Originally Posted by KenK (Post 35243648)

No, they're links to someone else's post. Post a link to the T&Cs that says people can't comment on VM's equipment, or naming thereof.

Originally Posted by jb66 (Post 35243657)

My point is for some reason your docsis 3 hub works, the majority I install do but alot can only achieve 35meg wireless. Also I'm consistently trucked to 'downstream 10db' and when I arrive it turns out to be a wifi rebooting issue.

Basically the customer upgraded to 30, the wifi is crap, called support, they don't know why it drops wifi so sends me to attenuate, still drops wifi so I swap hub, still drops wifi....

Never once had this issue with dlink

Originally Posted by Masque (Post 35243650)

As Paul M is a member of the team and a Site Administrator I think what he says goes somehow, and that is lifted from the site Terms and Conditions thread.

Originally Posted by TJS (Post 35243664)

look at the name of the thread the post is in :)

Originally Posted by Stephen (Post 35243667)

That is a post from Paul M who is part of the Cable Forum Team. Stating that name calling of Vm or their products will not be accepted on the site, as per the t&cs.

Originally Posted by TJS (Post 35243673)

https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/...2011/05/43.png

This is around 20 foot away; upstairs; and behind a steel RSJ.

And your trying to say theres problems with the wifi?

Originally Posted by KenK (Post 35243674)

Amazing. In less than an hour, this has gone from a comment on VMs marketing name for a routine piece of kit, to a t&cs discussion of whether I'm allowed to call it names or not. For the record, I haven't invented any other name for it, just questioned VM's choice.

I thought this was a discussion forum but it seems I'm wrong - it appears to be Paul M's playground, and I don't understand the rules, so I'm outta here.

Originally Posted by Masque (Post 35243678)

So sites are not supposed to have rules...

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35243684)

IIt is not feature rich. I've no problem with that because it is a give-away. But VM's arrogance in forcing people to have this wretched device without offering, say, a paid for alternative, is for me the main problem.

Originally Posted by KenK (Post 35243687)

Of course they should have rules - I'm just struggling to find them written down anywhere.

Originally Posted by KenK (Post 35243687)

Of course they should have rules - I'm just struggling to find them written down anywhere.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35243684)

If the inaptly named Superhub was nowhere near as bad as people say, why are people saying it?

It is buggy.

It was ill conceived at launch for lack of bridge mode and it's taken some 6 months to get that to release/test.

It is not feature rich. I've no problem with that because it is a give-away. But VM's arrogance in forcing people to have this wretched device without offering, say, a paid for alternative, is for me the main problem.

LOL that certain VM employees are so defensive of this awful device.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35243693)

They're applying the perfectly reasonable rule that says you mustn't call Virgin Media Mod Edit or Mod Edit

Personally I think it's a big leap to call the Superhub something else and then be stamped on for that opinion using that particular rule.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35243695)

Here you go

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/about/21...and-conditions

Originally Posted by KenK (Post 35243724)

Thanks. Where does the ban on "silly childish names" come from?

I suppose it's under Site Owners Prerogative, which roughly translates as "we can make it up as we go along!"

Originally Posted by KenK (Post 35243624)

"Hub"? No, its a combined cable modem, router, and wireless access point. That's not rocket science.

Originally Posted by Stephen (Post 35243645)

Took me longer to post as using my iPad lol.

Originally Posted by TJS (Post 35243673)

And your trying to say theres problems with the wifi?

Originally Posted by Masque (Post 35243678)

If the were no rules then this site would just meltdown plus I expect no Virginmedia staff would post here in any capacity as they would feel intimidated.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35243684)

It is not feature rich. I've no problem with that because it is a give-away. But VM's arrogance in forcing people to have this wretched device without offering, say, a paid for alternative, is for me the main problem.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35243684)

LOL that certain VM employees are so defensive of this awful device.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35243684)

LOL that certain VM employees are so defensive of this awful device.

Originally Posted by Masque (Post 35243753)

The are well in excess of 200,000 of these devices on the network and we have a few people on forums complaining which makes up a very small percentage of complaints.

Originally Posted by kwikbreaks (Post 35243754)

Presumably the rest just think it's an unreliable network. Mine works OK wired but using the WiFi for anything much past phone browsing is usually enough to kill the WiFi. Those who only use WiFi will see this as an outage and the vast majority are ill equipped to work out the cause.

