Superhub : Superhub Firmware Beta Test

Originally Posted by BenMcr

Wasn't commenting on the £30 activation fee.

The same 'fee' that will suddenly disappear to clear out the last few hangers-on with old Docsis 2 kit they need clearing off the network. Shall we say under 12 months?

[BenMcr]

Not involved in pricing decisions so can't speculate lol

[zekeisaszekedoes]

VMNG300 with router for 50Mbps service was rolled out at some point in 2008. Superhub (all in one) was rolled out at the end of 2010.

IMO that basically means we're looking at 18+ months of time VM had to create the "one box to replace them all" solution not counting other stuff they've rolled out like the regular hub. Yet even given that quite generous amount of time, the buggy superhub which is finnicky with certain headends/customer setups was the best they could do.

Logically speaking, expecting the "fixing" process to be any more efficient and timely considering the previous errors (including pre-bugfix VMNG300, incidentally) was optimistic at best, deluded at worst.

But that's okay, because it means threats to VM's dominance have more time to catch up, which makes the whole broadband market more competitive and benefits the customers. So as annoying as it is now, these costly mistakes will quite likely end up being great news for everyone that isn't VM (competitors, customers not going to the CEO's office even when their superhubs act up etc).

The smart move is, if you're in a position to get a VMNG300 and ignore the superhub entirely, that's what you should do.

[davidthornton]

Originally Posted by zekeisaszekedoes

VMNG300 with router for 50Mbps service was rolled out at some point in 2008. Superhub (all in one) was rolled out at the end of 2010.

IMO that basically means we're looking at 18+ months of time VM had to create the "one box to replace them all" solution not counting other stuff they've rolled out like the regular hub.

What has made you assume that Virgin Media begun designing the Superhub right after the VMNG300 was released with the 50Mbit product? They might have started thinking about it well before then, or a long time after. The two projects aren't connected.

Originally Posted by davidthornton

.Obviously the designers have also frustrated other customers, at the moment, by not offering bridge mode so those wanting to upgrade for better speed are required to reconfigure the way their other network equipment works.

This is a really good point many customers will have built up their own networks, in my case totally Apple

I use a Time Capsule for wireless and network storage use and used an old ntl modem to feed in the broadband

I gave the Superhub a go while the bridge Mode patch was being finalised, but soon had to abandon it, as the 2.4 channel degraded my Apple Network,

And the Wireless performance just did not come up to the standard I have got used to with the Time Capsule

The Time Capsule accepts connections in either 2.4 or 5 Mhz without user involvement so in a mixed environment devices connecting to the network will be allocated the correct channel by the Time Capsule

Using the SuperHub my Macbook and Apple TV suffered a noticeable drop in network speed as they are 5 MHz but were forced to use the 2.4 channel

I couldn't set the 5 MHz as default as all 2.4 devices would not connect, so I now have the Hub set just as a modem and to pass through the broadband to my TC , which takes care of the wireless in my case this is a perfect solution

Hopefully the R28 patch will fix this issue for all others like me that want to use their own equipment for wireless

[KenK]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

But in no way is the SuperHub '70% bigger' than what you would have got if the VMNG300 was still being installed

16x14 = 224. 20.5x19 = 389.5. 389.5 / 224 = 1.738839285714286. Nearly 74% bigger. Unless your calculator comes up with different numbers.

[qasdfdsaq]

Originally Posted by davidthornton

I know it cannot do this at the moment but could it be made to do this with a firmware upgrade? If you've answered this question, this particular way, before I apologise. I know "BT Fon" like services were previously mentioned to a degree.

The hardware and firmware are both already capable of it.

---------- Post added at 01:51 ---------- Previous post was at 01:44 ----------

Originally Posted by davidthornton

What we don't seem to know is if Virgin Media asked any customers what they wanted before they commisioned the Superhub design and, if they did, how many customers they asked, and what the responses were. I don't remember how exactly the Superhub came to be. I think I just read about how it was coming on here. Was there a consultation and, if so, how extensive was it? If there was no consultation, who at Virgin Media made the decisions about the initial specification of the Superhub and, besides the "technical support savings" arguement, what were the reasons for designing it as it currently is?

