Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

no problem I will send VM a bill every month for my extra electric.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

That was quoted (at the start of this thread) as being at least 4 months away, yet Virgin chose to switch to sending only 'Super'hub 2 months ago. I'm all for trying beta-test products with willing testers, but this is imposing a half-finished release on customers who only want a working service. Until it works properly:?

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

But it is fit for purpose for most customers, who are non-technical and want a basic modem/router.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

Now, there's an assumption :rolleyes: So, what's VM's offer for those who are technical and want more than a basic modem/router? At the moment, it appears to be "tough luck".

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

Erm, an assumption based on over 30 years in IT, dealing with lots and lots of users on a day to day basis...;)

re the tough luck, most businesses base their model on providing the facilities that most people require/want, and then, if possible, something for the rest -otherwise, consumer items would be too complex for the mass market.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

I'll see your 30 years, and raise you to 34 :D Now, what's VM's offer for us?How many settings do "most people" use on their camera - or even their washing machine? But they're all there.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

They usually have one modem per platform and at present 30Mb and upwards only have the Superhub and considering that the will be a lot of money and a major contract involved it is very unlikely that a separate standalone modem will be provided in the foreseeable future.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

In other words - "tough luck". Why was Bridge mode not put in as an option from day 1?

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

I don't think it's just lack of features, it's the fact that in many cases even the basics on there aren't working correctly. It is my honest belief that some Super Hubs are fine and some aren't due to poor quality control, regardless of how much or how little data customers are moving through them.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

I have no idea as to why, but as myself and others have said you can always use an existing wireless router to provide a wider coverage in the house by connecting it to one of the Lan ports and remembering to disable DHCP, it may not be a perfect solution but it does the job.

Of course it is now only an access point but it extends the coverage which is all I want.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

I completely agree with this.

It's hard to explain why certain people have more problems than others doing the exact same thing with the same device, other than quality control issues.

What gets me is that for the past week or so, pretty much every other new thread in this forum has been "Superhub issues"

---------- Post added at 22:50 ---------- Previous post was at 22:45 ----------

Credit where it's due, thank you for using completely correct terminology here.

I understand for some people, all you need is better wireless coverage. But for some other people, reasons for using their own hardware extends far beyond this, whether they want to use a load balancer, run special services on their router, or even just a DDNS client so they can easily access their home computers from elsewhere. It's these users that are being shafted here, as the existing modems clearly do still exist, do work, and could be given to the vast majority of them. These may be a minority, but they're a vocal one. Again, being given a choice during the 6-month interim period while they sort out bridge mode would pretty much satisfy everyone, it can't be that hard...

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

We are getting very few in work and I have had none since Thursday and I have taken close to 100 calls in that period.

It maybe that they are calling later in the day after work.

Remember people in the main come on forums with an issue rather than to offer praise.

---------- Post added at 22:59 ---------- Previous post was at 22:52 ----------

But we now longer issue them as they have been superseded by Superhub and what stock we do have will run out soon enough.

As I have already stated we normally have one modem per tier and at present we have the hub for 20Mb and below and the Superhub for 30Mb and above.

Legacy customers calling in with a faulty modem will still get standard modems sent out to them, as for the VMNG300 we have never been able to send them out as they have only been replaced by engineers.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

Yes, people do come on forums when they have problems rather than when it's working fine, but the sheer number makes it look like there's something significantly worse with the SH than previous gear. And again, the user can't choose to sort it out with their own kit, because they can't bypass the SH properly.

I understand how procedure works, it's not a case of what you or another agent is able to do in terms of procedure of what is allowed by the system. It's what the strategists at the company decided to do in terms of determining that procedure.

Simply put, it was decided to not allow you to send out VMNG300 modems, it was decided that the SH should be given to users before bridge mode was available, it was decided to force everyone to get one and solve the problems later. It was decided to supersede the VMNG300 sooner, rather than later, and before it was capable of doing what everyone wanted. VM decided the needs of the few were not important enough.

We're talking about these decisions here, not what you or any other agent can do. You're constrained by the processes put in by the company, but these processes are exactly what is aggravating customers - forcing people to use a device that is, in their opinion, not fit for purpose, and not allowing them to use the old device. It's not like the old modems became illegal to produce, so someone at VM obviously decided to stop ordering them and giving them to customers. Almost all the customers not happy with the superhub would be happy with a standalone modem, but someone at VM has chosen not to allow it, and for no good technical reason.

Put it this way, given the VMNG300 is capable of supporting all currently available tiers as they are currently delivered, if procedures were to allow you to send one out to a customer who requested one, would you object? If so, why?

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

do technical customers not matter?

even for basic use it isnt 100%, even if I do just basic port forwarding on mine it stopped forwarding ports after a while. I imagine also DMZ is used by a fair few people to point to a console and for me DMZ also bolmbs out after a while.

The only thing that seems reliable on it is simply routing outgoing requests such as web page browsing.

Then we have the poor wiresless performance, another thing that affects a fair few people.

Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub
 

I've not used one, so I've no idea how it all works, but I've seen two common recommendations in the forums:

1. Use DMZ mode to allow games to work.

2. Disable firewall features as they cause poor performance.

Surely the combination of these two could mean that the user's computer is directly accessible on the Internet without any sort of firewall protection?