voyager third party release

Busted Bench

Interesting features of the voyager digital chapter 11 bankruptcy, timeline, first day pleadings, alameda involvement, proposed third party release of claims against alameda, teneo involvement.

May 20, 2022 –Alameda Research, Ltd. acquires a block of Voyager’s stock, increasing Alameda’s ownership interest in Voyager to 11.56%.

June 15, 2022 - news outlets report that crypto hedge fund Three Arrows Capital faces potential insolvency after over $400 million of its crypto assets were liquidated by lenders.

June 22, 2022 – Voyager announces that it has exposure on an unpaid loan to Three Arrows with an outstanding balance of $350 million USDC and $15,250 BTC.  Voyager also announces it has obtained a credit facility from Alameda providing a $200 million cash and USD Coin (USDC) revolver, and a $15,000 bitcoin (BTC) revolver. The terms of the credit facility cap withdrawals at $75 million over any rolling 30 day period.

June 27, 2022 – Three Arrows is placed into receivership by a court in the British Virgin Islands.

July 5, 2022 – Voyager files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the Southern District of New York.

July 8, 2022 - Bankruptcy court conducts first day hearing in Voyager’s bankruptcy case.

Voyager’s First Day Bankruptcy Pleadings

Voyager did not file schedules of assets and liabilities due to its hasty filing (the petition was filed shortly before midnight on July 5, and CEO Stephen Ehrlich’s declaration setting forth relevant facts in support of first day motions was filed at 4:24 a.m.)

Disclosures

Ehrlich’s declaration reveals:

Voyager’s loan to Three Arrows is unsecured, i.e., it did not receive any collateral from Three Arrows.

Alameda’s loan to Voyager is unsecured.

Voyager has no secured debts at all, which is a rare event in bankruptcy cases.  

Voyager drew down $75 million in USDC from the Alameda credit facility before it filed for bankruptcy.

Voyager’s loan portfolio is highly concentrated:

a $654,195,000 loan to Three Arrows represents 58% of Voyager’s loan portfolio

a $376,784,000 loan to Alameda represents 33% of Voyager’s loan portfolio (this loan went unmentioned in Voyager’s press release announcing the credit facility from Alameda)

a $34,427,000 loan to Galaxy Digital represents 3% of Voyager’s loan portfolio.

The remaining 6% of Voyager’s loan portfolio consists of loans to Wintermute Trading ($27,342,000), Genesis Global Capital ($17,556,000), Tai Mo Shan ($13,770,000) and other unnamed counterparties ($751,000).

Voyager does not disclose whether any of its loans besides the Three Arrows loans are secured by collateral.

Voyager’s first day declaration does not identify the value of its crypto holdings maintained in its wallets. However, its June 22, 2022 announcement indicates that as of June 20, Voyager had approximately US$152 million cash and owned crypto assets on hand, as well as approximately US$20 million of cash restricted for the purchase of USDC.

Voyager’s slide deck presented at the hearing on its first day motions states that it currently has over $110 million in cash and owned crypto assets on hand, $350 million in cash held in an account at Metropolitan Bank designated for the benefit (FBO) of Voyager’s customers, $1.3 billion in “crypto assets on platform” (crypto assets in Voyager’s wallets and owned by its customers) and claims against Three Arrows for more than $650 million. The deck is silent on Voyager’s claims against other borrowers.  

Voyager’s proposed Plan provides for payments to its creditors to come from:

Cash and crypto assets currently held by Voyager

Voyager Tokens

any recovery on the Three Arrows loan

A major takeaway is that the proposed Plan and the other first day pleadings do not mention any reorganization funding derived from its loans to entities other than Three Arrows – most significantly, its loan to Alameda.  Based on its first day presentation deck, Voyager’s loan portfolio ex-Three Arrows has a nominal value of $470,630,000, which is more than the combined total of the nominal value of its on-hand cash and crypto assets and its funds for the benefit of customers held in the Metropolitan FBO account.

