Re: Superhub2
 

Cisco aren't exactly the best brand in network technology, either. Just a name that seems to get around a lot.

Re: Superhub2
 

I'm sure if VM went to Motorola and said "we want the SBG900/1 and want it with VM branding on the case", Motorola would say "if you're buying them in the hundreds of thousands or millions you can have any branding you want on them".

Hey presto - new superhub that works and VM save face. Aren't BT now on homehub 3? Introducing new versions doeasnt seem to have done them any harm.

Cheers

Grim

Re: Superhub2
 

I dont understand why VM have this obsession with making everything the same bloody shape. It wastes a ton of space and makes placement of the devices awkward.

Just get a simple logo screenprinted onto the existing kit and be done with it. And please dont add 11 blue lights.

Re: Superhub2
 

Only 11? I may have miscounted :dunce:

Re: Superhub2
 

They are well better than either of the present illegitimised devices presently in use namely the VMNG300 and the Superhub, and surprisingly the mainstream devices like Ronseal did exactly what they say on the tin.

UBEE/Ambit and Netgear gave Virgin Media cheap nasty equipment and both went laughing all the way to the bank.

You want decent kit you go with a mainstream manufacturer and they did test Cisco devices as well but went with the camels now in use.

I do not understand why you would want to support a third rate device when we all know the is better kit out there.

---------- Post added at 08:10 ---------- Previous post was at 08:04 ----------

They never did that with any previous Motorola devices and the would be no need now as bringing out a branded device would make them look like they they actually care, if it was branded no one would trust them not to have fiddled with it in some way remember the CG3100 series the Superhub is based on has 7 or 8 antenna built in unlike the the 2 stamp sized one fitted inside the back of the device.

Re: Superhub2
 

Because for the first time ever I am not going to live in a dream world and be realistic. Yes if I could have anything I want I would want a Cisco modem and router and would even pay for it if VM said I had to. But the problem is that most customers have nevr heard of Cisco and definitely don't want to pay for it. People are with VM because they are cheap (no offence) and want tv/phone/internet for piddly amounts per month so there is no way they are going to cough up the dosh for a kick modem/router no matter how much VM how amazing it is. VM have got to find a compromise a provide something that is relatively inexpensive and WORKS. The latter being my priority and hence why I love my VMNG300; it works perfectly and has done for the last 2 years.

Re: Superhub2
 

But it is not futureproof and nor has it been for those two years regardless of how well it works.

Demanding decent kit is not living in a dreamworld either because considering the amount of devices they would order they would have been offered them at a very competitive price.

As I said above if you want your customers to have a racehorse you do not fob them off with a camel.

Re: Superhub2
 

I put this suggestion to the CEO some time ago, when asking for my SH to be replaced with my current VMNG300.
I've always suggested VM should supply a decent, solid MODEM for those who are willing to pay a one off charge for same.
However, in the reply there was no mention of this, just an email to confirm I would be getting the VMNG300.
I seem to remember some years ago, you actually had to buy your cable modem when you joined VM (or NTL as it was then), or am I dreaming?
Maybe this practice could be reintroduced.

Re: Superhub2
 

It was NTL and it will have been when they rolled out 500kb with Terayons or similar another piece of old junk.

Re: Superhub2
 

Look at how comcast work, they are solely the ISP (Internet Service Provider) and not IaMaRSP (Internet and Modem and Router Service Provider)

Comcast provide you with your bandwidth, and have a range of modems for you to buy from them, or you can buy your own modem and they will activate it on their network

Re: Superhub2
 

You do pay for it in a roundabout way which is the annoying thing. When 50mbit first came out I had to pay £50 installation fee (which I basically thought of as paying for the modem) and then another £30 "activation" charge whatever the flip that was. All the engineer did was come round, give me the modem and watch me hook it up and then make a phone call to get it activated and I ran a couple of speed tests to make sure it worked. If none of that was for the modem cost why was it £80? I thought I was going to have something similar for 100mbits but when I rang up for it they said the installation charges and whatever else were free at the time which was good. I would love it thought it they offered a cheap naf modem for free, a Cisco modem for £25 and then a combi modem/router for £60. I would love to hear the plebs on the phone when someone says "so what is the difference between them?" :) Oh hang on, I know already. "If you want to get your full speed you need the £60 one".


That was when I joined back in ~2000, I can't remember having to pay for the modem though.


sweeeeeeeeeet, that is the way it should be done

Re: Superhub2
 

Ahh the Terayon, brings back memories ....... :angel:

I still have mine and the Ambit 250 as well as a SH. Such a collection of VM's finest ;)

Re: Superhub2
 

Agreed

Re: Superhub2
 

3Com CMX for me - Cost over £100 (Can't remember exactly how much more) back when NTL rolled out their 512Mb service

Re: Superhub2