Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

R27T2 was never meant to be released to any public. it was an internal technical beta that has since been superseded. Basically a functional preview of the possible GUI for modem mode.

Nah, nothing screwed up, as I said it was just an internal release with a trial GUI and someone probably got a butt kicking for pushing it out.


Phil

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

Or rather high-level complaints gave the project team a butt kicking.

Either way if they wanted to revoke the release they'd just put my CPE back in the standard firmware pool, surely.

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

Anyone else think that VM is making a big deal of adding/unlocking a very simple feature, I don't see why it would take months of dev and testing.

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

From Mark Wilkin on the VM forum

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

Another few weeks then...

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

Yes a lot of testing to make a device a pass-through brick but I guess that's just a layman's view. Maybe there are security issues present they need to secure first?

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

They've had modem mode working for ages. I'm inclined to believe that the delay is exactly what they said - because they decided to bug fix stuff in the router/wifi code before releasing it - certainly that would impact a lot more people than modem mode ever will. It will be interesting to see how well they've done that. Quite why they couldn't have satisfied those demanding modem mode earlier is a bit of a mystery to me.

I guess they are between a rock and a hard place - criticised for delays, criticised for lack of information, and absolutely crucified if this release is another cock up that screws up streaming again or something similar.

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

In which case it should have been a two release deployment, r1) modem only mode r1.1) everything else that isn't working as it's suppose to.

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

They should do a super hub and a modem only separate items. Then the customer can pick what they want.

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

Whilst I do partly agree with you, I can also understand why not. Basically they are trying to steer away from the situation of having to support multiple devices and the one fits all scenario is the simplest, most cost affective way of doing it.

To be fair, it does make very good business sense.


Phil

---------- Post added at 18:51 ---------- Previous post was at 18:45 ----------

From what I know, the firmware is not written "in house" but comes from an external source and has pretty much been re written for R28. (If anyone knows different feel free to correct me)

It could well be that the delay is there as opposed to VM. As with any company of this nature, they are always at the mercy of the supplier to some degree, in exactly the same way we are.

VM only received R28 yesterday and it will have to go through in house testing first so my estimate is approx 10 days before beta roll out


Phil

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

Sure, I understand this. Offer a modem-only solution to those who want it and charge a one off fee for the privilage, to encourage people not to take it. Also have VM disclaim responsibility for the LAN side as part of the process of a customer obtaining one.

Is it still possible for Superhub users to join the programme to receive R28 beta when it is available? If so, how? I know one who wants to join.

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

Beta applications are closed at the moment but there may be opportunities further down the line.

More info here: Super-Hub-R28-Firmware-Beta-Test

Best to keep an eye on the official vm forum.

hth


Phil

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

The NTL 256 SACM is approx 11x12x2 cm. What size is a 'superhub' in modem mode?

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

Not much bigger than the VMNG300 modem it replaces

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

Really? The VMNG300 is ridiculously huge as well? And it's just a SACM?

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

It's the box on the right
https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/...2011/07/20.jpg
From http://www.flickr.com/photos/hendry/3684687096/

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

Ta. That'll be a "yes" then, it is enormous.

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

Notice the customer's own equipment beside the beloved VMNG300. If that customer upgraded that harmony would be lost - although I'm sure that cardboard furniture would appreciate the loss in weight :)

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

That, if I'm not mistaken, is actually the netgear router VM supplied with 50mbps originally.

It was rubbish, and was soon replaced by a D-Link which was superb.

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

The Superhub is 20.5x19x5. The stand is 6 wide but the effective width is greatly increased by the connector placement esp if (like me and the VMNG300 in the photo) you have an attenuator in the coax. The VMNG300 is 16x14x4 and also looks more "designer" than functional. It would have benefited from some holes on the bottom to make it wall mountable.

TBH the sizes are not really a problem for me as the over-bright flashing lights were enough to ensure it went behind the settee anyway.

The router in the picture looks like the Netgear WNR2000v2 which I got when I signed up (20Mbps). I think VM gave out both.