Alameda’s Involvement

Disregarding both halves of Polonius’ admonition to Laertes, Alameda is both a borrower and a lender to Voyager. Alameda is Voyager’s largest creditor by a large margin – after Alameda’s $75 million claim, the next largest claim is for $9.8 million, owed to an unidentified Voyager customer.   And as noted already, Alameda is Voyager’s second largest borrower, and owes Voyager more than $376,784,000.

Alameda is also a major shareholder, currently holding 9.49% of Voyager’s stock.

On June 17, 2022, Voyager filed a disclosure with securities regulators that on May 20, 2022, Alameda had acquired a block of shares for $35 million that increased its ownership interest in Voyager to 11.56%. 1 Under Canadian law, as an owner of more than 10% of Voyager’s shares, Alameda was a reporting insider and related party with respect Voyager.

On June 23, 2022, Alameda surrendered back to Voyager a block of shares without receiving any payment. The surrendered shares represented 2.29% of the outstanding shares in Voyager, reducing Alameda’s ownership interest from 11.56% to 9.49%, under the 10% reporting insider threshold.

In Voyager’s proposed plan, Alameda will not receive any recovery on account of its $75 million USDC loan. Several considerations were likely at play in this decision. First, Alameda owes more than $75 million to Voyager, and even if Alameda does not take an affirmative recovery in Voyager’s bankruptcy, it can still set-off Voyager’s debt against its debt to Voyager. Second, if Voyager proposed a distribution to Alameda on a equal basis with all other unsecured creditors, it is possible other creditors would seek equitable subordination of Alameda’s claim.  Section 510(c) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that in certain circumstances a court may equitably subordinate a creditor’s claim to the claims of all other creditors if the court finds that the creditor engaged in inequitable conduct. If Alameda agreed to Voyager’s proposed treatment of its claim, it may be because Alameda did not want to fend off allegations of inequitable conduct by other creditors seeking to subordinate Alameda’s claim, whether such allegations had any merit or not.

Proposed Release of Claims Against Alameda Held by Voyager’s Creditors

Alameda will not walk away empty handed under the proposed Plan, though. The Plan contains a broad release of all claims against Alameda by not only Voyager, but also by all parties hold claims against Voyager who either vote to accept the Plan, or who do not affirmatively opt out of releasing Alameda. This release provision in the Plan also grants releases to Voyager, all of Voyager’s affiliated entities, all of Voyager’s directors, officers, shareholders, employees, advisors, accountants, attorneys, etc., and to every other party that is granting a release under the release provisions.  

The Plan’s proposed releases of third parties by third parties will be hotly contested. This type of third party release is not explicitly authorized by the Bankruptcy Code, although over the years many courts have permitted such a release. However, last year in the Purdue Pharma bankruptcy case, a district court decision overturned a bankruptcy court’s order approving a plan containing third party releases. The district court conducted an extensive analysis of the issue, and concluded that bankruptcy courts lack authority under the Bankruptcy Code to approve plans containing third party releases. In re Purdue Pharma, L.P. , 635 B.R. 26, 89 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) . The district court’s decision is now on appeal before the Second Circuit. The Purdue Pharma opinion will give powerful ammunition to parties objecting to the release granted to Alameda in Voyager’s plan.     

Teneo Involvement

According to Ehrlich, Voyager retained Teneo as a strategic advisor in June of 2022. Managing directors at Teneo were also appointed as the liquidators for Three Arrows in June of 2022 by the court in the British Virgin Islands. Interestingly, Three Arrows was based in Singapore and at least one Teneo employee, Chew Sutat, sits on the board of FTX’s Singapore subsidiary . Alameda and FTX are both owned by Sam Bankman-Fried.  

Alameda’s regulatory filings are available at https://www.sedar.com/DisplayCompanyDocuments.do?lang=EN&issuerNo=00005648

Ready for more?

