Connecting the router to ONT NOKIA ISAM ONU G-010G-Q directly or through a socket?

The installers installed optical fiber and a box on the wall (I don’t have a router yet, the courier is supposed to deliver it) ONT NOKIA I, SAM ONU G-010G-Q / 1 GBPS is connected to this box, on which it says Touran ownership and I am not to disconnect it when the router arrives I am supposed to connect it myself, but to what socket or to this device? In the photos and videos from the Internet, the router is connected to a box on the wall?????????????

gucio466 wrote:

but what for the socket or for this device,

gucio466 wrote:

ONT NOKIA I,SAM ONU G-010G-Q /1 GBPS

Additionally, it is a converter from optical fiber to RJ45 twisted pair, so it has to stay.
There is a yellow RJ45 socket and you will connect the received router to it - exactly here (red frame):

Are there routers with a built-in converter?

@gucio466
They are, but since you received only the ONT, it means that this is probably the connection policy.

To be clear - no other device that has not been issued to the customer by the operator itself will not work.
So nothing you buy on sale will work.

Don't write nonsense if you don't know anything.

What do you mean it's impossible?

If possible!!!

You just need to be able to do it and have the appropriate knowledge.

If you don't have one, refrain from commenting, because many websites have gone to the dogs because of such pseudo-experts!

@piotr529
Whether it is possible or not does not matter, because on THIS forum we do not practice circumventing the law or subscriber contracts.

https://www.elektroda.pl/rtvforum/topic2336331.html

3. Discussions about obtaining IP addresses, breaking security of computer networks, routers and other network devices or any personal data are not allowed in the Networks, Internet section. Any questions regarding deciphering passwords or network keys will be treated as a violation of the Regulations and the user will be punished with a warning. The only exception to this rule is questions about physically (button, jumper) resetting the device.

KOCUREK1970 wrote:

We do not circumvent the law or subscriber contracts.

Contracts must comply with the law, and this clearly states that the subscription has the right to install its own terminal device. While replacing the ONT terminal does not make any sense and can even be treated as an element of the operator`s network, installing a router with an integrated ONT and the inability to replace it is a clear violation of EU directives on net neutrality. In this case, records and contracts with the operator are worth as much as toilet paper, and if you have the competences, you can install your equipment quite legally (provided that it complies with the technical conditions in the network).

@IC_Current
The directive has its own thing and Poland has its own - that`s how it can be summed up.

Additionally, each contract contains appropriate provisions; the client has signed the contract and is therefore legally obliged to comply with the contract.
And the questioning of specific provisions of the contract is in the COURT, and not at this stage illegal actions of the subscriber - if you do not agree with the provisions of the contract, someone restricts you, do not sign such a contract.
Even the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection can "jump" the operators with the directive.

KOCUREK1970 wrote:

The directive has its own thing and Poland has its own - that`s how it can be summed up.

Because people do not demand their rights.

KOCUREK1970 wrote:

Additionally, each contract contains appropriate provisions; the client has signed the contract and is therefore legally obliged to comply with the contract.

NO. It does not work like that. If something is illegal, it is not binding from the very beginning and no one has to follow it. Additionally, if it is a consumer contract and the legal defect is significant in terms of performance of the contract, the entire contract is invalid from the very beginning.

KOCUREK1970 wrote:

Even the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection can jump at operators with a directive.

Maybe or maybe not. 15 years ago, Swiss franc banks had everyone in their pockets - officials, the Office of the Financial Supervision Authority, courts, lawyers, but when things got worse, they questioned all their obligations, they didn`t even want to make settlements, and their clients got mobilized. Now banks, at their own request, receive judgments from the CJEU, each one getting worse and worse for them, and unfair contracts are wholesale invalidated and the money for the bank is returned without ANY interest, and it seems that banks will also pay interest on customer payments over the borrowed capital.
10 years ago, the situation was unimaginable when looking at the resources of "gray borrower" - "banking corporations".

Few, if any, operators will agree to replace their edge device with a customer device based on a subscriber`s request. It doesn`t matter whether it`s just an ONT or GPON with an integrated ONT. They will justify this by losing the integrity of the network and threatening that they will not intervene in the event of a failure. If there is indeed a provision specifying the obligation to allow the subscriber to use their own edge device, then they set their equipment, whatever it may be, to transparent mode, making it invisible to the customer`s device at the logical layer. If someone insists on connecting optical fiber directly to their device, if they have the right to do so, they will have to appeal to the institution controlling Internet connection providers. No one will voluntarily allow it.

bednarus3 wrote:

this is when they set their hardware, whatever it is, to transparent mode, making it invisible to the client device at the logical layer.