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

Further to my posts where I have suggested that VM offer to supply a modem only solution to those that want it, perhaps for a one off charge to discourage people from taking it instead of the Superhub and including a disclaimer that they don't support the LAN side of things, can anyone suggest an off the shelf cable modem solution, from an appropriate manufacturer, that supports DOCSIS 3.0 and more than the 4 bonded channels (which the VMNG300 is limited to)? :)

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

And the point of that would be.....?

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

So VM procurement can fill in all the necessary order forms and paperwork in advance, ready for when they finally decide "what a great idea they had". ;) Would you mind sparing two minutes to post the links to those new modems that you have on your browser quick launch bar? It'll save others some time. :D :angel:

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

???:erm:

---------- Post added at 11:50 ---------- Previous post was at 11:49 ----------

They have stuck with the superhub this long what makes you think they will go with your idea ???

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

I'd be surprised if VM don't at least have an idea of what other solutions are on the market. :)

I wouldn't call offering an updated stand alone modem my idea. It's the obvious solution to those that want a modem only, depending on the outcome of the R28 bridge mode firmware. I do wonder why VM are going through the process of paying to write this firmware update for what is a router with a switch and wifi built in, so that it renders 90% of the device surplus to requirements. I understand the single device for "tech support" response but when the Superhub is running in bridge mode there'll be so little of the Superhub to actually support. Afterall what is there to a VMNG300 at the moment? It's plug it in and go, with a couple of status pages if you want to look at them.

Both people and businesses change their minds, adapt to new technologies, customer demands and changes in the market. VM have been offering modems for over a decade and there's going to be a number of customers who would prefer to keep the status quo. They're already relenting to some who want to keep their VMNG300 or have asked for one to replace their Superhub. Some customers will never consider a Superhub in bridge mode as keeping the status quo. Hammer to crack a nut analogy.

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

They are writing it because it's what customers have been asking for. It's a simple as that.

It's the easiest compromise for both parties. Virgin want the SuperHub as the only bit of kit going forward for quite a few reasons, some customers want to use their own kit for other reasons.

It will not be cost effective going forward (whether paid for or not) to provide a seperate hardware solution for a modem only.

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

Customers have asked for it because they want modem-like facilities and because VM are only prepared to offer this via the Superhub. Couldn't it be reasonably argued that if VM had really known what all their customers wanted, they'd have commisioned the Superhub with bridge mode in the first place or thought twice about discontinuing modem-only solutions? :)

It is if VM are adamant that they want everyone to have a Superhub, regardless of how many people decide to run it in bridge mode rendering 90% of the device superfluous. VM are going to be assuming that the vast majority of their customers will want to use the Superhub as a router rather than as a modem because otherwise they'll have commisioned a rather expensive and over specified cable modem. :)

I cannot really think why not. Charge £150, or whatever its cost is, for the modem if it makes VM happy and only buy in 500. What is there about a modem that is really there to support? It's plug in and go, once you know it's compatible with the network. The kind of people wanting it at this price won't put a burden on technical support.

Virgin Media like to offer discounts and different prices to different customers for the same thing. Why break that habit by not offering an additional piece of hardware. :)

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

I can't personally see anybody who is prepared to pay for 100Mbps being happy with the Superhub as it is today. They'll need to vastly improve the WiFi performance and reliability for sure if the two I've had are typical and as they were both identical (and defective) I imagine they were. I wasn't happy to use it on 50Mbps and if I've got a predominantly wired network. For WiFi only it would be marginal on 30Mbps imo.

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

I think that Wifi is always going to be "one of those things". There are too many variables with it (type and size of building, location of Access Point, number of wireless networks in the area) to reliably offer great wifi at high speeds for a while. I've owned a number of sets of wireless access points over the past decade and they've all been mostly junk compared to what I have now. There's always an assumption that a combined wifi product is the solution for end users but I don't think it always is. It wouldn't work for me, given where my comms kit is located. I wonder when it'll be the norm for consumer access points to support roaming between access points, without brief loss of signal when a wireless device switches between access points (not acceptable when a persistent connection needs to be maintained such as on a wireless VOIP handset), and also for the same devices to support wifi provision on 2.4Ghz and backhaul to other access points on 5.0Ghz (means the additional access points, located around the bulding, only need to be powered rather than also connected to LAN via wired Ethernet).

