Re: R30 - Superhub R29 is no more....
 

Looks Photoshopped to me.....:D

Re: R30 - Superhub R29 is no more....
 

They may have got that before they messed with the firmware like turning lots of options off before we got it?
I know that when you could SSH into it there was a lot more it could do
who knows what VM have done to make this even worse.

.

Re: R30 - Superhub R29 is no more....
 

Poor old Qas! I hate it when that happens to me.

Anyway, what's a VMDG 400? Excuse my ignorance, please.

Re: R30 - Superhub R29 is no more....
 

Haven't a clue

---------- Post added at 12:20 ---------- Previous post was at 12:17 ----------

I expect that most of what the router can and cannot do is irrelevent for WiFi certification

Re: R30 - Superhub R29 is no more....
 

"It is generally created by one company and made available or sold to other companies to be used as-is or with enhancements or modifications.

http://www.wi-fi.org/knowledge_center/insist-on-wifi-certified

So they can pass the super Hub but VM are allowed to fook it up and keep that wi-fi pass lmfao
you could not make this stuff up :)

Re: R30 - Superhub R29 is no more....
 

VM don't write the firmware Netgear do.

Re: R30 - Superhub R29 is no more....
 

Apparently, you can, and just did.....:D

Re: R30 - Superhub R29 is no more....
 

Nah, that was the pre-release Netgear base unit. Not fake but invalid. VM invalidated it when they changed the "final" firmware to violate the requirements for certification after the fact, hence why there's no "Wifi certified" sticker on the unit itself. That certificate does not apply to the current product as sold.

---------- Post added at 13:33 ---------- Previous post was at 13:30 ----------

The Netgear device (as submitted for testing on/before May 09, 2010) was fine. VM didn't release it until Nov/Dec, by which time the firmware had been modified to be no longer compliant. The hardware (as said before) is fine and hasn't changed. I did say "in it's current state" ;)

Wifi certificates aren't automatically revoked whenever anyone makes a firmware tweak, but if the submitted device is materially different to the actually sold device in terms of wifi compliance VM need to get it re-tested. It is the licensee's responsibility to disclose any modifications to the alliance and have it recertified at their own cost. Whether they haven't or they tried and failed, it's not complaint in it's current state.

---------- Post added at 13:41 ---------- Previous post was at 13:33 ----------

Well no, it's VM's responsibility to get it retested when they make changes, but they clearly haven't (or they tried and got a fail). In fact the latter is probably more likely since, they've made no claims on the unit, box, or website that the unit's wifi certified suggesting they know full well it isn't.

Re: R30 - Superhub R29 is no more....
 

Then why does it have the VM model number. If it's the base unit, then it would only carry that model number

Re: R30 - Superhub R29 is no more....
 

Because it's the same unit? I already said the hardware is the same...

Re: R30 - Superhub R29 is no more....
 

But if Netgear submitted it for certification, then it would carry the Netgear model number only

The WiFi alliance wouldn't know it's also the VMDG480 unless Netgear advised them it was.

Netgear would have no reason to submit it under the VMDG480 model unless they wanted that revision to also be certified. I can also find no other reference to 'CG3101D' apart from in reference to the SuperHub - which again would seem to indicate the SuperHub was specifically submitted for certification rather than any Netgear stock unit.

As Netgear are the ones that write the firmware, they would be aware of any changes that would 'invalidate' it's certification.

Re: R30 - Superhub R29 is no more....
 

I never said Netgear didn't submit it... I said the firmware has materially changed since submission, not the model number. I'm not sure where you get the idea from that the Wifi alliance must have plucked the model number out of thin air. Nobody has said that.

I believe both VM and Netgear know the device in it's current state is not compliant, hence my theory that that is why there has been no attempt (other than by yourself) to claim the device is Wifi certified.

Re: R30 - Superhub R29 is no more....
 

Actually it was you that said:

Which is wrong

Also it just doesn't add up. Why would Netgear/VM certify the SuperHub in May 2010 and then within 7 months purporsely invalidate that certification?

It's Netgear that write the firmware, not VM. VM ask for features and/or bug fixes, but it's Netgear that complete that. So you are saying that Netgear are that bad at things that they can't keep their own firmware from 'invalidating' itself

Re: R30 - Superhub R29 is no more....
 

Well it was an opinion - and certified/recertified means the same to me.

See my Conspiracy theory bit earlier. The particular "invalidation" has the indirect side effects of increasing average speedtest scores for VM users and decreasing average speedtest scores for non-VM (superhub) users. I guess that's more important than, say, getting consumers to choose a product because of its certification since we know they decided in the end not to give anyone any choice in the matter anyway.

What else doesn't add up is why would Netgear/VM bother certifying the Superhub and yet never actually bothering to make use of that certification, for example by not claiming it's certified, or putting the logo on the box or device. The whole point of certification after all is being licensed to use the "WiFi certified" logo and branding. As I say, since VM are forcing everyone to take a superhub on certain tariffs, it makes no difference to them if a user wants to choose it or not because of it's certification - whereas speedtest results as we all know matter a lot to VM.

Well no, VM requested a specific change to the default settings on the firmware that makes it no longer compliant. Netgear obeyed because VM told them to.

Re: R30 - Superhub R29 is no more....
 

Is that your opinion, or do you have evidence to back up that assertion?