Quote:
Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq
I don't want it, people with a broken service want it. As far as people who want it are concerned, they want to use their own equipment because the Superhub doesn't do what they need.
|
Yes, but can it ever do what I need?
Quote:
|
The majority of them right now are complaining about it failing at its more advanced routing functions, which bridge mode is only a workaround for. [...] If the Superhub worked the way it is expected to for everyone bridge mode would not be necessary.
|
That may be true for the majority, but not everyone. I have a number of issues with it as a concept:
1. Security
2. Functionality
3. Performance
1. Security is an unknown. It may be fine, but may not. People always call these devices routers, when they are really firewalls. If someone finds a hole in a superhub, that's a LOT of holes.
2. Simply put, the feature set will be aimed at the majority of users. It'll be simple to use rather than technical and functionally complete. I don't see there ever being a "one size fits all" solution for this.
3. Just because it has a gigabit port, doesn't mean it can cope with a gigabit of traffic. Generally, for the purposes of throughput, packets/second is more important than bandwidth. Does Virgin list its performance? No. Even Netgear for its equivalent model doesn't.
Basically, to me it's an unknown. If it works as well as a cable modem in bridge mode (or preferably better!) then that's fine. But if it doesn't, then it will be a problem for me.
I moved away from VM (then NTL) for a year due to network problems. After my year was up I had no problems switching back. A large part of this was due to Netgear ADSL routers which don't look so dissimilar to this. It wasn't the ADSL part that was the problem ...
Right now, I'm happy with my cable modem, and there's no way I'm going to upgrade and risk a superhub. When bridge mode is available, I might consider it, but what do I do if it doesn't work as expected?