Trending News

Related Practices & Jurisdictions

• Bankruptcy & Restructuring
• Litigation / Trial Practice
• Administrative & Regulatory
• 3rd Circuit (incl. bankruptcy)

In a recent decision by the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, the court adopted a flexible approach to consensual third party releases in a plan of reorganization. In  In re Indianapolis Downs, LLC,  2013 Bankr. LEXIS 384 (Bankr. D. Del. Jan. 31, 2013), the court permitted third party releases where creditors failed to opt out of the release provisions of the plan either by not submitting their vote on the plan, or by voting against the plan but failing to check the “opt out” box on the ballot. The  Indianapolis Downs  decision highlights a split in the Delaware bankruptcy court with the decision handed down in  In re Washington Mutual, Inc.,  442 B.R. 314 (Bankr. D. Del. 2011).

The  Indianapolis Downs  debtors operated a horse racing track and casino in Shelbyville, Indiana. The debtors filed for Chapter 11 protection in April 2011, and within a year had proposed a plan, which included certain third party releases. Third party releases are releases by non-debtors of non-debtors, and are often sought in a plan to enable raising new capital or to avoid litigation that would hamper the reorganized debtor. While some jurisdictions have adopted per se prohibitions against such releases, other jurisdictions will consider these factors in analyzing whether such releases are appropriate: (1) an identity of interest between the debtor and the third party, such that a suit against the non-debtor is, in essence, a suit against the debtor or will deplete assets of the estate; (2) substantial contribution by the non-debtor of assets to the reorganization; (3) the essential nature of the injunction to the reorganization to the extent that, without the injunction, there is little likelihood of success; (4) an agreement by a substantial majority of creditors to support the injunction, specifically if the impaired class or classes “overwhelmingly” vote to accept the plan; and (5) a provision in the plan for payment of all or substantially all of the claims of the class or classes affected by the injunction.

The debtors’ plan in  Indianapolis Downs  applied certain third party release provisions to claimholders who “(i) affirmatively vote to accept or reject the Plan and do not opt out of granting the releases, (ii) are unimpaired pursuant to the Plan and therefore deemed to accept the Plan pursuant to section 1126(f) of the Bankruptcy Code, or (iii) abstain from voting on the Plan and who do not otherwise submit a Ballot indicating their desire to opt out of the releases.” Id. at *41-42.

Judge Shannon cited other jurisdictions for their “flexible approach in evaluating whether a third party release was consensual.”  Id.  at *44. Finding that no “hard and fast rule” of affirmative consent to third party releases exists, id.  at *44, the court held that where claimholders abstained from voting on a plan, or voted to reject the plan but did not otherwise opt out of the third party releases despite having detailed instructions on how to do so, those third party releases were properly characterized as consensual and could therefore be approved.

This approach, which places a burden on claimholders to take action by affirmatively opting out from third party releases, may be seen as contradictory to the approach adopted by Judge Walrath approximately a year earlier, in  In re Washington Mutual, Inc.  In that case, starting from the premise that “[t]his Court has previously held that it does not have the power to grant a third party release of a non-debtor,” ( id.  at 352)(citations omitted), the court refused to approve third party releases, where, among other things, such releases would have been deemed accepted by creditors who did not submit a ballot, stating that “[f]ailing to return a ballot is not a sufficient manifestation of consent to a third party release.”  Id.  at 355. The court concluded that a third party release is effective only against those who affirmatively consented to it by voting in favor of the plan and not opting out of the releases (the judge did not confirm the plan on other grounds).  Id.

These two recent yet disparate decisions from the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware represent only the tip of the third-party-release iceberg, and exemplify the wide range of approaches, often at odds with each other even within the same court, to this difficult subject. Parties facing a plan that includes third party release are encouraged to seek assistance from knowledgeable bankruptcy counsel concerning their particular facts and circumstances, including the law in the applicable jurisdiction concerning such releases.

Current Legal Analysis

More from mintz, upcoming legal education events.