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

I completely agree that the SuperHub should have had bridge mode from the beginning. I personally have no idea why it wasn't. However it is being added, so Virgin have realised it needs to be there because of the customer requests.

I can pretty much guarantee that most customers with the SuperHub are using it as a router and will continue to do even after modem mode is available

But you can't assume that they won't. Support costs don't go away once a bit of kit is installed. You also have to consider it at network upgrades, product launches, and training of staff etc. That is the flip side to the Hubs, it's there to reduce Virgin's costs of equipment supply alongside the customer benefits of easier setup and installation.

The two are not the same thing

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

The reason the Superhub didn't have bridge mode from the beginning will likely be either:

a) The VM team that designed the Superhub specification wanted all customers to use their router and only as a router, so the company could further control the experience of their customers and perhaps be able to roll out features such as public wifi like "BT Fon".

or

b) The VM team really didn't believe that any customers would want bridge mode and to supply their own router, perhaps because they didn't ask any before finalising the specification.

I suspect that is actually what VM are hoping, perhaps because they don't really want users using bridge mode hence why it wasn't originally offered as part of the Superhub. Sky don't want anyone using other equipment either, so don't publish the username and password required to use the ADSL with a standalone modem, and also don't offer bridge mode on their router. BT as well. Fortunately there are ways to find out the details for both Sky and BT without too much difficulty.

What were all these customers mostly doing before they received the Superhub? Plugging their computer directly into a modem or supplying their own router? How many of those using the Superhub in router only mode will be doing double-NAT with their previous router just plugged into the Superhub because they don't understand why their old router is superflous, or cannot be bothered to switch to the wifi within the new Superhub? :)

How different is the standard 10Mbit hub from the Superhub? There are two different pieces of equipment, so why not offer a third in limited supply as I have already discussed. Of course there will be some costs and considerations but I cannot believe they will be so significant. I suspect when a Superhub user experiences a problem in bridge mode, in the future, the tech support will immediately tell the user to revert to router mode as part of the diagnosis script. I can tell you that if I was told to do that, I would be annoyed. :)

No, but my point is not every customer has the same requirements so not all should be treated the same. If some want to pay for a standalone modem, which they've had for free for a decade, consider offering it. :)

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

Nope. The SuperHub cannot do this, as I said earlier

Possibly, because the majority of customers don't and won't use bridge mode, because they would much rather 'plug in and go' - which they weren't doing before. They were getting the modem installed and then phoning Virgin because they could get the router to work with the modem for whatever reason or get the router set up on Wireless etc.

Or possibly using the Virgin supplied router that Virgin were doing since 2008

Very little. If they are, then that's their own choice. But then I don't believe the majority of customers are that ignorant of how to follow the setup instructions provided with the SuperHub.

Not very. To be honest, I don't expect the 10Mbit Hub to be around indefinately. Once the costs to make the SuperHub reduce enough, then I bet everyone will get one

Actually I'm guessing they'll treat it exactly the same as they do with the current standalone modems and ask a customer to connect their PC direct to the correct 'modem only' port of the SuperHub to rule out any problems with the customers own router.

Not going to happen.

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

I know it cannot do this at the moment but could it be made to do this with a firmware upgrade? If you've answered this question, this particular way, before I apologise. I know "BT Fon" like services were previously mentioned to a degree.

For all those that couldn't get their own or VM supplied router working with their VM supplied modem, how many had already got it working and were happily using the service without difficulty? Why force them to change? :)

Hopefully not, but some might consider it easier to plug their already working combined router/wireless access point into the Superhub rather than reconfigure # number of devices to use a new wireless network. It depends how bothered they are and it's something VM won't be able to collect statistics about.