Originally Posted by jb66 (Post 35243623)

No It's not, how can it be called super when it's dreadful, the regular hub is better than the souperhub. I agree virgin started it, they've called a pile of plastic poo a 'superhub'

I've had my vmng300 for two weeks now and it's never rebooted once, wifi has been solid and it's kept the ssid I set

Originally Posted by lowei (Post 35243767)

These few people complaining have made VM introduce new firmware, I think not.
It's got to be a lot more than a few

Originally Posted by Masque (Post 35243755)

I have 2 networks one being the Superhub network itself and the other being my Edimax router acting as an Access Point

Originally Posted by Stephen (Post 35243774)

I am sure VM would still be introducing newer firmware regardless of a few people complaining on a forum ;)

Originally Posted by Masque (Post 35243755)

My wifi works fine and I have 2 networks one being the Superhub network itself and the other being my Edimax router acting as an Access Point and my phone always seems to choose the Superhub network regardless of where I am in the house.

Originally Posted by kwikbreaks (Post 35243781)

I don't doubt that your hub is fine - mine is too apart from the sparse feature set which on a giveaway unit is understandable and the dodgy WiFi which is less so - as the WiFi problem seems to be widespread maybe it is a common hardware fault - do you think I should call in for a replacement?

Originally Posted by Stephen (Post 35243796)

Who is being rude to customers? Any staff post here personally and can offer support and help where needed. It is in no way official.

Also it doesn't help that some people constantly put down the superhub and all we are doing is counteracting that with some facts that not everyone finds it terrible.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35243792)

I have no idea when VM staff took it upon themselves to largely quit being helpful and start being wilfully argumentative with customers. Maybe I'm feeling nostalgic for when ntl (were no Telewest guys on here) staff bent over backwards to try and fix issues for customers, and tried to treat people with respect unless they were really going OTT. Maybe there's some corporate theme going here given which of the parent companies the more argumentative people come from.

Originally Posted by Stephen (Post 35243796)

Who is being rude to customers? Any staff post here personally and can offer support and help where needed. It is in no way official.
[SEPH]: Your tone of remarks was very clear to any reader. Lowei made the respectable point that these "few" complaining customers have driven the firmware changes that have proved the device to be lame, buggy and unworthy of VM's otherwise good name.


Also it doesn't help that some people constantly put down the superhub and all we are doing is counteracting that with some facts that not everyone finds it terrible.
[SEPH]: Who is the "we" here? A moderator? A moderator acting as private individual? A VM employee who has interests different from the customers? Igni makes some strong points in this regard

Originally Posted by Masque (Post 35243809)

We are still helpful as our posts show just people feel that we should not say that our equipment works.

Originally Posted by Masque (Post 35243797)

If you are having issues then call in and you will either be sent a replacement or a technician to replace it.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35243814)

No, the problem is that you are saying that you feel people should not say that your equipment doesn't work and rounding on them when they do.

They are as entitled to their opinion, ignorant and misguided as it may be, as you are. Constantly repeating that your own equipment is working perfectly as some kind of counter to someone else saying that theirs isn't working perfectly doesn't work.

My Superhub sucks when it's asked to do anything interesting and its wireless fails. It may have a manufacturing defect in addition to the well noted firmware issues, who knows.

Either way devices without significant issues don't get emergency firmware updates with hours of testing and don't get firmware updates anyway at the rate the Superhub has had them. There are, clearly, issues affecting sufficient amounts of people that firmware updates have had to be rushed to fix them.

Why can't you just accept that rather than constantly referring back to how your Superhub is fine?

Originally Posted by Stephen (Post 35243796)

Who is being rude to customers? Any staff post here personally and can offer support and help where needed. It is in no way official.

Also it doesn't help that some people constantly put down the superhub and all we are doing is counteracting that with some facts that not everyone finds it terrible.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis (Post 35243830)

Posting 100s of thousands of people as having no issues is also not fact. I wonder if I am the only one scratching head as to how jb66 has such a different experience to you guys. He works out in the field. So something is wrong with VM's internal procedures if they can misread a situation so bad.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis (Post 35243850)

I have the same ip as when using the vmng300 which suggests the superhub is passing on the router MAC properly as the end point device so to me it looks like a 100% proper bridge mode and is working fine.

Originally Posted by KenK (Post 35243674)

Amazing. In less than an hour, this has gone from a comment on VMs marketing name for a routine piece of kit, to a t&cs discussion of whether I'm allowed to call it names or not. For the record, I haven't invented any other name for it, just questioned VM's choice.

