Re: Superhub is nowhere near as bad as people say!
 

there is no tactics other than to help others in reporting problems discovered on the device and to help others fix those problems. This long thread was born on there been denial of these problems and as such misleading customers on the device of its capabilities and stability. We had VM staff posting that it was fine at the same time other VM staff on VM's official forums were posting about an emergency firmware update. The denial even went on when VM had publically admitted problems.

If instead there was acknowledgement this thread likely wouldnt even exist.

Re: Superhub is nowhere near as bad as people say!
 

See we do not support the Bridge mode so unaware of its existence as yet so if it is using the same MAC you should get the same ip address.

Re: Superhub is nowhere near as bad as people say!
 

Are you for real! Or did you just forget to post a smiley?
:LOL:

Re: Superhub is nowhere near as bad as people say!
 

Nt at all :) its because i spent the 2 weeks or so prior to getting virgin reading posts about complaining; then when i actually got the device it was no where near as bad as people said.

I have easily transfered a 12 GB Itunes library (compressed as a zip so 1 file) over wifi; the signal is fine; the intrernet hits 49 / 4.7 mbs no matter what time i test; and it doesn't restart or cut off. which is far more then can be said about the BT homehub

Re: Superhub is nowhere near as bad as people say!
 

Really, have you looked at the official Virgin Media forum? Quite a few attack it there.

http://community.virginmedia.com/t5/...band/bd-p/50mb

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=75


How about

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/04..._still_wobbly/


It seems this guy might have spoken to one of the staff that posts on here

http://blog.jmoz.co.uk/virgin-media-...virgin-media-e

Re: Superhub is nowhere near as bad as people say!
 

Thanks for the advice. Sounds like I need a wireless N adaptor as mine is the oldest laptop in the house! In terms of stability there are (touch wood) no problems so far. Connection is constant and I haven't needed to restart it once (unlike the other router which was frequently not responding).

Re: Superhub is nowhere near as bad as people say!
 

What? You've provided links to the forums front pages.
I am not denying that the Superhub needs improvement. However, people are implying that it is causing massive problems for large sections of VM's customer base, and I am sorry, but the evidence provided does not bear that assumption out. Even on a quick scoot through VM's official forums, I found maybe 10 people having problems that were apparently due to the hub.

Re: Superhub is nowhere near as bad as people say!
 

I doubt that any offshore agents post on here now as that is not a UK agent and if you cannot tell the difference by now then you never call up much.

Re: Superhub is nowhere near as bad as people say!
 

Nope. For real..

Re: Superhub is nowhere near as bad as people say!
 

here is 10 pings from the 480 in bridge mode.

Pinging bbc.co.uk [212.58.254.251] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.58.254.251: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=244
Reply from 212.58.254.251: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=244
Reply from 212.58.254.251: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=244
Reply from 212.58.254.251: bytes=32 time=18ms TTL=244
Reply from 212.58.254.251: bytes=32 time=51ms TTL=244
Reply from 212.58.254.251: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=244
Reply from 212.58.254.251: bytes=32 time=29ms TTL=244
Reply from 212.58.254.251: bytes=32 time=20ms TTL=244
Reply from 212.58.254.251: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=244
Reply from 212.58.254.251: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=244

Ping statistics for 212.58.254.251:
Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 16ms, Maximum = 51ms, Average = 21ms

and 10 from the vmng300

Pinging bbc.co.uk [212.58.254.251] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 212.58.254.251: bytes=32 time=16ms TTL=244
Reply from 212.58.254.251: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=244
Reply from 212.58.254.251: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=244
Reply from 212.58.254.251: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=244
Reply from 212.58.254.251: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=244
Reply from 212.58.254.251: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=244
Reply from 212.58.254.251: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=244
Reply from 212.58.254.251: bytes=32 time=17ms TTL=244
Reply from 212.58.254.251: bytes=32 time=14ms TTL=244
Reply from 212.58.254.251: bytes=32 time=15ms TTL=244

Ping statistics for 212.58.254.251:
Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 14ms, Maximum = 17ms, Average = 15ms

the 480 were taken at 7am when I got on the pc, vmng300 just now after school has ended (busier time), the results are repeatable. So although the 480 is now a good enough device in bridge mode it still is worse for jitter but thats the only real problem left with it now assuming happy to not use it as a router.

on speedio I get 2800-3000 connections score, on the 480 in bridge mode its about 2600, without bridge mode it was around 2000 and often under 2000.

Re: Superhub is nowhere near as bad as people say!
 

It's incredulous how some forum seniors here are taking a head-in-the-sand position on this issue.

The amount of understatement in the quote I've highlighted bears this incredulity out. These so-called 10 people (it's far weightier - what a ridiculous claim to make), this miniscule proportion of humble paying customers have forced the mighty VM to go public on the problems, issue three firmware releases in response to the pressure and they openly advise people to turn off basic router functions in order to make it work.

What are you like ignoring this?

Re: Superhub is nowhere near as bad as people say!
 

We appear to be reading different posts (from Stuart).

I read
I am not denying that the Superhub needs improvement


You appear to be reading
There is no problem

Re: Superhub is nowhere near as bad as people say!
 

Only someone with their head in the sand on this issue would come out with that observation.

My remark was pretty clear. You lot are dead silent on the fact that VM are going to extraordinary lengths to have this wretched device performing even basic functions. And they're not there even yet.

Your heads are so deep in the sand that you cannot take this on board and, of course, you can't back down now. Ten people complaining. Jeez!

Re: Superhub is nowhere near as bad as people say!
 

Those 9* folks with duff hubs got elReg to produce three articles on it too so they sure are vociferous.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/02/22/virgin_media_superhub_fail/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/04/19/virgin_media_superhub_still_wobbly/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/04/20/virgin_media_apology_over_media_superhub_snafu/



*9 because my own hub has issues but I didn't complain to the Register.

Re: Superhub is nowhere near as bad as people say!
 

No, my head is not in the sand. I have admitted the that hub has problems. The lengths VM is going to testify to that.

I just don't agree that the problems are as widespread as certain people are stating. The same group of people who have a habit of jumping on anyone who doesn't agree with them.

As for us lot being dead silent on the lengths VM are going to, well, I suggest you look at my posting history. I certainly haven't been silent, although I haven't commented on the hub recently (apart from today).