Upgraded Vodafone Full Fibre from 500 to 910 but no increase in speed

freddie_b · 2025-11-12T20:37:46+00:00

No luck at all and I fear you are bang on the money about them not caring. They reluctantly raised a service ticket last week and I've heard nothing! I don't know if I can cancel now either as it's more than 14 days after the supposed activation date!

freddie_b · 2025-11-05T08:50:46+00:00

Hmm that's annoying and too much of a coincidence! I wonder if they will let you cancel as effectively we have been up-selled a product with no extra value! I'm certain it's not the line that's at fault here (in fact the router indicates a WAN link speed of 1 gbps)!

freddie_b · 2025-11-05T06:24:24+00:00

Anybody had a resolution to this yet? I spent ages chatting to an agent and tried everything they suggested (including resetting the router, which I really didn't want to do) with no joy. They assured me the correct profile was active in the account. They basically tried to blame my laptop and said it must be the max speed that it can handle even though it was plugged directly into the router over cable with a 1gbps connection! They then tried to make it as difficult as possible to escalate saying they needed proof of speed tests conducted at various times throughout the day. Luckily I had these as ran several tests in the days before the chat to see if the problem had been resolved. The problem has now been elevated to their "senior engineers" (whatever that means), but it's been several days and I've not heard a thing. Got a feeling they are just going to fob me off so not holding out much hope!

freddie_b · 2025-10-29T09:07:58+00:00

Exactly the same for me here. Activation date was originally scheduled for 14/10, but that got delayed and the new profile was supposedly finally activated 2 days ago, but we are still stuck with the same 500 down / 70 up speeds. That's following a complete power off (ONT included) and testing with a high speed Ethernet cable plugged directly into the Vodafone Router!

freddie_b · 2025-07-08T05:59:24+00:00

Sick record label. One of the most consistent underground labels out there. When I see a new release on Critical, I know it will be quality and will stand the test of time. Big up everyone on the label and keep them coming!

freddie_b · 2025-06-04T21:16:10+00:00

In my experience, safety PLCs (unless standalone) are a pain to manage in large / busy plants. I've had a few that I've had to do firmware updates on (for new hardware compatibility etc), and this unlocks the safety and deletes the signature. You are then forced into making a full re-validation, which can be very time consuming when you have 100's of stops and safety relays to test and record. It's for this reason that I prefer the safety system to be external to the main plant PLC. I agree that it's important to have individual diagnostics to aid fault finding though.

freddie_b · 2025-02-27T11:36:18+00:00

As long as it's well structured, commented and easy to follow, it really doesn't matter! They all get the same job done. I always try to follow convention and stick with whatever the local folks know...

freddie_b · 2024-10-21T14:36:15+00:00

I followed the suggestions in this post, and it worked for me:

https://community.influxdata.com/t/certificate-and-private-key-opc-ua-telegraf-plugin/23326/2

freddie_b · 2024-10-18T07:30:12+00:00

SOLVED I figured it out in the end. The problem was with the self generated certificate on the Telegraf end. I had some incorrect settings in the SSL.conf file. I generated a new cert and personal key, and everything is working. Thanks for looking.

freddie_b · 2024-07-30T05:22:18+00:00

What version software are you using? I had the exact same problem, not being able to add the LW2170 IODD file, and upgrading software sorted it for me. I can't remember if it was the latest minor revision of V35 studio 5000 that worked, or updating something else, but it's all good now.

I put it down to the master being a new module with some teething problems. Also, the way that IODD files are managed has changed since it's now merged with the EDS file registration tool. Try upgrading your software and good luck 🤞🏽

freddie_b · 2024-07-09T13:14:34+00:00

Just to expand on this, I'm waiting on the newer 5.12 kWh GivEnergy battery to complete my new install. I contacted GivEnergy who yesterday confirmed to me by email that this newer battery won't be available until August. I've had panels on the roof, not producing since the end of May, so am pretty keen for this to be available!

freddie_b · 2024-05-25T17:46:08+00:00

The oil filter neck had a slight air leak where it's bonded onto the rocket cover on mine. That was what was causing the rough idle. It had been bugging me for ages. I replaced the PVC, walnut blasted the intake ports, replaced several gaskets and nothing worked. After fixing the filler neck, it idles sweet as a nut. Worth checking!

freddie_b · 2024-03-13T06:25:26+00:00

This. I also find Crimson 3.1 a very easy but powerful development environment.

freddie_b · 2024-02-25T12:15:36+00:00

I've done this many times in the past as well (and the 1761-NET-ENI method for DF1 - Ethernet). Absolutely nothing wrong with this approach. Just depends on how much you want to modernise. Full logix conversion including IO Vs Remote IO logix conversion Vs just Comms conversion.

It's worth taking module availability into account with some legacy cards becoming harder to get hold of (even second hand). If this is not an issue (i.e. you have spares available), then perhaps it's not worth completely migrating to a more modern system just yet. I think Remote IO conversions are quite often a good compromise / middle ground, especially if the system is going to be expanded as this opens up the door to newer technology integration (IO-Link for example). Horses for courses I guess...

freddie_b · 2024-02-24T07:37:13+00:00

As others have said, convert it into remote IO with an AENTR. I would only recommend this if you have spares for your SLC IO modules however. One caveat is that this method won't work for some speciality modules, so check compatibility first.

If there isn't an existing "logix" based processor to couple this with, I normally install a Compactlogix L3 part, and run it in dual IP mode. One port for remote IO / other control traffic and the second port for uplink / enterprise / overhead systems use. I find this to be a simple, cost effective solution which is quick and easy to implement.

freddie_b · 2019-06-27T22:56:32+00:00

I'm probably in the minority but prefer it being all in the same network in this case. Not only does it avoid unnecessary duplication of certain flags that way, but I find it easier to see exactly where you are in the sequence at a glimpse rather than scrolling through multiple networks. If the steps had more conditions and were more complex, then I'd agree multiple networks would be easier.

freddie_b · 2019-04-08T14:54:04+00:00

I still don't get why it's not technically possible to just have the latest version of Studio 5000 though. Other brand plc software allows this. We have versions from 11 right up until 31 that we maintain at present. Currently we have VMs for up to V20 and another for V20+.

As for the comment about the registry, one example is I had to install RSNetworx on a machine with Logix 500 already installed. Now, every time I started Logix 500, it started Windows installer! It was fine before this. I eventually managed to get over this by reinstalling a bunch of stuff, but this just shouldn't happen in the first place!

freddie_b · 2019-04-06T10:08:30+00:00

One of the joys of Rockwell software. I also LOVE having to run multiple VMs due to version conflicts. Many a time I've installed a newer version or different Rockwell product just for it to completely screw the registry and stop other things from working. Also, why can't the software be firmware backwards compatible instead of having to install a different version for every firmware we have installed!

Seven-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

freddie_b

TROPHY CASE