View Single Post
Old 16-02-2011, 14:54   #44
qasdfdsaq
cf.mega poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 11,207
qasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronze
qasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronzeqasdfdsaq is cast in bronze
Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub

I personally don't trust any figures Smallnetbuilder report, as their numbers have always been consistently well below what I get with the same devices.

I've gotten well above 90mbps on my 615 from WAN to LAN, and on wireless tests I can get over 180mbps on devices that they claim don't go above 80mbps.

Even if the 615 is incapable *and* 100mb requires the Superhub (which it doesn't right now) we've still got the issue that VM are not giving users with problems the option to get a standalone modem - even for 30mb and 50mb - and properly use their own router or no router at all. Until the Superhub is mature enough to work for 100% of users instead of just 95%, those last 5% should be given a choice.

Also I don't know of any other consumer ISP that actually doesn't give users the option of using their own modem or router at all, granted VM have never let users supply their own modem but for now own routers don't work properly either. And even when bridge mode comes out, it won't be a true layer-2 bridge device, it will still still function as a layer-3 router (even if only in a minimal capacity) and could still have routing bugs if they don't implement it properly.
qasdfdsaq is offline   Reply With Quote