Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

Standard corporate blanketing, Chrys. They'd do well to hire more no-nonsense types rather than those so adept at spinning that they should take a second job as a pinwheel.

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

Lets hope it's Linksys

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

I like linksys kit :tu:

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

You mean Cisco :D

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

Is it?

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

in denial till the end.

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

Why not email Neil Berkett direct and see if he can answer you as you refuse to believe anyone on here.

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

No that is a river in Egypt ;)

Simply asking to to explain your post and where you got that info from?

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

answer what?

---------- Post added at 10:19 ---------- Previous post was at 10:11 ----------

email sent.

I have asked him why you all posting here during working hours in a claimed unoffical manner so I assume not authorised by your managers.

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

About us being in denial.;)

Such a nice person all because we disagree with you that you try to be big and clever and the big I AM.

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

you what?

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

I'm sure people were saying the same about the TeraJet modem when that first came out.

That's comparing apples with oranges. D2 modems have been pretty much constant for a number of years because the techology was mature. The 250 was the last revision of the D2 modems ntl used. Even when the 255 and 256 versions came out they just removed the USB connection and tweaked a few bits to allow them to work on the Telewest network.

However both ntl and telewest went through multiple model numbers (and makers) of modems during their time, requiring swap outs during every speed uplift as they were unable to cope.

Same will happen with the D3 kit as the technology progresses and (for instance) channel bonding is used. At some point the VMNG300 modems will be unable to keep up and will need replacing.

No I'm not.

Choice of broadband kit has never been part of the broadband service (excluding whether you want a router or not). So to introduce it would require changes to processes, systems and training, along with extra storage space within the supply chain.

Because, as with any part of their service, Virgin have to make sure any setting works as is intended, is fully tested, is included in diagnostics for support staff, included in help documentation for customers, and is providing in a way that all customers can use it if they want to.

Never said "newer = automatically better", I'm saying sometimes "newer = required".

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

Are you a big and clever person!! :rolleyes:

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

Comparing one modem to another is like comparing apples and oranges? That makes no sense. AT ALL. They're more similar than different.

Yet like I said, the Ambit 250 has kept up with multiple user needs and survived about half a dozen speed upgrades, and really only showed it's age when the upload contention increase was done. This is personal experience, but I hardly think I'm alone here. AFAIK the Ambit 250/255/256 (all variations on a theme) is still the most deployed modem on the VM network, regardless of who VM inherited the infrastructure from. There's a reason for that: it's still a damn fine modem.

But we're not even at the point where bonded downstreams are being used, am I right? The VMNG300 will handle 100Mb no problem even without changing the infrastructure, and there's been mention that it could handle 200Mb too, keeping it current for the next couple of years.

When the thing that is supposed to replace them chokes on a lot of UBRs despite being new and hallowed, I'd rather have the older more reliable piece of kit, as would almost every other customer. Super Hub = false economy a this point.

That's simply not true. A customer can choose between any of the deployed CPEs that VM still support, although it's not always easy. Case in point: I got the Super Hub, it was shoddy, so despite the fact VM wanted me to move to it as the CPE I refused, staying with the Ambit 250 and politely insisting on a VMNG300, which is now fully installed and works very well indeed.

Put simply, I chose not to be fobbed off with inferior kit and at a certain level I was wholeheartedly supported by the most knowledgeable VM staff I'd ever spoken to, who carefully agreed that the Super Hub isn't up to task on certain UBRs but is fine on others. It's a shame that in the face of this proof, you still choose denial.

Well in my case and that of countless others the Super Hub doesn't do any of that, whereas the VMNG300 does and activated much faster than the Super Hub did with far fewer resets. Latency is down too, even compared to the Super Hub running on the 20Mb DOCSIS3 overlay. As far as I'm concerned, that makes it a superior piece of kit: reliability over potential future speed increases, low jitter for the gamers.

Also, just purely speaking about customers on Super Hub R2X betas, testing is not even close to thorough. Not enough subjects signed up, not enough time between testing and release, more errors being introduced along the way in some instances. This mistake was even made with the VMNG300 (now fixed, obviously) and VM haven't learned from that since with another two CPEs, and exacerbated the problem by making them combined modem/router units. It was done in the interests of transparency - i.e. I see what VM were trying to do - but it seems to have backfired drastically enough that a Mk II is being rushed out.

Agreed, but when "newer = three legged horse" and two older CPEs run rings around it there's obviously something wrong. People will take reliability over raw speed almost every time, because what good is higher speed if it's not stable enough to use in anything but short bursts?

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

All the speed upgrades were all within the specs of the 250 modem due the specs being stable.

As I said before the 250 was the 4th Ambit modem model deployed by ntl, whereas the VMNG300 is the first D3 kit deployed.

So you can't compare stable specs and hardware with first generation and changing specs.

Of course bonded downstreams are being used but it's what bonding is supported is the difference between the two.

It's not just the network side of things that is the difference. The SuperHub allows Virgin to streamline the customer install and support experience which is just as important as to what the tech specs are.

That's an exception and manually arranged process, not standard process.

Not denying anything. I agree there have been issues, and that it would have been much better to have the modem mode in from the beginning.

However for whatever reason, that's not what happened, so we have to deal with that as it is.

I was talking specifically about the option you raised - the 'SSH Modem mode' I wasn't commenting about anything else.

Nothing rushed about the dual vendor, it will have always been part of the plan