I also thought this.

I hope so. When bridge mode is active on a Superhub, does only port 1 on the LAN side of the device function for pass through or do all four work as one and the same?

Probably not but people do change their minds! Perhaps we'll see why VM want to push the Superhub so much in the coming years. It is all about giving VM more control over the user experience, for whatever reasons they decide to state. Aside from reduced support costs, and related matters, I suspect that other commercial benefits will be revealed. ;) I'll also be interested to see how long VM allow some users to "hang on" to their VMNG300's for, if/when everyone has moved to the DOCSIS3 network, which only the VMNG300, Superless hub, and Superhub work with.

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

As far as I'm aware it won't ever be possible. The Public WiFi services Virgin are considering are in the street cabinets, not in people's homes

No-one is forcing people to change. Most people are getting a SuperHub as part of an upgrade that they have requested.

Or you change the SSID and WPA of the SuperHub to match the previous Wireless details and all wireless devices will reconnect automatically.

From what has been said by those testing it, it's a single port on the Hub

Actually it's only the VMNG300 and SuperHub that are D3. The normal Hub is the same technology as the older modems

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

By virtue of customers wishing to take advantage of improved speeds, as a result of the Internet being increasingly driven by higher volumes of data, VM are forcing people to change from a modem-only solution to a solution where they are required to have a router (which will eventually also be able to function as just a modem). The faster speeds, which the majority of people will naturally desire, are the carrot to get people to take the Superhub which has been positioned as the only technical solution for unlocking the speed increases.

Yes. Hopefully the Superhub instructions highlight this easier way of migrating multiple devices from one wireless router (or access point) to the Superhub.

I saw some line stats in a thread on the official Virgin Media forum, within the 100Mbit section I think, that seemed to indicate that in some areas VM are using 5 bonded channels to deliver DOCSIS 3 broadband via the Superhub now instead of the usual 4 bonded channels. Is this definitely the case?

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

Yes, but it's not forcing people to change. The higher speeds are advertised before people choose to change as coming the with SuperHub. The SuperHub is advertised as being an all in one device, therefore should factor into the choice that a customer makes as to whether they want to upgrade to or not

However what has been happening is that people are upgrading to products that are advertised as coming with the SuperHub and then complaining that they got a SuperHub.

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/35269428-post780.html

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

Yes it's all published beforehand but if one wishes to go beyond 20Mbit with VM, save for those who have a VMNG300 for whatever reason, one is required/obliged to change from a modem-only to a router which will eventually also offer a modem-only mode. Most people know that faster speeds will be a requirement for being able to engage in many Internet related activities that are or will be considered "everyday". VM are offering these speeds on condition that customers take this equipment which currently functions, and was always originally intended to function, quite differently to the equipment that customers have been connecting to VM with in the past, putting aside whether VM threw in a router with an older modem or not.

Given that it is likely that VM either decided they didn't want customers to continue using bridge mode when they originally designed the Superhub, but are relenting and offering this in a future firmware, or didn't do any research about how many wanted just a modem so they could continue using their own equipment, the company would have been pretty stumped if the majority of customers had said "no thanks" and stayed on DOCSIS 2 speeds or 50Mbit with a VMNG300, because they didn't want a Superhub. VM must have had a pretty good idea that that wasn't going to happen when they revised their Internet offerings to only offer the Superhub (in it's present guise) with the faster speeds. So given this assumption by VM that increased speeds outweighed everything else, in terms of how most customers perceive things, and also given that it might not have been clear to everyone upgrading their speed that the Superhub wouldn't function in modem-only mode, I do feel that by only offering the Superhub as a technical solution VM are forcing this change on customers at least to some degree. I hope you can appreciate my point. :)

Thanks. Any ideas which UBRs this is occuring on?

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

This was my situation and it took considerable effort to get VM to understand that I didn't want to be forced to take a 100Mb Superhub and that the existing equipment was (and is) doing it's job very-nicely-thank-you.

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

If VM had said to you "Superhub for 100Mbit or stay on 50Mbit with VMNG300, no other option", what would you have done?