We do know and they did. VM knew customers wanted bridge mode well in advance of the Superhub ever being released. Various beta testers on this forum can attest to have told them personally.

---------- Post added at 01:55 ---------- Previous post was at 01:51 ----------

Originally Posted by BenMcr

The VMNG300 is bigger than the 256 because one is DOCSIS 2 and the other is DOCSIS 3. The SuperHub is bigger than the VMNG300 because it also is a router and includes antenna for that internally to the housing, which I assume have to be a certain distance away from the main electronics to avoid interferance etc

The wireless and router hardware used in these things is roughly the size of a one pound coin. Hardly explains nor justifies the rest of the size increase.

Again, I could tape a router, two VMNG300 circuits and a switch together and fit it in a box smaller than the SH.

---------- Post added at 01:57 ---------- Previous post was at 01:55 ----------

Originally Posted by BenMcr

I can't comment on things in which I had no involvement.

Were you involved in the development of the Superhub? Because you seem to be commenting on it quite a lot.

---------- Post added at 01:59 ---------- Previous post was at 01:57 ----------

Originally Posted by davidthornton

Obviously the designers have also frustrated other customers, at the moment, by not offering bridge mode so those wanting to upgrade for better speed are required to reconfigure the way their other network equipment works.

From what was said earlier it seems the designers offered a bridge mode and VM purposefully disabled it.

---------- Post added at 02:03 ---------- Previous post was at 01:59 ----------

Originally Posted by BenMcr

Yes I do - the R28 firmware is design to fix a lot of the other issues along with the modem mode, and yes they are

It doesn't "fix" the fact that some people just don't want it.

You can fix a knife all you want but if all I want is a fork, you can damn well keep it.

---------- Post added at 02:10 ---------- Previous post was at 02:03 ----------

Originally Posted by KenK

16x14 = 224. 20.5x19 = 389.5. 389.5 / 224 = 1.738839285714286. Nearly 74% bigger. Unless your calculator comes up with different numbers.

I'd say the volume of space taken by the SH in use is about double that of the VMNG300, based on the fact the cables stick out sideways and therefore consume the same amount of space again.

On the other hand the VMNG300 doesn't include a router, so unless you took the casing off and combined a router into it, you'd have to add the seperate space of the router into consideration, and it's not a whole lot different.

That said it's still a lot bigger than it needs to be, and if airflow was really the problem, we have this wonderful invention called a fan. Still, some people have reported the SH consumes 3-5x as much power as your average router, and therefore probably produces considerably more heat, and fanless solutions being preferable that *might* explain the extra size. More an excuse than justification but that's the only thing I can think of.

[Milambar]

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

Still, some people have reported the SH consumes 3-5x as much power.

Mine consumes just over twice as much power, then my previous Ambit256+Router together, and I can't see any logical reason for this. A slight increase, yeah, but double that of two seperate pieces of equipment?

That said, it's been stable. It used to require a daily reboot, but a while ago, it went down for a few, when it came back, it had a new firmware revision on it, and its been rock stable since. However, I'd still prefer a true bridge mode, so I can use my own router without having to faff about with DMZ's. Mostly because my own router lets me monitor usage, without having to install a monitoring program on all of my devices. Something thats even more of a concern since VM started sending people "detrimental use" letters (no, I've not got one, and nor do I want one).

Originally Posted by Milambar

Mine consumes just over twice as much power, then my previous Ambit256+Router together, and I can't see any logical reason for this. A slight increase, yeah, but double that of two seperate pieces of equipment?

