Quote:
Originally Posted by General Maximus
it has got nothing to go with me liking the vmng300 and not liking the shub. It is to do with how comfortable VM seem to be getting in lieing to customers, especially when it involves them palming off rubbish cpe to customers which only causes more problems which can be entirely avoided if they they did what they were supposed to and upgraded the customer or provided a decent explanation why not.
I agree and rather than VM blaming the vmng300 for speed and saying it cant do it, I would rather them come out with something like "whilst many customers may enjoy full speed on their vmng300 due to the technology we employ on our network we recommend customers upgrade to the superhub as they will be more likely to achieve full speed". It is VMs fault they havent got the bandwidth their for the vmng300 to use, not the modem's.
|
I actually agree with your sentiment, but you're wrong about VM not having the bandwidth for the Ambit 300. It's not just bandwidth, but load balancing. The more channels you're connected to, the less congestion is an issue - if one channel gets heavily congested, you've got more to make up the load. This is part of the benefit of switching to DOCSIS3 over older DOCSIS - surely you've seen people complaining about being on "a bad channel" and reboot hopping to get a better one? The more bonded channels, the better - for everyone.
Plus, Virgin has plenty of other reasons for ditching the Ambit 300 - it's out of support for one and they're currently paying through the nose for firmware updates, plus it's easier on the CS agents if they have to support less modems. Ultimately, they want everyone on a Superhub if possible.