This is how it should be, but more and more often it is not, and TM is the leader in this - you cannot set up a bridge on FTTH, and now it is an overreach in the mobile network.

@IC_Current
You think I haven`t tried?
I wrote an appropriate letter to my operator, referring to the relevant EU directive - in response I received a letter saying that this is not possible because it threatens the integrity of the operator`s network and the security of this network.
Then, with this answer, I went to the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection, of course justifying everything appropriately. Referring to the EU regulation.
After a few months, the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection replied to me that although the directive specifies one thing, my operator does not want to budge on this issue (I undertook to purchase the end device at my own expense, and the operator only has to send the configuration file, because I even undertook to purchase terminal device exactly such at my own money as indicated by the operator) - therefore the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection cannot force my operator to comply with this directive.

KOCUREK1970 wrote:

therefore, the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection itself cannot force my operator to comply with this directive.

Because he doesn`t want to, or he simply doesn`t understand the problem.
However, if there are dozens or hundreds of reports, the matter will be dealt with.
It would be best if a manufacturer of network equipment took care of it - now that TM has gone too far in LTE and doesn`t even allow you to use its own equipment there, maybe a manufacturer will come along.

IC_Current wrote:

Because he doesn`t want to, or he simply doesn`t understand the problem.

What I suspect more here is that the office itself, as an office, has no causative power (with such arguments from the operator) because it can force him to do anything.
And they simply don`t have the will/time/money/arguments that trump the operator`s arguments...

IC_Current wrote:

However, if there are dozens or hundreds of reports, the matter will be dealt with.

They won`t take over, and do you know why? - because it is a percentage of customers and it is not worth destroying copies about them or making enemies of the operators.

IC_Current wrote:

It would be best if a manufacturer of network equipment took care of it - now that TM has gone too far in LTE and doesn`t even allow you to use its own equipment there, maybe a manufacturer will come along.

It would have to be a manufacturer with an established position on the market, a domestic manufacturer who would take care of everything on site and understand the specificity of our market.
And you know what will happen..., rubbing your hands and production increased by the equipment that will be required.

Ehh, one can always dream.

I think you've gone too fast in this discussion An ONT is one thing and a router is another. While no operator will allow ONT to be replaced with one of their own for fear of destabilizing the transmission network, and there is some truth in this because people can do various things, a router is a device typically "behind the operator's transmission network" and "configurable to the customer's expectations", therefore the operator should not prohibit its replacement. The operator's router is a mass device for a typical layman, and for a typical layman it is enough and there is no need to change it. However, there are more aware users who know about networks that use more advanced functions of a VPN router, advanced firewalls, various methods of routing, traffic control, etc., and in such a case, replacing the router is necessary. The operator cannot block the replacement of the router. I would divide operators into more resistant and less resistant ones, and sometimes they are problem-free. This was my case, the operator was trouble-free (Netia), I called the Plus customer service center (my virtual operator), told them what I wanted and in two minutes I had an SMS with PPPoE logins for my router (the lady from Plus had to call the lady from Netia - as I think ). Luckily, I received the devices (ONT and router) separately, so I just had to unplug the operator's router and connect my own, enter the logins and it started (I didn't mess with the ONT because there was no point). The situation is worse in the case of customers who receive a kombo, then they have to return the kombo and wait for a stand-alone ONT, and there is greater resistance because it requires several actions on the part of the operator. Therefore, at the stage of ordering the service, it is worth paying attention to the fact that you are planning your own router and expect an independent ONT, often the answer is positive and the logins are already included in the contract. I believe that many problems come from ignorance of the topic, both by customers and people working in customer service, e.g.: a customer calls and says that he wants to exchange this black box for another one because a friend has another one and it works great - well, sorry, he will hear " it's not possible". However, if he says "I have my own router, well suited to my needs, I would like to continue using it, I will ask for logins to adapt it" and finds a competent person, the operation will take a few minutes and everyone will be satisfied.

It all depends on the policy of a given operator, either they provide opportunities or they don`t, and as written above, even the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection will not force them.

gucio466 wrote:

Connecting the router to ONT NOKIA ISAM ONU G-010G-Q directly or through a socket?

I don`t think anyone has answered the author`s question yet. I`ll try.

Connect your router to the ONT and not to the "wall socket". If the DHCP settings on the WAN side of your router do not work, you will need to ask the operator for authorization method or search the Internet for how to do it.

Depending on the authorization method, you will need to purchase the appropriate router. Maybe DHCP will be enough, or maybe you will need PPPoE or one that allows you to clone the mac address, in any case, definitely to the ONT and not to the box in the wall.

Since you did not write who the Internet provider is, there is not much more I can tell you.