Supplier advertised 48 port PoE switch, delivered 48 port non-PoE switch

neildavies17

Jenni_D said:

As it appears the device was misdescribed then make sure you get a) the cost of the switch refunded, b) the cost of delivery postage refunded, and c) the cost of return postage refunded. Under UK consumer law the seller is liable for all costs in providing the remedy.   

Thanks.  I have written to them and they should now collect the switch.  I have explained I do not agree with their position.

neildavies17

powerful_Rogue said:

neildavies17 said:

I recently bought a Ubiquiti Unifi 48 port PoE switch from CCL Online, through one of their eBay adverts.  When the switch finally arrived, it turned out not to be PoE.

I called them explaining this, and they said they would speak to the supplier.  They did and asked me to send photos of the box, and the serial number.

They then came back and said there was an issue, as this isn't a PoE switch.  (A PoE switch is Power over Ethernet and allows you to supply network and power on one cable to power and use say, a VoIP phone.)  It went back and forth a little, with them asking me to return the switch and me saying I didn't want to, as I wanted a replacement switch which under the Sale of Goods Act (1979) we had a contract to supply and pay for.

The supplier has said they cannot supply a PoE switch for the price I paid.

I'd like to know what my rights are and can they held to their contract please?

Thanks in advance.

Which hasn't applied to consumers since 2015. See, anyone can make a mistake!

Absolutely.  It wasn't until I posted here and on another forum that I was corrected.  Bizarrely, the suppplier accepted it and didn't question it.

neildavies17

A_Lert said:

Out of interest, was the price exceptionally low compared to the same model elsewhere?

It was, about £400 less than elsewhere.

neildavies17

unforeseen said:

One of the most basic reasons for using ethernet instead of WiFi is speed, especially if moving large files around. 

Very true.  4k movies are large now, and a cable dispatches it in seconds.  IfI check my Internet speed over WiFiI get between 200 and 300 Mbps.  With a cable, I get 1.1Gbps.

neildavies17

MobileSaver said:

born_again said:

We have a 16 port switch next to the router to feed each room a ethernet cable, it also feeds TV, Virgin, Blue ray & other devices. We then need 8 port switches in 3 of the rooms for the same in other rooms.
So when it comes down to it 48 ports is only giving a small bit of future proofing.

Just in case people are talking at crossed-purposes here, I agree a 48 port standard switch is not that unusual for home use but what I think is extremely unusual is a 48 port PoE switch for home use.

Typically PoE is used for CCTV and Access Points and if you have more than a few IP cameras you would normally have a Network Video Recorder that supplies the PoE anyway. Obviously having PoE at the end of 48 different network cables could be useful from time to time but it does seem massive overkill for consumer use.

We have 19 cameras across the property and gardens.  It is quite a large space to cover.  We don't use NVR, we go straight to the cloud.

neildavies17

born_again said:

LaHostessAvecLaMostess said:

I have no idea why you have ethernet to every room unless every room is lead-lined, or why you need 8-port switches in them.

Faster speeds. 
Each room that needs them has TV, DVD, Virgin box & laptops (home & work)
I want the max speed in every room in the house (none are lead lined, but do have heavy stone work) I don't pay for 1Gig speed to get slower speeds where needed for working from home.
Many electrical items do not have WiFi, but do have ethernet. 

Each to their own. You do not have to do it, but if you are into set up's like this. Future proofing is a important part of the process👍.

This is exactly why.  I explained this in my first reply in more detail, but it was this and future proofing.  This is why we had CAT6a cabling, so I can get 10Gbps between switches, which sounds overkill, but if you have 4 kids streaming 4 x 4k movies, they will use more than 1Gbps aggregated.  This setup just means there is no lag for anyone.

neildavies17

Jenni_D said:

Whilst I don't, lots of people have a central file server with videos etc. stored on it. They then play these videos on TVs etc. around the home ... some of the 4K videos ripped* at high quality will yield very big files, so WiFi connections may not allow for seamless streaming.