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

The visiting tech tried that and was swiftly told to vacate my property. Then his supervisor tried the same thing. They didn't know that I'd previously had agreement with people far above their station (about keeping my current hardware) as I'd been through a long complaint with the ISPA and CISAS, ironically enough, about my VMNGsus™.

I'm a techy, by trade, so I'd done my research about the 100Mb product long before it was available in my area. After having my wallet violated when beta testing previous VM kit, I was never going to do the same thing again.

TL;DR : No 100Mb on VMNG300, no upgrade.

PS. I should also say here that if 'bridge mode' was available, and the reports were fantastic, then I'd have happily taken the Superhub and used my own gigabit/wifi router without question.

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)? :)

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

Even if I could find out, I wouldn't be allowed to post it

I would point out that quite a lot of those involved in products are also customers

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

What's DOCSIS 2 or 3 got to do with it? Are you saying the chips required for '3' need a case 3 times the size of those needed for '2'?

I do realise 'superhub' is a (basic, poorly specced) wireless router as well as a modem. That's not much help if all I want is a modem.

I can compare 256 with 'superhub', VMNG300 is not relevant; I have a 256, any change will mean I 'm provided with a 'superhub':

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

No you can't. The SuperHub is the direct replacement for the VMNG300 and a router, not the 256

So that's the size comparison you have to make.

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

Well you could ask if you could post it, before posting it, given that customer(s) are asking for an answer? :)

You mean the staff that work in VM product development are also users (aka customers) of the service? How many people are we talking about here? 5? 20? More? Less? Are some of them are on this forum? If so, are they sheepish about getting the bridge mode feature so wrong or were they just doing what they were told? :)

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

I'm not going to go down the if/why/buts any further than I already have.

Again, we are where we are. I would be fairly confident that the situation around the modem only mode will inform any future product development

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

Yes, I can. I'm comparing what I have now with what they'll give me as a replacement. Why would I care about anything in between?

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

Because if the SuperHub didn't exist, and you upgraded you would still be given a device that is bigger than what you have now. So you would still have to deal with that.

I've had both the VMNG300 and the SuperHub and they are not that much different. The major change is the orientation, which I would guess is because most people had the VMNG300 flat which is not good for airflow

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

Do you really believe (or just hope) that all the complaining about the Superhub will go away when the new firmware is released supporting bridge mode? Are they writing a bridge mode firmware for the normal hub as well? :)

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

Yes I do - the R28 firmware is design to fix a lot of the other issues along with the modem mode, and yes they are

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

But it does exist,and that's what I would have to deal with. VMNG300 is not relevant to me (but no-one has explained why it's so big).

Just on the main dimensions, Calculator tells me that 'superhub' is 70+% bigger in surface area than VMNG300.

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

Nope

Excuse the candles but on the left is the VMNG300 and on the right is the SuperHub. The VMNG300 is on a remote to take account of the stand thats on the SuperHub (but still don't think it's the right level)

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

From your picture, I'd say that kwikbreaks' dimensions are in the right proportion. The stand on 'superhub' counts, since it can't be used flat.

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

But in no way is the SuperHub '70% bigger' than what you would have got if the VMNG300 was still being installed

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

Great to hear this from a VM rep - it validates my claim all along that people are mugs for paying £30 or whatever to subsidise the cost of this hardware (that they'll never own) with the sweetener (carrot) of 'free' extra speed.

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

Er, I said everyone will get one as in everyone who take out broadband will get one rather than some getting the D2 Hub and some get the D3 SuperHub

Wasn't commenting on the £30 activation fee.

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

The same 'fee' that will suddenly disappear to clear out the last few hangers-on with old Docsis 2 kit they need clearing off the network. Shall we say under 12 months?

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

Not involved in pricing decisions so can't speculate lol

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

VMNG300 with router for 50Mbps service was rolled out at some point in 2008. Superhub (all in one) was rolled out at the end of 2010.

