[Traduk]

You are right inasmuch as it is a mass market product using the "stack it high and sell it cheap principles". Unfortunately to achieve the mass market objectives there are constraints concealed within the service which make the service seriously limited but the masses may never notice or be sophisticated enough to realise that quality is poor.

During the farce of dealing with VM re; the 30meg upgrade I was determined not to be placed under contract and achieved that objective. The reason was that VM are persistently looking for ways to get a quart out of a pint pot and breaking usability.

Sure enough after a few days of liaising with the IT specialists of a massively expensive service, I subscribe to, it is evident that VM are dropping established ports after a time of inactivity. VM have broken one of my primary reasons for having the internet but fortunately my ADSL is not broken in any shape or form and never will be according to the ISP.

The new not so Superhub has not caused these problem as logs showed the problem from the beginning of February (several days before the new Superhub).

I have seen a post in over threads re; "keep alive". It is not the Superhub, its in the system.

In its current state VM's service is interfering with my usability of the network and for my part the rapidly approaching local uplift to FTTC via my current quality ISP can not come soon enough.

Your reply points towards "you get what you pay for" and you are right but at some historic points in time VM offered both price and quality concurrently. Quality is sliding, price is cheap and before long it will warrant the usual adjective that goes with cheap and ....