Hi @toml87 

Thanks for posting in our business forum.

toml87 wrote

  @Clive_A 
 

Clive_A wrote

Our team so far has not considered a fix in the firmware until we have a further reports and market research.

At least so far we have done nothing incorrect or substandard.

The above is an apalling attitude; 'It's not our job'. You freely admit you have not tested this device against common products in the market and have not bothered conducting very much market research.
 

TP Link is a massive networking/electrical powerhouse. I work in mechanical/electrical engineering, with a side of networking & systems administration. I do understand the hesitation to conduct further work at TP link's expense. However developing the SG2005P-PD firmware (or even hardware) further is likely to be a relatively minimal cost with deliverable outcomes that can later be applied to many TP link products in the future. The difference between what's 'right' and what's 'factually correct' is subtle but important.

I would encourage TP link to consider the damage to their brand(s) caused by this 'it's not our job' perspective. In engineering we should strive for continual improvement and seek to reduce the environmental impacts of our work. I hope TP link will consider the following points:

 

• It's a very poor user experience that lets down products that are otherwise very good; I am unlikely to buy another product from TP link going forward.  If purchasing your hardware leads to forced retirement of other hardware, it's not cost effective for me. It just makes no sense.
• Instead of building a brand reputation that 'TP Link will work with everything, I'll just buy them, they're reliable', you build a reputation that 'TP Link doesn't work outside its own ecosystem and they're not interested in supporting users'.
• Purchasing your POE380S injector unit is extremely difficult. There's been no stock anywhere in the UK for some time (that I can find) and no one can tell me when it will arrive. Because of this, I purchased a third party injector unit. To get things working temporarily I've been forced to use a 60W 170S unit which does not meet my long term needs. If you are going to essentially require/mandate users only purchase from within your ecosystem then acquiring hardware that makes full use of their existing equipment should be easy/simple. E.g. 170S @ 60W/Class 3 is an unacceptable solution to power an SG2005P-PD where 90W/Class 4 output is available, regardless of whether a user is currently requiring that much power or not - I want to be future proof. Before you say we don't mandate it, you just need an IEEE compliant 90W device, consider that these do not seem to be easily purchased. 
• I (and other users) have cost TP link money by making use of support channels, purchasing third party hardware, investigating, dialogue etc. Surely it is cheaper to resolve issues before going to market than after? Do TP Link really only test against their own products? That seems incredible to me
• I can't buy what I need quickly, may have to buy hardware I wasn't expecting to, and I can't rely on it to work in a mixed hardware environment; TP link is therefore expensive and unreliable.
• We should consider the unnecessary transport of further goods and the potential e-waste.
   

Besides everything else, what makes you think that the hardware supports so? PoE is a separate chipset and it auto-negotiates the PoE voltage and amp.

And I also don't find what your main point is.

First, we follow the 802.3PoE correctly. We have made all of our products compliant with 802.3 and we are trying to make sure the PoE chipsets we have purchased are compatible with our products.

What you think, everything-in-one or long-term usage for a product, that's hard. Rarely, you have such a product in any other brand if you do some research.

Second, in its design, it does not fall out of the line in complying with the PoE. PoE++ is required to properly use this product if you want to add more PD.

At our test with the PoE++ switch or injector, no issue has been found. The problem is that we do not determine the industry standard and we cannot determine how other vendors make their PoE injectors.

It is the tradition we cannot test most models and if there is a problem with the third-party module/injector, we are not able to resolve that if it is a hardware-based difference. We only list some models we have tested with our device if they are third-party.