Sign Up for e-NewsBulletins

NASA’s Voyager 1 Resumes Sending Engineering Updates to Earth

NASA’s Voyager 1 spacecraft is depicted in this artist’s concept traveling through interstellar space, or the space between stars, which it entered in 2012.

After some inventive sleuthing, the mission team can — for the first time in five months — check the health and status of the most distant human-made object in existence.

For the first time since November , NASA’s Voyager 1 spacecraft is returning usable data about the health and status of its onboard engineering systems. The next step is to enable the spacecraft to begin returning science data again. The probe and its twin, Voyager 2, are the only spacecraft to ever fly in interstellar space (the space between stars).

Voyager 1 stopped sending readable science and engineering data back to Earth on Nov. 14, 2023, even though mission controllers could tell the spacecraft was still receiving their commands and otherwise operating normally. In March, the Voyager engineering team at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Southern California confirmed that the issue was tied to one of the spacecraft’s three onboard computers, called the flight data subsystem (FDS). The FDS is responsible for packaging the science and engineering data before it’s sent to Earth.

After receiving data about the health and status of Voyager 1 for the first time in five months, members of the Voyager flight team celebrate in a conference room at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory on April 20.

The team discovered that a single chip responsible for storing a portion of the FDS memory — including some of the FDS computer’s software code — isn’t working. The loss of that code rendered the science and engineering data unusable. Unable to repair the chip, the team decided to place the affected code elsewhere in the FDS memory. But no single location is large enough to hold the section of code in its entirety.

So they devised a plan to divide the affected code into sections and store those sections in different places in the FDS. To make this plan work, they also needed to adjust those code sections to ensure, for example, that they all still function as a whole. Any references to the location of that code in other parts of the FDS memory needed to be updated as well.

The team started by singling out the code responsible for packaging the spacecraft’s engineering data. They sent it to its new location in the FDS memory on April 18. A radio signal takes about 22 ½ hours to reach Voyager 1, which is over 15 billion miles (24 billion kilometers) from Earth, and another 22 ½ hours for a signal to come back to Earth. When the mission flight team heard back from the spacecraft on April 20, they saw that the modification worked: For the first time in five months, they have been able to check the health and status of the spacecraft.

Get the Latest News from the Final Frontier

During the coming weeks, the team will relocate and adjust the other affected portions of the FDS software. These include the portions that will start returning science data.

Voyager 2 continues to operate normally. Launched over 46 years ago , the twin Voyager spacecraft are the longest-running and most distant spacecraft in history. Before the start of their interstellar exploration, both probes flew by Saturn and Jupiter, and Voyager 2 flew by Uranus and Neptune.

Caltech in Pasadena, California, manages JPL for NASA.

News Media Contact

Calla Cofield

Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.

626-808-2469

[email protected]

• Become A Member
• Gift Membership
• Kids Membership
• Other Ways to Give
• Explore Worlds
• Defend Earth

How We Work

• Education & Public Outreach
• Space Policy & Advocacy
• Science & Technology
• Global Collaboration

Our Results

Learn how our members and community are changing the worlds.

Our citizen-funded spacecraft successfully demonstrated solar sailing for CubeSats.

Space Topics

• Planets & Other Worlds
• Space Missions
• Space Policy
• Planetary Radio
• Space Images

The Planetary Report

The eclipse issue.

Science and splendor under the shadow.

Get Involved

Membership programs for explorers of all ages.

Get updates and weekly tools to learn, share, and advocate for space exploration.

Volunteer as a space advocate.

Support Our Mission

• Renew Membership
• Society Projects

The Planetary Fund

Accelerate progress in our three core enterprises — Explore Worlds, Find Life, and Defend Earth. You can support the entire fund, or designate a core enterprise of your choice.

• Strategic Framework
• News & Press

The Planetary Society

Know the cosmos and our place within it.

Our Mission

Empowering the world's citizens to advance space science and exploration.