I thought this was a discussion forum but it seems I'm wrong - it appears to be Paul M's playground, and I don't understand the rules, so I'm outta here.

Originally Posted by Masque (Post 35243858)

Now that is strange as both pieces of kit will have different MAC addresses so you should not get the same public ip address.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis (Post 35243861)

no its what I expected as the router MAC is used for DHCP purposes. Or the pc MAC if the modem is connected direct to a pc.

Originally Posted by Masque (Post 35243870)

The hubs use their own MAC's and the VMNG300 uses your computers MAC so you should get completely different ip addresses.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis (Post 35243850)

sshd is still running but the port is closed of with the fw.

Originally Posted by Masque (Post 35243753)

We will have modem mode in a few weeks and 2 versions of the Superhub later in the year, then this thread or another thread will be all about trying to get the other Superhub even though both will work in exactly the same way.

Originally Posted by Masque (Post 35243755)

My wifi works fine and I have 2 networks one being the Superhub network itself and the other being my Edimax router acting as an Access Point and my phone always seems to choose the Superhub network regardless of where I am in the house.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35243792)

Repeating yourself as infinitum makes you no better than the people who say that everything VM do sucks because their service sucks.

Originally Posted by Masque (Post 35243809)

We are still helpful as our posts show just people feel that we should not say that our equipment works.

Originally Posted by kwikbreaks (Post 35243874)

They certainly panicked when they realised SSH was available LAN side.

Originally Posted by kwikbreaks (Post 35243897)

Yes they could be using some other protocol but why would they bother? Do you know whether you got a different firmware or if it was just a script that switched you to bridge mode?

Originally Posted by zekeisaszekedoes (Post 35243938)

snippetty snip....

Missing the point; you should not say that other people's equipment works just because your own does. Endless repetition is one thing: VM staff/CF moderators insinuating it's own customers/users are lying is quite another.

Snip snip.

Originally Posted by Mick Fisher (Post 35243966)

It's only because the superhub is such a poor device that the need for a thread, solely intended to defend it's reputation, has arisen.
So obvious it's really not worth mentioning but I couldn't resist. ;)

I've been with VM since it was called ComTel :D
In all those many years I cannot recall of any supplied device attracting such a furore of complaints as the superhub has done.

Originally Posted by zekeisaszekedoes (Post 35243727)

......


All your points recently have been good, especially these two. The thing is, not only is it far less than feature rich but what's there doesn't even work correctly! I've had dozens of routers, and not even the ones running betas of third-party firmware have been so buggy that the firewall must be completely switched off, to name but one of the problems the superhub has. It completely fails at basic routing tasks unless you are using it for the very lightest of networking.

Originally Posted by zekeisaszekedoes (Post 35243938)

Idle speculation, not proven fact. This is assuming the modem only mode even works properly

Originally Posted by Chrysalis (Post 35243872)

not really.

When the modem is a dumb modem (vmng300 or vmng480 in bridge mode) then the device which runs the DHCP client passes its MAC on which in my case is my dir615 router. As I was also using the dir615 with the vmng300 I get the same ip.

The vmng300 or any standalone mode will only use a pc mac if directly connected to the pc with no router or if the MAC is spoofed.

Originally Posted by Stuart (Post 35243977)

Actually, it's about 4 or 5 people (not sure of the exact numbers, but it's only a few) who are going into a lot of the threads attacking the Superhub. That's not evidence of a poor device at all.



Well, no. There aren't too many individuals. And, TBH, I don't see any difference between the tactics of the Pro SH brigade and those of the anti SH brigade.



Exactly what's wrong with that? He may not drink coffee, so may not have any real idea how good it is. Would you prefer he gave you the company line?

Originally Posted by Mick Fisher (Post 35243966)

It's only because the superhub is such a poor device that the need for a thread, solely intended to defend it's reputation, has arisen.

Originally Posted by Stuart (Post 35243977)

Actually, it's about 4 or 5 people (not sure of the exact numbers, but it's only a few) who are going into a lot of the threads attacking the Superhub. That's not evidence of a poor device at all.

Originally Posted by kwikbreaks (Post 35243970)

Getting 20Mbps on wireless suggests that you only have a G adaptor as G tops out at 22-24Mbps maximum. If that is the case you'd do no better with your old router except that turning off the hub WiFi would probably improve its stability if yours suffers from instability as many do.

