Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

Your comment covered the variable of range. It's true that some other kit is a poor as the Superhub - the freebie Netgear WNR200v2 I got from VM was no better than the superhubs I had but even that cheap and cheerful as it was didn't decide to go on strike for no apparent reason and refuse to accept connections after while until rebooted which is what both Superhubs did (and many others do too judging by the complaints in the VM community board).

It is a poorly specified and even more poorly tested piece of kit and to offer it as the only option on VM's top tier products does those products a serious disservice. Somebody at VM should be made to pay the price for this.

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

Mine did, and according to Ignition's recent post, it wasn't the fault of the router - it was the current darling of CF's posters, the VMNGsus™. Perhaps the reason that the WNR200O was dropped, officially, was that the suppliers didn't understand why it was performing so badly?

However, I disagree with him in as much as that it wasn't down to the VMNGsus™, it was more the task that was being asked of it.

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

NTL 256 - 11x12x2 = 265 cc
VMNG300 - 16x14x4 = 896 cc
'superhub' - 20.5x19x5 = 1947.5 cc

:confused: They all do the same thing (once 'superhub' bridge mode finally escapes). What happened to electronics getting smaller?
I don't think more than twice the size counts as 'not much bigger'!

I have a 5 year old laptop that works out at 1937.5 cc. It has everything you'd expect a laptop to have, including Wifi, and its still smaller that a 'superhub'. What, exactly, is in that case that requires so much room?

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

But they aren't all designed to do the same thing, so whether they can be made to do the same thing is irrelevent

Volume and dimensions are not the same thing you know. If you have a laptop that is smaller than the SuperHub it must have a very very small screen

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

They're not writing it. It was there from day 1 via the ssh interface. All they're doing is writing a GUI for it, having closed off the ssh access. The facts that they seem surprised that customers want it, and that they left the ssh access open in the first place, shows a sad lack of knowledge about their customers.Other reasons including: they've spent a lot of money on it to fit their particular network needs, and they think its far superior to the 'superhub's lowest-possible capabilities. Again, a sad lack of knowledge about their customers.

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

Which means they are writing the modem mode that will be delivered - including the GUI. Whether it was previously available via SSH or not isn't what I was referring to.

And that particular bit of the argument has been gone over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over etc

We are where we are.

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

What we don't seem to know is if Virgin Media asked any customers what they wanted before they commisioned the Superhub design and, if they did, how many customers they asked, and what the responses were. I don't remember how exactly the Superhub came to be. I think I just read about how it was coming on here. Was there a consultation and, if so, how extensive was it? If there was no consultation, who at Virgin Media made the decisions about the initial specification of the Superhub and, besides the "technical support savings" arguement, what were the reasons for designing it as it currently is?

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

I ran mine on both my original 20Mbps modem whatever that was - supplied about 18 months back and as it "just worked" I had no interest in it whatsoever. I also piggybacked it on the Superhub (double NAT) when I finally got fed up with the WiFi problems. It never required a reboot.

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

I went over that earlier.

One of the main reasons for the SuperHub was to reduce customer issues immediately after install - the main one was issues setting up the supplied router with the modem

So that's the reason for a combined unit, because it reduces the setup complexity.

As to why the particular version of the SuperHub was chosen, I have no idea as I had no involvement in that.

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

NTL 256 and VMNG300 are both simply SACMs. Why is the newer one 3+ times the volume of the other?

When it comes to finding somewhere to put it in the house, volume is as relevant as any other measurement. I can't get a VMNG300 now, they'll only supply a 'superhub'; it's 7+ times the volume, and can't be used 'flat' because of the cabling arrangements. If I choose to use it in modem mode, I need to re-arrange a whole workspace, just to get the same function that I have now. Why?

The laptop's 31x25x2.5. Perfectly functional as a business device. I did say it was 5yo.

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

The VMNG300 is bigger than the 256 because one is DOCSIS 2 and the other is DOCSIS 3. The SuperHub is bigger than the VMNG300 because it also is a router and includes antenna for that internally to the housing, which I assume have to be a certain distance away from the main electronics to avoid interferance etc

But it's not. It's just over twice the volume of what you would have got had the SuperHub not been introduced - the VMNG300. You can't compare the SuperHub with the 256

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

When I said "besides the technical support savings arguement" (or words to that effect) I was referring to exactly what you have exampled here. Reducing customer issues immediately after install is, as far as I am concerned, a part of providing technical support savings. :)

I'd like to know what customer consultation, if any, occured regarding what customers might have wanted from the Superhub. Perhaps there wasn't any because VM made an assumption that most people wanted a combined modem/router which didn't support bridge mode?

Ben it is a great pity that you didn't have involvement with the initial design of the Superhub, given the amount of time you spend on forums liasing with customers. One would have thought it obvious that you would have a tremendous amount of insight into what customers might want. Indeed you've already stated that you think bridge mode should have been made available in the Superhub from the start. It seems like VM just went ahead and produced a specification before comitting to manufacturing the device, without taking any of the feedback you could have provided from users on forums into account. One wonders why they bother continuing with your role, which I assume they pay you for, if they don't take into account anything you report back. :)

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

I agree they are both oversized but neither are quite as voluminous as their dimensions suggest - both have curved sides which probably reduces those numbers by ~ 20% or so. Not that you can make any use of that space of course. If you want to calculate the space needed for them to be used the non-conventional Superhub connectors make them even worse than the figures suggest.

I suspect they were made large to reduce the chances of them overheating even when crammed up against some other kit. I've no idea why the connectors are set out as they are unless it was for the same reason.

---------- Post added at 22:40 ---------- Previous post was at 22:37 ----------

I suspect less than 0.01% of VMs customers use forums like this one at all. I also doubt that Ben gets a red cent for posting here.

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

We shall have to agree to disagree on the benefit of reducing customer frustration.

I can't comment on things in which I had no involvement.

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

I don't think we have done. I agree that customer frustration in respect of making two pieces of hardware work together should try to be reduced and I can see that the Superhub was designed to try to do that. Obviously the designers have also frustrated other customers, at the moment, by not offering bridge mode so those wanting to upgrade for better speed are required to reconfigure the way their other network equipment works. The possibility of that appeared not to occur to Virgin Media at the time, which seems to point to lack of customer consultation (i.e. a mistake) or hoping that nobody would miss bridge mode capabilities (as offered by a modem) which is pushing customers to conform to a more controlled experience for all manner of possible reasons (including reducing technical issues).

Well you already commented that you think the Superhub should have had bridge mode since day one, so you can in some respects. What you probably mean is you cannot comment on why you weren't involved in the Superhub design because you weren't consulted! Could you possibly find out what consultation with customers was done, if any, and why you, who work for VM and have a good idea of the opinions of many customers via the forums, weren't consulted and let us know (if you're allowed to)? :)