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

[Chrysalis]

agreed on the panic for sure.

My diagnosis is based on the result of port scanning as that can make it easy to tell if a port is closed by artificial means or if nothing is running on the port. The port returns a RST packet which means something is deliberatly denying a connection rather than a simple timeout if nothing was running there at all. Obvously as you say there is something open WAN side allowing them to change config's at will. I suspect either a knock first for entry system or a ACL that only allows a specific VM ip to access.

[kwikbreaks]

You keep saying the port. They can make SSH run on any port they choose - 22 is just a convention not a requirement. I know 22 (and for that matter the telnet default of 23) are closed wan side but if they activated bridge mode without a new firmware there is a port open somewhere for shh or telnet. If they sent a new firmware with the same release number it just reinforces my option on just how professional the firmware programming is.

The configs are a modem function surely?

[Chrysalis]

the port can be moved but I think it hasnt been moved. I did consider if they were pushing out new configs to make such changes but then how would they preserve current settings using that method. So I am of the opinion VM have the ability to log in and change individual settings as they please. It is also of course entirely possible they using neither telnet or ssh and there is some other type of daemon that allows them to make such changes.

[kwikbreaks]

Yes they could be using some other protocol but why would they bother? Do you know whether you got a different firmware or if it was just a script that switched you to bridge mode?

[zekeisaszekedoes]

Originally Posted by Masque

We will have modem mode in a few weeks and 2 versions of the Superhub later in the year, then this thread or another thread will be all about trying to get the other Superhub even though both will work in exactly the same way.

Idle speculation, not proven fact. This is assuming the modem only mode even works properly, which from early reports over on the VM secret SH beta forum seems to still be riddled with sporadic speed problems.

Originally Posted by Masque

My wifi works fine and I have 2 networks one being the Superhub network itself and the other being my Edimax router acting as an Access Point and my phone always seems to choose the Superhub network regardless of where I am in the house.

So you've said about a dozen times. Have you tried transferring a multiple gigabyte file from a gigabit wired device to a 300Mbps wireless N device as a basic superhub stress test yet? My guess is no.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Repeating yourself as infinitum makes you no better than the people who say that everything VM do sucks because their service sucks.

Especially when a lot of people aren't saying that in the first place but are being taken out of context/misquoted to seem that way. I'm one of the most vocal detractors of the superhub on here right now, but conversely I also think the backbone fiber-optic/co-ax cable services for both TV (not that I use it but others in the household do) and broadband are generally excellent, notwithstanding some weird (Cosham?) headend problems in my area recently, which were fixed promptly enough.

Originally Posted by Masque

We are still helpful as our posts show just people feel that we should not say that our equipment works.

Missing the point; you should not say that other people's equipment works just because your own does. Endless repetition is one thing: VM staff/CF moderators insinuating it's own customers/users are lying is quite another.

Originally Posted by kwikbreaks

They certainly panicked when they realised SSH was available LAN side.

Yeah, I was surprised that SSH didn't at least have some "only technicians know" non-default password, I had assumed VM wouldn't have used an easy default, but then there are a lot of problems with the firmwares as we well know.

[Nopanic]

It's important to remember that you are not the customers of anyone posting on this forum from VM.

The only relevance anyone posting here has to VM is knowledge. If Masque wants to argue his point, then he does so as a member of the forum and not as a representative of Virgin Media.
If you insult him, you insult him and if he insults you, then it is him not VM giving the insults.. This then becomes a matter for the forum.

I'm not backing up either side of the argument, it's getting silly now.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by kwikbreaks

Yes they could be using some other protocol but why would they bother? Do you know whether you got a different firmware or if it was just a script that switched you to bridge mode?

they just changed the setting, mark even said that on the forums.

Originally Posted by zekeisaszekedoes

snippetty snip....

Missing the point; you should not say that other people's equipment works just because your own does. Endless repetition is one thing: VM staff/CF moderators insinuating it's own customers/users are lying is quite another.

Snip snip.

that's a fairly major insinuation there by yourself - can you provide any examples of this, please?

[anap]

Last week I got a superhub and went from 20 to 30. With a wired connection I get 30 no problem. Wireless I get 19/20 which is what I used to get before! Can I simply use my old modem (small, black) with my old router (small, white) and get 30 wireless which is what I thought I'd get anyway?

[Mick Fisher]

It's only because the superhub is such a poor device that the need for a thread, solely intended to defend it's reputation, has arisen.
So obvious it's really not worth mentioning but I couldn't resist.

I've been with VM since it was called ComTel
In all those many years I cannot recall of any supplied device attracting such a furore of complaints as the superhub has done.

I also cannot recall the "VM Society Of Friends" ever being out in such force to defend a device.
Their usual tactic is to try to discredit the individule who persistantly derides VM and/or their services. However in this case their are just too many individules for that ploy so they have had to change their tactics to, somewhat tediously, defending the device at any and every opportunity they can find.

Reminds me of the last time I ventured into Curry's looking for a coffee maker. I asked a sales assistant for advice regarding a particular model to which he gave the stock reply "My Mum's got one and she thinks it's OK!"

[Sephiroth]

The short answer ro anap is NO. Your old modem didn't have bonded channels (DOCSIS 3) which is what the 30 meg tier uses. You can connect your previous router to the DMZ of the hub and get wireless that way (turning it off on the hub).

[kwikbreaks]

Getting 20Mbps on wireless suggests that you only have a G adaptor as G tops out at 22-24Mbps maximum. If that is the case you'd do no better with your old router except that turning off the hub WiFi would probably improve its stability if yours suffers from instability as many do.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Mick Fisher

It's only because the superhub is such a poor device that the need for a thread, solely intended to defend it's reputation, has arisen.
So obvious it's really not worth mentioning but I couldn't resist.

I've been with VM since it was called ComTel
In all those many years I cannot recall of any supplied device attracting such a furore of complaints as the superhub has done.

Actually, it's about 4 or 5 people (not sure of the exact numbers, but it's only a few) who are going into a lot of the threads attacking the Superhub. That's not evidence of a poor device at all.

I also cannot recall the "VM Society Of Friends" ever being out in such force to defend a device.
Their usual tactic is to try to discredit the individule who persistantly derides VM and/or their services. However in this case their are just too many individules for that ploy so they have had to change their tactics to, somewhat tediously, defending the device at any and every opportunity they can find.

Well, no. There aren't too many individuals. And, TBH, I don't see any difference between the tactics of the Pro SH brigade and those of the anti SH brigade.

Reminds me of the last time I ventured into Curry's looking for a coffee maker. I asked a sales assistant for advice regarding a particular model to which he gave the stock reply "My Mum's got one and she thinks it's OK!"

Exactly what's wrong with that? He may not drink coffee, so may not have any real idea how good it is. Would you prefer he gave you the company line?

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by zekeisaszekedoes

......


All your points recently have been good, especially these two. The thing is, not only is it far less than feature rich but what's there doesn't even work correctly! I've had dozens of routers, and not even the ones running betas of third-party firmware have been so buggy that the firewall must be completely switched off, to name but one of the problems the superhub has. It completely fails at basic routing tasks unless you are using it for the very lightest of networking.

Zeke makes a very strong point. VM support recommend that the firewall on this wretched device be turned off. One of the most basic features of a modern day router! Now, I happen always to turn firewall features off on the router because I have them in the PC. But if the router is fronting a whole load of devices, it's right to be able to rely on the router's firewall functions.

This device is way as bad as people say.

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by zekeisaszekedoes

Idle speculation, not proven fact. This is assuming the modem only mode even works properly

Are you making this up as you go along, as that is what this seems to me and anyone else reading this