Originally Posted by _wtf_ (Post 35244018)

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

Originally Posted by _wtf_ (Post 35244018)

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

Originally Posted by Mick Fisher (Post 35244010)

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

Originally Posted by Stuart (Post 35244062)

......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.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35244101)

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

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35244106)

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!

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35244106)

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!

Originally Posted by Stuart (Post 35244062)

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.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35243960)

that's a fairly major insinuation there by yourself - can you provide any examples of this, please?

Originally Posted by Mick Fisher (Post 35243966)

Reminds me of the last time I ventured into Curry's looking for a coffee maker. I asked a sales assistant for advice regarding a particular model to which he gave the stock reply "My Mum's got one and she thinks it's OK!"

Originally Posted by Stuart (Post 35243977)

Actually, it's about 4 or 5 people (not sure of the exact numbers, but it's only a few) who are going into a lot of the threads attacking the Superhub. That's not evidence of a poor device at all.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35243979)

But if the router is fronting a whole load of devices, it's right to be able to rely on the router's firewall functions.

Originally Posted by Masque (Post 35243991)

Are you making this up as you go along, as that is what this seems to me and anyone else reading this

Originally Posted by TJS (Post 35244011)

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

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35244130)

Of course, when in doubt, resort to insults - effective debating technique.:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Stuart (Post 35244145)

3) How do you know people aren't merely registering on multiple forums and posting the same things? It does frequently happen.

Originally Posted by zekeisaszekedoes (Post 35244193)

VM staff/CF members insinuating it's own customers/other members are lying is quite another.

Originally Posted by zekeisaszekedoes (Post 35244193)

Take this comment and apply it to the quote that inspired my comment in the first place, and reference that with me pointing out more than once that you tend to mix facts with your own speculation and have admitted to such even once. When I speculate (and I'm not alone) I will always try to use a qualifier prefix phrase like "I'm guessing that" or "Based on what I've seen" to distinguish it as my opinion, not a fact.

Originally Posted by Stuart (Post 35244093)

Nope. For real..

Originally Posted by Mick Fisher (Post 35244231)

Now you are just trying to wind me up and I can't be bothered to bite. :D

Originally Posted by Masque (Post 35244202)

Only in your mind as you are unwilling to believe what other people print when it is pro Superhub and as far as I am concerned that is tough luck on your part.

Originally Posted by Masque (Post 35244202)

I would love to know how you can even think that I can mix facts with speculation as you say

Originally Posted by zekeisaszekedoes (Post 35244193)

Semantics eh? Wonderful thing(s).

Another way to look at it would be there are half a dozen people eloquently and thoroughly describing the flaws in the product in great detail, and many dozens of others shooting the odd piece of dialogue into the proceedings, often agreeing with the standpoint of it being an inferior product, but not being visible enough to qualify as "the usual suspects".

Like I said, semantics. Selective interpretation. ;)

Originally Posted by Skie (Post 35244236)

I'm in Superhub perfection land and still had issues with mine.

Just a thought on the silly name thing. If you keep using the standard name for it in complaints, it means people googling will find those complaint threads better. If you use silly names, then people will just be finding masque's million + posts saying how many weeks his has been running fine for. Food for thought :p

Originally Posted by zekeisaszekedoes (Post 35244235)

Thanks for proving my point about one member throwing insinuations and character defamation out there though. This is an absolute textbook example of what I'm referring to, when one CF member trashtalks another and takes focus off the real issue, which in case you hadn't noticed I was attempting to debate at length.

Originally Posted by Stuart (Post 35244238)

However, if I were arguing semantics, I could argue that certain members (on both sides) are trying to browbeat other members into agreeing with them.

Originally Posted by zekeisaszekedoes (Post 35244193)

Sorry, was in a rush and didn't proof read properly. That should read something like:

VM staff/CF members insinuating it's own customers/other members are lying is quite another.



Ha! There's dozens of those stock phrases, isn't there? My favourite is when I went to buy some guitar strings and they didn't have the brand I wanted so offered me another one, with the old "made in the same factory mate" excuse. My reply was "Yes, they also make the Telecaster and the Stratocaster in the same factory, but that doesn't make it the same effing guitar does it?" :D



Semantics eh? Wonderful thing(s).

Another way to look at it would be there are half a dozen people eloquently and thoroughly describing the flaws in the product in great detail, and many dozens of others shooting the odd piece of dialogue into the proceedings, often agreeing with the standpoint of it being an inferior product, but not being visible enough to qualify as "the usual suspects".