IMO that basically means we're looking at 18+ months of time VM had to create the "one box to replace them all" solution not counting other stuff they've rolled out like the regular hub. Yet even given that quite generous amount of time, the buggy superhub which is finnicky with certain headends/customer setups was the best they could do.

Logically speaking, expecting the "fixing" process to be any more efficient and timely considering the previous errors (including pre-bugfix VMNG300, incidentally) was optimistic at best, deluded at worst.

But that's okay, because it means threats to VM's dominance have more time to catch up, which makes the whole broadband market more competitive and benefits the customers. So as annoying as it is now, these costly mistakes will quite likely end up being great news for everyone that isn't VM (competitors, customers not going to the CEO's office even when their superhubs act up etc).

The smart move is, if you're in a position to get a VMNG300 and ignore the superhub entirely, that's what you should do. :)

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

What has made you assume that Virgin Media begun designing the Superhub right after the VMNG300 was released with the 50Mbit product? They might have started thinking about it well before then, or a long time after. :) The two projects aren't connected.

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

This is a really good point many customers will have built up their own networks, in my case totally Apple

I use a Time Capsule for wireless and network storage use and used an old ntl modem to feed in the broadband

I gave the Superhub a go while the bridge Mode patch was being finalised, but soon had to abandon it, as the 2.4 channel degraded my Apple Network,

And the Wireless performance just did not come up to the standard I have got used to with the Time Capsule

The Time Capsule accepts connections in either 2.4 or 5 Mhz without user involvement so in a mixed environment devices connecting to the network will be allocated the correct channel by the Time Capsule

Using the SuperHub my Macbook and Apple TV suffered a noticeable drop in network speed as they are 5 MHz but were forced to use the 2.4 channel

I couldn't set the 5 MHz as default as all 2.4 devices would not connect, so I now have the Hub set just as a modem and to pass through the broadband to my TC , which takes care of the wireless in my case this is a perfect solution

Hopefully the R28 patch will fix this issue for all others like me that want to use their own equipment for wireless

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

16x14 = 224. 20.5x19 = 389.5. 389.5 / 224 = 1.738839285714286. Nearly 74% bigger. Unless your calculator comes up with different numbers.

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

The hardware and firmware are both already capable of it.

---------- Post added at 01:51 ---------- Previous post was at 01:44 ----------

We do know and they did. VM knew customers wanted bridge mode well in advance of the Superhub ever being released. Various beta testers on this forum can attest to have told them personally.

---------- Post added at 01:55 ---------- Previous post was at 01:51 ----------

The wireless and router hardware used in these things is roughly the size of a one pound coin. Hardly explains nor justifies the rest of the size increase.

Again, I could tape a router, two VMNG300 circuits and a switch together and fit it in a box smaller than the SH.

---------- Post added at 01:57 ---------- Previous post was at 01:55 ----------

Were you involved in the development of the Superhub? Because you seem to be commenting on it quite a lot.

---------- Post added at 01:59 ---------- Previous post was at 01:57 ----------

From what was said earlier it seems the designers offered a bridge mode and VM purposefully disabled it.

---------- Post added at 02:03 ---------- Previous post was at 01:59 ----------

It doesn't "fix" the fact that some people just don't want it.

You can fix a knife all you want but if all I want is a fork, you can damn well keep it.

---------- Post added at 02:10 ---------- Previous post was at 02:03 ----------

I'd say the volume of space taken by the SH in use is about double that of the VMNG300, based on the fact the cables stick out sideways and therefore consume the same amount of space again.

On the other hand the VMNG300 doesn't include a router, so unless you took the casing off and combined a router into it, you'd have to add the seperate space of the router into consideration, and it's not a whole lot different.

That said it's still a lot bigger than it needs to be, and if airflow was really the problem, we have this wonderful invention called a fan. Still, some people have reported the SH consumes 3-5x as much power as your average router, and therefore probably produces considerably more heat, and fanless solutions being preferable that *might* explain the extra size. More an excuse than justification but that's the only thing I can think of.