• Explore Space
• Take Action
• Member Community
• Account Center
• “Exploration is in our nature.” - Carl Sagan

Peter Rosén • Jul 08, 2014

Voyager 3 Project

In 1979, the Voyager 1 probe took a stunning series of images on its final approach to Jupiter that clearly showed the intricate movement of the cloud belts for the first time. Thirty-five years later, almost to the day, a group of seven Swedish amateur astronomers set out to replicate this odyssey and the historical NASA footage, but with images taken with their own ground-based telescopes.

This content is hosted by a third party (vimeo.com), which uses marketing cookies. Please accept marketing cookies to watch this video.

The Voyager 3 project: Swedish amateur astronomers replicate Voyager 1's approach to Jupiter In 1979, the Voyager 1 probe took a stunning series of images on its final approach to Jupiter that clearly showed the intricate movement of the cloud belts for the first time. Thirty-five years later, almost to the day, a group of seven Swedish amateur astronomers set out to replicate this odyssey and the historical NASA footage, but with images taken with their own ground-based telescopes. Video: The Voyager 3 Project

My personal astronomical path got started in a way similar to many others'. As a teenager, I was invited to my school's astronomy club and was shown Saturn in a small telescope. I was absolutely mesmerized at that view, and it ignited a life-long passion for astronomy and especially for the solar system. This was probably partly out of necessity, as I have always lived in big, light-polluted cities where many deep space objects are simply out of reach.

Since the early 1980s I have been a professional photographer and digital imaging artist. The most exciting aspect of combining astronomy and photography is that we are able to reveal what’s invisible to the eye, either by increasing the resolving power or by accumulating the exposure for long periods of time to bring out extremely faint objects. Then there is all the power of the post-processing available at our fingertips.

Some years ago, I discovered the Voyager 1 sequence showing the intricate motion of Jupiter’s cloud belts for 28 consecutive days during its final approach. There is the speeding equatorial System1, the rotating Great Red Spot (GRS) and a multitude of local vortices that are not easy to grasp in this short animation.

This content is hosted by a third party (youtube.com), which uses marketing cookies. Please accept marketing cookies to watch this video.

Jupiter's cloud motions as Voyager 1 approaches This movie is based on 58 orange-green-blue color composites obtained on every Jovian rotation from January 6 to January 29, 1979. Over this period Voyager 1's distance from Jupiter dropped from 58 to 36 million km, so the resolution and sharpness of the frames increases from start to finish. The 58 frames were tweened, increasing the number of frames by a factor of 8 (that is, 7 synthetic frames are inserted between each real frame). Video: NASA / JPL-Caltech / Processed by Björn Jónsson

And what if...

A test in early 2012 of blinking two images taken 24 days apart, revealed some features that seemed to have remained more or less in the same spot:

I shared the image on a local astronomy forum. That led to some discussions with Martin Högberg, who vividly shared my interest for this subject.

In December of 2013 I finally decided to launch a big team project and soon seven determined astrophotographers joined in. This was a major feat in itself, as it is usually quite a solitary hobby for most of us amateurs, one that we perform when the rest of our families have gone to sleep at night. Most of us had never met in real life, but we felt like we knew each other from having given feedback on each others' forum posts for a long time.

We would monitor the surface of Jupiter as continuously as possible for a period of 3 to 4 months, with the aim of achieving an animated cylindrical map of the planet that would reveal the intricate movements of its cloud belts. If we were able to achieve this goal, we would possibly also be able to reenact the Voyager 1 flyby at a later stage.

Determination was a key element to the project. Being at a high latitude, and often subject to bad weather and low temperatures in winter, Sweden is not really the ideal place to carry out such a project from. We hoped that our geographical spread over the southern part of the country would help us overcome some of the problems with the bad weather. It did indeed help, but at times we had clouds that covered the sky for all of us for weeks in a row.