Like I said, semantics. Selective interpretation. ;)



As someone who has a bunch of games consoles on the network, this is exactly the case. There needs to be at least a half-decent hardware SPI firewall on the home router, or IMO it doesn't count as a fully-fledged router (there are other conditions too but here isn't the place to debate my definition in thousand-word detail).



Take this comment and apply it to the quote that inspired my comment in the first place, and reference that with me pointing out more than once that you tend to mix facts with your own speculation and have admitted to such even once. When I speculate (and I'm not alone) I will always try to use a qualifier prefix phrase like "I'm guessing that" or "Based on what I've seen" to distinguish it as my opinion, not a fact.



That is incredibly interesting... a 12GB zip file. Was that from one wireless device to another, or a wired to a wireless? If it was the latter, what was the respective speed for each? I'm trying to validate my "bad batch" theory, and if you're able to get a big file across from gigabit LAN to 300Mbps N WLAN or vice versa then it adds weight to it. What I mean is, you might have got a good one and me a bad one for example.



I'd say "head in the sand" is a mild derogatory remark at best, barely an insult at all. Considering the frustration implied by Seph's post I'd say he'd being remarkably restrained.



You could also assume people are creating sock puppets on this forum, too. This is kinda what I mean about CF members subtly insinuating other CF members are warping the truth or what have you.[COLOR="Silver"]

---

I think the biggest insult here is superhub detractors being painted as people who just like the act of moaning and will find fault with anything VM say or do when this is somewhere between a gross over-simplification and sweeping, inaccurate generalisation.

It seems none of the pro-superhub camp, or those just trying to "keep the peace", consider that people care about other people getting a top service from their broadband connection yet based on their own experiences and those of others fear that this is not the case, and that less technically-minded people are having problems but don't have a clue why, or know how they can solve them.

This is ironic considering the superhub was rolled out to prevent exactly this kind of thing. It was supposed to be a "set and forget" device, not one that has to be rebooted all the time as has been the experience of many users whose traffic (LAN or WAN) has been above average. Or even in some rare cases when it's below average.

You'll notice, for example, that despite the fact I have a brand new VMNG300 modem I've continued to vicariously deride the superhub. My problem is solved, yes, but this has not been the case for everyone, and if dwindling supplies of the previous flagship modem are to be believed some people are either going to have to downgrade to get an Ambit 256 (excellent CPE although dated now), lump it or leave VM for one of it's lacklustre competitors.

The way I see it I want everyone to have the same outstanding service that I do, and consider it an insult to be labelled as a miscreant.

How's that for a lucid, verbose manifesto? ;)

Originally Posted by Masque (Post 35244277)

I know the Superhub haters dislike facts and then try to say otherwise especially when posted by people who work with this equipment day in day out.

Originally Posted by KenK (Post 35243674)

Amazing. In less than an hour, this has gone from a comment on VMs marketing name for a routine piece of kit, to a t&cs discussion of whether I'm allowed to call it names or not. For the record, I haven't invented any other name for it, just questioned VM's choice.

I thought this was a discussion forum but it seems I'm wrong - it appears to be Paul M's playground, and I don't understand the rules, so I'm outta here.

Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 35243859)

Originally Posted by Skie (Post 35244236)

I'm in Superhub perfection land and still had issues with mine.

Just a thought on the silly name thing. If you keep using the standard name for it in complaints, it means people googling will find those complaint threads better. If you use silly names, then people will just be finding masque's million + posts saying how many weeks his has been running fine for. Food for thought :p

Originally Posted by Stuart (Post 35244238)

I am not arguing semantics. Just figures.

Originally Posted by Stuart (Post 35244238)

I am also not arguing that it's a good product. It's not. It has faults. If those faults are fixed, it could be good. I would also like to see VM offer a choice of modem or superhub (not all of us need another router).

Originally Posted by Stuart (Post 35244238)

However, if I were arguing semantics, I could argue that certain members (on both sides) are trying to browbeat other members into agreeing with them.

Originally Posted by Masque (Post 35244277)

Glad to see that you have finally realised what you are attempting to do, the is hope at the end of the tunnel.

Originally Posted by Masque (Post 35244277)

I know the Superhub haters dislike facts and then try to say otherwise especially when posted by people who work with this equipment day in day out.

Originally Posted by Masque (Post 35244277)

I find it strange that people who do not support Virginmedia equipment and are also not trained or even have access to our tools or knowledge base can even think that we the support staff in most cases have the wrong information, anyone that thinks this needs to sit down and really have a think about such outlandish remarks.