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

Mine consumes just over twice as much power, then my previous Ambit256+Router together, and I can't see any logical reason for this. A slight increase, yeah, but double that of two seperate pieces of equipment?

That said, it's been stable. It used to require a daily reboot, but a while ago, it went down for a few, when it came back, it had a new firmware revision on it, and its been rock stable since. However, I'd still prefer a true bridge mode, so I can use my own router without having to faff about with DMZ's. Mostly because my own router lets me monitor usage, without having to install a monitoring program on all of my devices. Something thats even more of a concern since VM started sending people "detrimental use" letters (no, I've not got one, and nor do I want one).

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

I notice a power usage increase when I installed the Hub, :shocked:

but once I saw the Hub in a dark room, I could see why,

surely there is no logical reason to have the Status lights and the Virgin Logo so bright, in a dark room it looks like a disco light show,

Blue and green flashing from the side and the same with a grid pattern from the top :cool:

---------- Post added at 13:32 ---------- Previous post was at 12:44 ----------

The superhub seems to be out of proportion to its capabilities IMO,

I use the Superhub together with an Apple Time Capsule

My Time Capsule is slightly smaller and has an integral PSU a fan two wireless antenna's and a 1TB hard Drive in a similar space

The TC also delivers automatic dual channel connections and is far more stable again IMO,

I can only think that the housing on the HUB aids cooling a well as providing an illuminated Virgin Logo for all to see :)

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

So I've just had my first look at the insides of a Superhub and a basic teardown of the components. I'll post a more comprehensive info later, but long story short, it's a Netgear CG3101D v2 (which we already knew). It's an all Broadcom solution built around a Broadcom BCM3380 SoC (which some already knew) - it's a fairly common and reasonably stable (but outdated) SoC found in a few Cisco CPE's as well so by the looks of it most of the problems are firmware related, not crappy hardware.

I won't bother arguing for or against VM botching the firmware for their own reasons but hopefully it'll get fixed in time rather than being permanantly faulty. That said it's made in china and the circuit layout is pretty meh, so it might be built cheap too. I'd need a closer look to figure that out for sure.

On another note the wireless comes as a seperate mini-pci card (of the type commonly found in laptops) which makes it bigger, more complex, more expensive, and more power consuming that it needs to be, though it does let VM upgrade the wireless independantly without needing a new MB for the SH.

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

Great Post been looking for this info myself, just out of interest looking from the front, i.e. Virgin Logo facing you

what are the positions of the antenna and are they separate or integral with the circuit board

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

Sorry, not my Superhub so I can't say - someone else is helping me with pictures of the insides of theirs.

The antennas are not integral - as the wireless chip is on a mini PCI card, the antennas are mini PCB antennas connected via a cable and U.FL connector - pretty much the same configuration as any laptop really. There's two of them but I don't know the positions. I'll try and find out.

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

Ok yes understand that thanks for the info, still trying to get a circuit diagram

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

Will it boot with the wireless mini-PCI card disconnected?

May be a way to save power in bridge mode.

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

Fair point. I'm merely remarking that given a maximum time frame of 18 months, the woeful superhub is the best VM (in cahoots with Netgear) have been able to manage. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the superhub was designed/built/marketed in about 3 months, because it certainly has all the finesse of a device in extended beta (i.e. completely unfinished before release, like Windows Vista).

...and doesn't qas have a nice way of cutting straight to the quick? ;)

Basically you want to hide the superhub away in a cupboard because of the lights, yeah? I know I did when I had it running. The lights gleam out the front and spill out from all the air vents too. Those LEDs aren't only too bright, but because the case has vents on it will light up any room you put it in.

Let's fact it, the superhub is terrible from both an aesthetic and technical performance aspect. It's an offense, lacklustre piece of junk masquerading as flagship hardware.

No surprise there. I'm not the most technically adept but my experience with Broadcom-based hardware had been positive until the superhub came along. It's amazing how poor firmware can cripple a reasonable hardware solution; the Broadcom based Linksys WRT54GS v2.1 I have (100Mbps/54Mbps G for everyone else, remember) can still offer better performance despite older hardware.

