Originally Posted by jb66 (Post 35520690)

Its capable but 30meg on each downstream channel is a big ask 24/7

Originally Posted by General Maximus (Post 35520686)

nice on dude, you should email that to everyone at VM, especially the customer service plebs who tell you you need a shub in order to receive a speed upgrade.

Originally Posted by General Maximus (Post 35520686)

nice on dude, you should email that to everyone at VM, especially the customer service plebs who tell you you need a shub in order to receive a speed upgrade.

Originally Posted by broadbandking (Post 35520715)

No need to call them plebs, most people in customer services are told this information by the higher ups, plus with VM rolling out more than 4 channels which the VMNG300 can only handle, I understand you think its a great modem but its about time you stop with this we all understand you prefer the VMNG300 to the snub.

Originally Posted by broadbandking (Post 35520715)

No need to call them plebs, most people in customer services are told this information by the higher ups, plus with VM rolling out more than 4 channels which the VMNG300 can only handle, I understand you think its a great modem but its about time you stop with this we all understand you prefer the VMNG300 to the snub.

Originally Posted by jb66 (Post 35520690)

Its capable but 30meg on each downstream channel is a big ask 24/7

Originally Posted by General Maximus (Post 35520872)

it has got nothing to go with me liking the vmng300 and not liking the shub. It is to do with how comfortable VM seem to be getting in lieing to customers, especially when it involves them palming off rubbish cpe to customers which only causes more problems which can be entirely avoided if they they did what they were supposed to and upgraded the customer or provided a decent explanation why not.



I agree and rather than VM blaming the vmng300 for speed and saying it cant do it, I would rather them come out with something like "whilst many customers may enjoy full speed on their vmng300 due to the technology we employ on our network we recommend customers upgrade to the superhub as they will be more likely to achieve full speed". It is VMs fault they havent got the bandwidth their for the vmng300 to use, not the modem's.

Originally Posted by Kushan (Post 35520882)

I actually agree with your sentiment, but you're wrong about VM not having the bandwidth for the Ambit 300. It's not just bandwidth, but load balancing. The more channels you're connected to, the less congestion is an issue - if one channel gets heavily congested, you've got more to make up the load. This is part of the benefit of switching to DOCSIS3 over older DOCSIS - surely you've seen people complaining about being on "a bad channel" and reboot hopping to get a better one? The more bonded channels, the better - for everyone.
Plus, Virgin has plenty of other reasons for ditching the Ambit 300 - it's out of support for one and they're currently paying through the nose for firmware updates, plus it's easier on the CS agents if they have to support less modems. Ultimately, they want everyone on a Superhub if possible.

Originally Posted by General Maximus (Post 35520887)

I understand the reasons behind the shub and why they would want everyone to have one, it makes good business sense. But, if they want to put all their eggs in one baskey so to speak then they should have made sure what they were giving out to customers was up to standard. I am not going to say anymore because I'll start the usual banter we go through everytime :)

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35520892)

Finally, VM have the unenvious task of ensuring that SNR is maintained high overall the bonded channels so that there is no tendency on one channel for irrecoverable FEC errors to occur. There's much that can go wrong with 8 bonded channels, IMO and thus infrastructure standard has to be high.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35520892)

One of my professional roles in the networking field is Performance & Reliability Engineer (for safety of life systems). At risk of blowing my credibilty, I'd agree with you on the load balancing provided that its is actually so. It is indeed right to replace all the VMNG300s with SHs so that in any area no channel imbalance is introduced.

Originally Posted by Kushan (Post 35520920)

Indeed, this is probably why Virgin tends to insist on Engineer visits for a lot of installs that could be simple modem swaps, particularly when a customer is going from DOCSIS1/2 to DOCSIS3. While it sounds daft, being that swapping a Modem is easy, as you've stated there's a lot more that can go wrong with it. You seem to see this a lot with virgin, they make questionable decisions with a hint that there's a valid reason behind it that gets lost in the ether.