* no comment as to the source of the rips, and it's irrelevant to the topic. People buy blurays and rip them for easier use, for example.

Exactly this; I said in an earlier reply, we have a mac and a NAS box which stores thousands of movies and music (although we tend to use streaming for music more now)

neildavies17

LaHostessAvecLaMostess said:

Jenni_D said:

Whilst I don't, lots of people have a central file server with videos etc. stored on it. They then play these videos on TVs etc. around the home ... some of the 4K videos ripped* at high quality will yield very big files, so WiFi connections may not allow for seamless streaming.

* no comment as to the source of the rips, and it's irrelevant to the topic. People buy blurays and rip them for easier use, for example.

But it doesn't change the fact that needing 20 ports, let alone 48, is excessive.

A 4-bedroom home might have, what, 6 rooms that could reasonably have an Ethernet connection?  Stick in your Hue lightbulbs and Hive heating and you're up to 8, then...?

This is all a bit academic anyway,. I only probed the OP over this as, as I've previously said, the item is not something that is generally used by consumers and I absolutely stand by that.  The OP has confirmed they are genuinely a consumer so fair enough. But for some inexplicable reason, people have decided to try and pillory me over it.  But c'est la vie on the Consumer Rights board and I suspect I'll see you on another username by 4 PM tomorrow after being feverishly reported for "not being nice" again...

Not wanting to seem like I am arguing, and perhaps our home is not average, we have 6 bedrooms and 4 receptions.  We have 36 Hive plugs for example.  The other reply gives more detail and context.

I do appreciate you were trying to ascertain whether it was B2B or B2C as the rights differ, so thank you for that.

neildavies17

justwhat said:

MobileSaver said:

born_again said:

We have a 16 port switch next to the router to feed each room a ethernet cable, it also feeds TV, Virgin, Blue ray & other devices. We then need 8 port switches in 3 of the rooms for the same in other rooms.
So when it comes down to it 48 ports is only giving a small bit of future proofing.

Just in case people are talking at crossed-purposes here, I agree a 48 port standard switch is not that unusual for home use but what I think is extremely unusual is a 48 port PoE switch for home use.

Typically PoE is used for CCTV and Access Points and if you have more than a few IP cameras you would normally have a Network Video Recorder that supplies the PoE anyway. Obviously having PoE at the end of 48 different network cables could be useful from time to time but it does seem massive overkill for consumer use.

CCTV - its hard getting good poe switch/managed switch and not always possible to use POE's on the recorders. If there is even a recorder. Many cams have onboard recording.

Loads of reasons to use a 48 port switch/hub.  

i have  16 ports on my recorder , however i only use one port(in garage). i use a cisco poe switch(48 ports) in the attic(house) for another 8 cams.

i have 4 powerline plugs and 2 wifi AP's also hooked up. I would run rj45 all through houes if it was practical.

(i do work from home but would still have this setup if i did not. )

Our cameras go straight to the cloud, but because of the quality we use, they consume a fair amount of bandwidth which is why we have 2 x 1Gbps FttPs.

The other point is scale.  A 48 port switch is not normally double the cost of a 24 port, so if you think you may use more ports in future and can afford the uplift in cost, it is worth doing so IMHO.

We both work from home, although we have offices if we need to meet clients.  We have one teen at college part time who does classwork from home a couple of days a week.  The other three children are school age.

neildavies17

user1977 said:

LaHostessAvecLaMostess said:

unforeseen said:

One of the most basic reasons for using ethernet instead of WiFi is speed, especially if moving large files around. 

Bearing in mind that most people are not going to be sending large files around the home so they're going to be capped by their internet speed, which is almost certainly far below the speeds even WiFi will achieve.

You don't need to have a particularly fast broadband connection these days before you find your WiFi is the weakest link. I get a much faster speed (and more reliable connection) when my pc is wired up than when using WiFi. 

This is very true.  As I mentioned in another reply, I get 1Gbps through a cable, 2-300Mbps over WiFi.