Jesus. My six-year-old Dell D810 sports a Mini-PCI. Difference is, the Atheros-based TP-Link 300Mbps wireless N device I have shoehorned in there has nice, stable drivers able to handle about 12.5MB/s sustained transfers (limited by old single-core CPU, often) on a good N router. Wish I could say the same about the superhub at even HALF that speed.

Poor design on a supposedly "flagship" device. I mean, this kind of tech was dated when my laptop was released in 2005, so now it just looks like a joke.

I suppose the real question is, who sweet-talked VM into believing this was a good solution? Even putting aside that non-integrated mini-PCI solutions are more expensive to mass-manufacture (a good reason why the Linksys WRT54G v1.0 had mini-PCI and pretty much all the successors had it integrated on the mobo.)

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

:) yes your right, and now I don't need the wireless function of the Hub and just using it as a modem I can hide it away in a cupboard

I spent a fair amount of my later working life setting up and supporting fixed and wireless Networks, and just can't understand the patchy wireless performance from the Hub

from the limited information I have gleaned, I suspect the resistance on the antenna's change due to heat

if in fact they are mounted as silver strips on the circuit board, the power to them will be in milli watts, and the heat generated inside the Hub could affect their operation

This would go some way to explaining how the wireless performance can change several times in a day from "good" through to "no connection "and then back again

Aw well just a theory, but it does intrigue me,

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

That's not it...

The resistivity and thermal expansion changes would be way too small to produce any noticeable change in performance imo.

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

Sorry guys, a correction here - it's mini PCIe not mini PCI as I previously stated - I forgot to put in the 'e' earlier :-P

And indeed, temperature changes are unlikely to be the cause, as in these situations it seems like people's laptops can 'see' the Superhub but it doesn't respond when trying to connect to it - more likely a firmware bug.

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

Not quite as primitive but still hardly the sort of non-integrated solution you'd want to put in a mass-manufacture device. It's not like you're ever going to change the mini PCIe wireless module for something else. :D

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

When should the final version be released? our superhubs reset itself twice this morning.

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

It's not user changeable for sure but it gives VM/Netgear a relaively cheap upgrade path should they decide to fit something better. The cable modem/router isn't likely to change for quite some time but WiFi is still moving forward. Upgrading to something that actually works would be a good start...

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

"Amen" to that

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

The bean-counters. It can only have been about price; not whether it works, meets customer needs, is upgradable ...

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

Indeed. Getting rid of the superhub should be a top priority. Standing behind the "well, it works for some users" isn't an adequate defense. Especially in cases where it only works because those particular users are placing VERY low demands on the device.

Ah, so that's where the short-term planners from the banks went after they got fired. Mystery solved! :D

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

I dreaded getting the superhub but so far it's been excellent (to my amazement)

Speeds and ping are fine, wired to my ps3 is lag free gaming and I'm currently on my laptop in the back garden with the superhub (behind my tv) at the front side of the house 40 yards away. No problems

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

I don't think anyone could fault the Hub on it's wired performance, it's solid and reliable :)

But in my case I'm not able to say the same about it's wireless performance

Maybe the beta testing of R28 and it's impending release will improve it :erm:

until then I continue to rely on my Time Capsule to take care of the wireless side of my network

Hopefully your positive experience will continue :cool:

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

From the VM beta forum

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

Woop woop. Another delay.

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

I don't get what that the business about them receiving the firmware last week was. Surely the firmware should be developed with VM engineers involved and testing as it goes along, rather than providing a download for VM to test and then they find bugs and the firmware developers have to fix it and then send another update to VM.

Seems to be a very bizarre way of developing this, but then the whole process has already shown that VM/Netgear know nothing about software development.

Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
 

It's fairly standard. Whoever's got the contract to develop the software provides occasional 'code drops' for the customer to try out and report back on. Maybe this hasn't happened often enough in this case; but why should VM spend staff time on a process that they're paying someone else to provide.