Cable Forum - View Single Post - VM finally post news on bridge mode

qasdfdsaq · 19-02-2011, 22:10

Yes, people do come on forums when they have problems rather than when it's working fine, but the sheer number makes it look like there's something significantly worse with the SH than previous gear. And again, the user can't choose to sort it out with their own kit, because they can't bypass the SH properly.

I understand how procedure works, it's not a case of what you or another agent is able to do in terms of procedure of what is allowed by the system. It's what the strategists at the company decided to do in terms of determining that procedure.

Simply put, it was decided to not allow you to send out VMNG300 modems, it was decided that the SH should be given to users before bridge mode was available, it was decided to force everyone to get one and solve the problems later. It was decided to supersede the VMNG300 sooner, rather than later, and before it was capable of doing what everyone wanted. VM decided the needs of the few were not important enough.

We're talking about these decisions here, not what you or any other agent can do. You're constrained by the processes put in by the company, but these processes are exactly what is aggravating customers - forcing people to use a device that is, in their opinion, not fit for purpose, and not allowing them to use the old device. It's not like the old modems became illegal to produce, so someone at VM obviously decided to stop ordering them and giving them to customers. Almost all the customers not happy with the superhub would be happy with a standalone modem, but someone at VM has chosen not to allow it, and for no good technical reason.

Put it this way, given the VMNG300 is capable of supporting all currently available tiers as they are currently delivered, if procedures were to allow you to send one out to a customer who requested one, would you object? If so, why?

19-02-2011, 22:10	#118
qasdfdsaq cf.mega poster Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 11,207	Re: VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub Yes, people do come on forums when they have problems rather than when it's working fine, but the sheer number makes it look like there's something significantly worse with the SH than previous gear. And again, the user can't choose to sort it out with their own kit, because they can't bypass the SH properly. I understand how procedure works, it's not a case of what you or another agent is able to do in terms of procedure of what is allowed by the system. It's what the strategists at the company decided to do in terms of determining that procedure. Simply put, it was decided to not allow you to send out VMNG300 modems, it was decided that the SH should be given to users before bridge mode was available, it was decided to force everyone to get one and solve the problems later. It was decided to supersede the VMNG300 sooner, rather than later, and before it was capable of doing what everyone wanted. *VM decided* the needs of the few were not important enough*. We're talking about these decisions here, not what you or any other agent can do. You're constrained by the processes put in by the company, but these processes are exactly what is aggravating customers - forcing people to use a device that is, in their opinion, not fit for purpose, and not allowing them to use the old device. It's not like the old modems became illegal to produce, so someone at VM obviously decided to stop ordering them and giving them to customers. Almost all the customers not happy with the superhub would be happy with a standalone modem, but someone at VM has chosen not to allow it, and for no good technical reason. Put it this way, given the VMNG300 is capable of supporting all currently available tiers as they are currently* delivered, if procedures were to allow you to send one out to a customer who requested one, would you object? If so, why?