50M : Superhub is nowhere near as bad as people say!

[telfordcable]

Originally Posted by craigj2k11

yes but VM will be using 8 channels in the future and the modem cant handle 8

They only use it as for 200/400 Meg only in future!

[Skie]

Wasn't the VMNG300 supposed to be updatable with firmware to handle 8 channels? I guess this could just have come from VM's blustering staff while they were using them for the trials on higher speeds. We've certainly heard make believe things from them before :p

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Skie

Wasn't the VMNG300 supposed to be updatable with firmware to handle 8 channels? I guess this could just have come from VM's blustering staff while they were using them for the trials on higher speeds. We've certainly heard make believe things from them before :p

AFAIK a firmware upgrade is all that is needed, don't hope for one though. VM aren't interested in it any more.

[Chrysalis]

yeah the excuse that the vmng300 cannot handle 8 channels is just petty.

If its possible to do via firmware then that is a trivial thing to make it compatible.
If its not possible it also shouldnt be that diffilcult to source a new modem from somewhere that is compatible. I dont think the superhub is the only modem in the market that has 8 channel spec.

[Skie]

Quick google search shows that indeed there are other modems (and modem/routers) that can do the job with 8/4.

http://www.amazon.com/Motorola-SURFb.../dp/B0040IUI46 I find it amusing though that people in the reviews are recommending you disable "IP Flood detection"

[craigj2k12]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

yeah the excuse that the vmng300 cannot handle 8 channels is just petty.

If its possible to do via firmware then that is a trivial thing to make it compatible.
If its not possible it also shouldnt be that diffilcult to source a new modem from somewhere that is compatible. I dont think the superhub is the only modem in the market that has 8 channel spec.

i dont really care about 8 channels, but i would be extremely upset if the VM firmware guys got set loose on the VMNG300, it would be ruined forever!!

[Ignitionnet]

The Superhub is based on a chipset that can be used for home gateways or for modems.

They are following in the footsteps of people like Comhem in offering a combined unit.

It's potentially a good idea, just in the case of the Superhub incredibly badly executed.

[Peter_]

The are many modems capable and also many have be trialled but Virginmedia decided that a hub in the two forms that we presently have are the way forward and are here to stay with no reprise of the VMNG300.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by craigj2k11

i dont really care about 8 channels, but i would be extremely upset if the VM firmware guys got set loose on the VMNG300, it would be ruined forever!!

VM don't write the firmware they submit feature requests and bugs to the hardware manufacturer.

The failings with the Superhub are Netgear's.

Who'd have thought, Netgear sucking.

[craigj2k12]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

VM don't write the firmware they submit feature requests and bugs to the hardware manufacturer.

The failings with the Superhub are Netgear's.

Who'd have thought, Netgear sucking.

netgear cant do their job, they are in the same boat as sony at the moment

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

The Superhub is based on a chipset that can be used for home gateways or for modems.

They are following in the footsteps of people like Comhem in offering a combined unit.

It's potentially a good idea, just in the case of the Superhub incredibly badly executed.

agreed, the 8 channel thing been dished out on here from VM staff is just a smokescreen really. It was a good idea to provide such a unit but to me the 2 main issues were.

1 - removing choice, forcing the unit on new customers and upgrades and without a bridge mode.
2 - releasing too early with testers telling VM its not ready and not functional enough.

I would have kept the vmng300 available as an option on new orders and upgrades, initially the superhub optional but free to get volunteers, give it a run with low takeup make sure it works and stable, then eventually make it the default option but however always have the vmng300 optional for those who want it. Everyone happy not rocket science. Instead VM went in full throttle with it.

[craigj2k12]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

agreed, the 8 channel thing been dished out on here from VM staff is just a smokescreen really. It was a good idea to provide such a unit but to me the 2 main issues were.

1 - removing choice, forcing the unit on new customers and upgrades and without a bridge mode.
2 - releasing too early with testers telling VM its not ready and not functional enough.

I would have kept the vmng300 available as an option on new orders and upgrades, initially the superhub optional but free to get volunteers, give it a run with low takeup make sure it works and stable, then eventually make it the default option but however always have the vmng300 optional for those who want it. Everyone happy not rocket science. Instead VM went in full throttle with it.

agreed.

completley off topic, do VM bond upstream channels, even the VMNG300 has capacity for four upstream channels, as does the superhub, but even the 100mb has 1 upstream?

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

VM don't write the firmware they submit feature requests and bugs to the hardware manufacturer.

The failings with the Superhub are Netgear's.

Who'd have thought, Netgear sucking.

all netgear routers I have used are bad, even the famous dg834GT which has a fanbase I found a poor router.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Masque

The are many modems capable and also many have be trialled but Virginmedia decided that a hub in the two forms that we presently have are the way forward and are here to stay with no reprise of the VMNG300.

There is nothing wrong with a hub per se providing it does the job it's supposed to.

However , if Igni's previous post has veracity (which I don't doubt) then the Superhub you are on about is not here to stay as the form you currently have is provided by Netgear.

I know you can't comment on it being changed but it might just stop you continually harping on as to how there's nothing wrong with yours so it must be alright.

---------- Post added at 22:27 ---------- Previous post was at 22:23 ----------

Originally Posted by craigj2k11

agreed.

completley off topic, do VM bond upstream channels, even the VMNG300 has capacity for four upstream channels, as does the superhub, but even the 100mb has 1 upstream?

As upload speed increases and to potentially relieve loading channel bonding will be introduced on upstream at some point.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by pip08456

There is nothing wrong with a hub per se providing it does the job it's supposed to.

However , if Igni's previous post has veracity (which I don't doubt) then the Superhub you are on about is not here to stay as the form you currently have is provided by Netgear.

I know you can't comment on it being changed but it might just stop you continually harping on as to how there's nothing wrong with yours so it must be alright.

It'll still be a Superhub, just with a different manufacturer.

I can easily believe that some people have no issues with the God forsaken thing, I just happen to both be having a ton of problems and be quite happy to vocalise them.

Originally Posted by pip08456

As upload speed increases and to potentially relieve loading channel bonding will be introduced on upstream at some point.

Later this year, support for it has only relatively recently been good to go from Motorola and Cisco. 3 kinds of CMTS certification on DOCSIS 3, bronze, silver, gold, both BSR and 10k are as far as I know bronze which means no upstream bonding.

This may have changed recently as both had this feature in production so it makes sense for them to get it certified for the CableLabs kudos.