?

[rhammond84]

Call went straight to voicemail yesterday for some reason... Message said they'd try again today. 

[Chrisee]

@rhammond84 the supply chain of any device that uses processor or memory chips will be constrained as there is a worldwide semiconductor shortage which will take a while to get sorted see here.

Other electronic components like hard discs are also in short supply as the factories that make them lost several months production due to Covid last year. Those closures would also have hit the factories in China that Sky use to make the boxes.

@bob1234 there is nothing in the contract that means Sky cannot use re-furbished boxes with new customers given the equipment is loaned rather than bought. 

[bob1234]

@ChriseeI am not suggesting Sky should not use returned / refurbished boxes, what they should not do is to change a V2 box for a V1 then try to charge for an upgrade. Although if a new customer wants a 1TB box it should be the latest HDR capable one rather than a V1.

If someone gets a new or a used one it is pot luck but it should be like for like.

[rhammond84]

Indeed. I'm assuming new installs are therefore using V1 boxes, and the sales literature makes no big deal about HDR and hence this is all "OK". 

If new installs are using new hardware, then this is not wholly a stock problem and more about prioritisation and my immediate issue should be immediately resolvable.

Otherwise, everyone is waiting for the supply chain issues @Chrisee references to be resolved. Which is understandable..... If not ideal (and there's a whole heap of potential for greater clarity in customer service). 

[rhammond84]

The V1 box with 100 mbps ethernet port (vs. 1 gigabit) has uncovered another - likelyl underlying bug/issue.

My network is all hardwired (Q box and minis all ethernet connected), through various unmanaged gigabit switches.  Network was running at gigabit speeds for all gigabit capable devices. 

With the V1 Sky Q box connected (Router --> Unmanaged switch 1 --> Sky Q Main box), network transfer speeds for gigabit devices connected to Unmanaged switch 1 to other devices on the network is now restricted to 100 mbps.  

Test case was actually as follows with PC transfer through Unmanaged Switch 1 through Unmanaged Switch 2 (or vice versa).

PC2 <-- Unmanaged Switch 2 <-- Router --> Unmanaged Switch 1 (connected to another PC1) --> Sky Q Main box.

All devices auto-negotiate at the correct speed to their switch ports (gigabit or 100 mbps per design), but all transfer from PC2 to PC1 are restricted to 100 mbps, despite not - in theory - transferring via the Sky Q box.  Unplugging the Sky Q box from the network temporarily disconnects the network, then resumes transferring at full gigabit speeds - indicating for some reason traffic is being routed via the Q box when it doesn't need to be.

The same is replicated at other parts of the network, e.g.

Sky Q Mini <-- Unmanaged Switch 3 (connected to PC3) <-- Router

Router --> Unmanaged Switch 1 --> Sky Q Main box.

Router --> Unamanged Switch 2 --> PC2

Transfers from PC3 to PC2 demonstrate exact same behaviour despite going nowhere near the Sky Q main box switch.  

I'm assuming Sky Q is doing something odd with network routing, and the same was happening with the V2 box...but given that had a 1 GBps port, I didn't notice - any ideas?

I had this behaviour once before oddly being caused by a Sky Q Mini at the end of a separate switch node.  In that instance, a Mini box reboot solved it.  But no number of Sky Q main or Mini boxo reboots or Network resets is having an impact for case above.

[rhammond84]

Adding another switch downstream of the SR204 router (i.e. not using the switch facility of the router itself, and uplinking from the new switch with a single ethernet connection to the router to ensure internet access) resolves the issue transferring across the network.

No idea why - presumably some proprietary network interaction going on between the Sky Hub and the Q box.

I've now absolved the SR204 of all DHCP duties (https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2021/02/sky-broadband-finally-fixes-voip-timing-and-dhcp-route... - though this bug now fixed) and now network switching duties.  Not wholly confidence inspiring.

I'll post this on the broadband forum on the chance it is a common bug, and can be fixed...!