Quote:
Originally Posted by zekeisaszekedoes
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.
|
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 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Masque
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.
|
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...