We performed many initial tests at the beginning of December 2013, using the powerful and precise free software ”Winjupos”, gaining knowledge and continuously adapting the guidelines for the project. This included everything from file-naming to finding the best working procedures.

Everyone was to take pictures of Jupiter as often as possible. Much of our communication was about local weather conditions and the best time to shoot to be able to fill the gaps in the map, like pieces in a jigsaw puzzle.

During the day we adapted to the ordinary 24 hours clock but when the night came, we switched over to a 10-hour Jovian clock (9h 55m 41s, to be more precise). All our planning was completely synchronized to Jupiter's rotation period. The highest priority was not to get the best possible images but to cover the whole surface of Jupiter in the shortest possible time.

Everyone was to stack their own images the way they were used to, but leave a little headroom for adjustments and sharpening at a later stage. All the pictures were sent to me for a first round of post-processing to give them a homogeneous look. Then I sent them to Martin Högberg, who performed all the Winjupos trickery. He sent back to me three projections for every picture: one ”Cylindrical” and one ”Stereographic Polar” for each polar view.

We managed to complete our first map on the 28th of December 2013 which left us excited during the New Year period. We were on track and everything seemed to work just as planned.

But then the weather deteriorated and was the most overcast in the Stockholm area for January and February since 1988, and the rest of the country was not much better off. So it took us another two weeks to finish our second complete map.

The main problem is that the equatorial zone of Jupiter is rotating 7.63° more rapidly per day than the features to the north and south. (This leads to two distinct rotation periods that astronomers track on Jupiter: System1, the equatorial one, rotates once in 9h 50m 30s, while features to the north and south have a slower rotation rate, System2, rotating once in 9h 55m 41s). In two weeks' time, the difference in positions for features in System1 and System2 amounts to 107 degrees. This was of course way too much.

We kept working on, hoping to find a solution later on to this major problem. At the end of March, although the weather conditions were quite good, the receding position of the planet along with the nights getting rapidly shorter up here in the north made us decide to end the first part of the project. By then we had managed to produce 18 complete maps, one for every 5 days on average, but in reality they were very unevenly spread in time.

It was exciting to animate these maps as we saw the features in System2 come to life for the first time. The Great Red Spot (GRS) slowly drifted to the right while pumping the system of white clouds in the South Equatorial Belt (SEB). The yellow Oval BA marched continuously on its way towards its rendezvous with GRS. A little bit higher up we could follow the fast-laned three white ovals whose mutual positions and shape have given them the nickname ”Mickey Mouse”.

But the Equatorial Zone (EZ) just showed a multitude of features jumping around erratically. Obviously we needed more maps, and they had to be evenly spaced in time, to get some order in this high-speed chaotic lane. Some precise drift tables and lot of testing with some morphing programs clearily showed that this was the way to go, but the movement of Jupiter's cloud belts proved to be too complicated to be manipulated this way, because there were too many adjacent features that moved in opposite directions. The programs could simply not handle these sort of transitions without leaving artificial scars on the surface. I finally decided to divide the surface into 4 smaller areas, each with less-conflicting movements and animate them individually, generating 90 steps for the 90-day period. All these frames were then assembled in Photoshop and resulted in a fluid animation. We were really thrilled to see System1 come to life for the first time and flowing on like a stream.

After some more testing with different projections, I was able to import our animation frames into StarryNightPro+ to perform our final 90-day approach and flyby of Jupiter that you can see in the movie. All in all, it took 6 months of hard work to process the images and produce all the animations and then another two weeks for Göran Strand and myself to edit the film.

Thus ended the first part of the project. The second part, which will be handled by Johan Warell this summer, consists of measurements, drift charts and analysis of some of Jupiter's bands and features.

This has been a unique and exciting adventure for all of us in the project. From the beginning we knew the goal but not necessarily the way to get there. It has been much more hard work than we anticipated but also immensely rewarding.

Welcome to the Voyager 3 Project.

Peter Rosén

for the Voyager 3 Team

Let’s Go Beyond The Horizon

Every success in space exploration is the result of the community of space enthusiasts, like you, who believe it is important. You can help usher in the next great era of space exploration with your gift today.

For full functionality of this site it is necessary to enable JavaScript. Here are instructions on how to enable JavaScript in your web browser .

• CALL US: 0800 477 333
• Residential
• Knowledge Base - Home

Third Party BYO Modem/Router Requirements

If you already have a modem, then you might be able to use it for your naked Voyager internet connection instead of buying or renting a new one from us. This page describes what you need to know about using your own router with Voyager.

Before you begin:

• If you also need our Voice services (VoIP), then we can only provide support for our retailed routers. If you have any questions about this, please feel free to send us an email ([email protected]) or give us a call on 0800 4SPEED.
• Different connection technologies like VDSL or Fibre have different technical requirements. Search the internet for your current modem, model number and firmware version to find it's technical specifications or consult the user manual if you still have it to hand. Then use this spec sheet to ensure your modem meets the technical requirements for your new Voyager internet connection.
• If your router was originally provided by another Internet Service Provider, then they may have applied some restrictions that make it difficult for the router to be used elsewhere.
• Whilst we are very familiar with our own Voyager supplied routers, our ability to support 3 rd  party modems is limited and on a best efforts basis. We recommend choosing the Voyager modem if you're not sure, plus we'll pre-configure it for you. Our Voyager standard modem  rental is $10 a month or you can purchase it for $199 (inc GST).  Click here to submit your rental or purchase request.
• Your router will need to support "VLAN Tagging" for our VDSL & Fibre services (although you can opt to disable it for our Fibre services, we do not recommend this).

Basic requirements for each connection type:

* Click on > to expand the menu

Requirements for ADSL Connections

• ADSL Capable Modem
• Encapsulation Protocol: PPPoA

Generic Settings for ADSL Connections

• Connection Type: ATM
• PPP User Name: [user]@dsl.vygr.net or [user]@vygr.net (Note: This can be found in the Broadband Configuration Details email we sent you)
• PPP Password: (Note: This can be found in the Broadband Configuration Details email we sent you)
• Multiplexing: VC-Mux

Requirements for VDSL Connections

• VDSL Capable Modem
• Encapsulation Protocol: PPPoE
• VLAN Tagging Capable

Generic Settings for VDSL Connections

• Connection Type: PTM 
• VLAN Tagging (802.1Q): 10
• VLAN Priority: (802.1P): 0

UFB (Fibre)

Requirements for Fibre Connections

• Fibre Capable Modem
• VLAN Tagging capable on the WAN Interface
• Ethernet WAN Port (Gigabit rating recommended)

Requirements for Fibre MAX Connections

• VLAN Tagging capable on the WAN Interface
• Ethernet WAN port with Gigabit rating
• Note: Some modems that claim to support Fibre MAX can't actually achieve "Gigabit" (generally 950 Mbps down/450 Mbps up) speeds. We know the Voyager-supplied standard  modem can, so if in doubt, choose our modem! 

Generic Settings for UFB Connections

• Connection Type: Ethernet
• PPP User Name: [user]@ufb.vygr.net or [user]@vygr.net (Note: This can be found in the Broadband Configuration Details email we sent you)
• VLAN Priority: (802.1P): 0 (Specify if mentioned)
• Note: You may not be prompted for all values.

Static IPv4 DNS Primary: 114.23.1.1 Secondary: 114.23.2.2  

Static IPv6 DNS Primary: 2406:1e00:1000::1 Secondary: 2406:1e00:1000::2

Some common routers customers have connected to our network:

Please note:  We can not guarantee the full compatibility of the following routers. We recommend referring to the retailer or the manufacturer's support information if you have any concerns.  

Get in touch

If you are experiencing any difficulty with any of these instructions, give us a call on 0800 477 333 (8AM to 10PM, 7 days a week).

Related Articles (1)