I notice a power usage increase when I installed the Hub,

but once I saw the Hub in a dark room, I could see why,

surely there is no logical reason to have the Status lights and the Virgin Logo so bright, in a dark room it looks like a disco light show,

Blue and green flashing from the side and the same with a grid pattern from the top

---------- Post added at 13:32 ---------- Previous post was at 12:44 ----------

Originally Posted by BenMcr

Nope

Excuse the candles but on the left is the VMNG300 and on the right is the SuperHub. The VMNG300 is on a remote to take account of the stand thats on the SuperHub (but still don't think it's the right level)

The superhub seems to be out of proportion to its capabilities IMO,

I use the Superhub together with an Apple Time Capsule

My Time Capsule is slightly smaller and has an integral PSU a fan two wireless antenna's and a 1TB hard Drive in a similar space

The TC also delivers automatic dual channel connections and is far more stable again IMO,

I can only think that the housing on the HUB aids cooling a well as providing an illuminated Virgin Logo for all to see

[qasdfdsaq]

So I've just had my first look at the insides of a Superhub and a basic teardown of the components. I'll post a more comprehensive info later, but long story short, it's a Netgear CG3101D v2 (which we already knew). It's an all Broadcom solution built around a Broadcom BCM3380 SoC (which some already knew) - it's a fairly common and reasonably stable (but outdated) SoC found in a few Cisco CPE's as well so by the looks of it most of the problems are firmware related, not crappy hardware.

I won't bother arguing for or against VM botching the firmware for their own reasons but hopefully it'll get fixed in time rather than being permanantly faulty. That said it's made in china and the circuit layout is pretty meh, so it might be built cheap too. I'd need a closer look to figure that out for sure.

On another note the wireless comes as a seperate mini-pci card (of the type commonly found in laptops) which makes it bigger, more complex, more expensive, and more power consuming that it needs to be, though it does let VM upgrade the wireless independantly without needing a new MB for the SH.

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

So I've just had my first look at the insides of a Superhub and a basic teardown of the components. I'll post a more comprehensive info later, but long story short, it's a Netgear CG3101D v2 (which we already knew). It's an all Broadcom solution built around a Broadcom BCM3380 SoC (which some already knew) - it's a fairly common and reasonably stable (but outdated) SoC found in a few Cisco CPE's as well so by the looks of it most of the problems are firmware related, not crappy hardware.

I won't bother arguing for or against VM botching the firmware for their own reasons but hopefully it'll get fixed in time rather than being permanantly faulty. That said it's made in china and the circuit layout is pretty meh, so it might be built cheap too. I'd need a closer look to figure that out for sure.

On another note the wireless comes as a seperate mini-pci card (of the type commonly found in laptops) which makes it bigger, more complex, more expensive, and more power consuming that it needs to be, though it does let VM upgrade the wireless independantly without needing a new MB for the SH.

Great Post been looking for this info myself, just out of interest looking from the front, i.e. Virgin Logo facing you

what are the positions of the antenna and are they separate or integral with the circuit board

[qasdfdsaq]

Sorry, not my Superhub so I can't say - someone else is helping me with pictures of the insides of theirs.

The antennas are not integral - as the wireless chip is on a mini PCI card, the antennas are mini PCB antennas connected via a cable and U.FL connector - pretty much the same configuration as any laptop really. There's two of them but I don't know the positions. I'll try and find out.

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

Sorry, not my Superhub so I can't say - someone else is helping me with pictures of the insides of theirs.

The antennas are not integral - as the wireless chip is on a mini PCI card, the antennas are mini PCB antennas connected via a cable and U.FL connector - pretty much the same configuration as any laptop really. There's two of them but I don't know the positions. I'll try and find out.

Ok yes understand that thanks for the info, still trying to get a circuit diagram

[carbon60]

Will it boot with the wireless mini-PCI card disconnected?

May be a way to save power in bridge mode.

[zekeisaszekedoes]

Originally Posted by davidthornton

What has made you assume that Virgin Media begun designing the Superhub right after the VMNG300 was released with the 50Mbit product? They might have started thinking about it well before then, or a long time after. The two projects aren't connected.

Fair point. I'm merely remarking that given a maximum time frame of 18 months, the woeful superhub is the best VM (in cahoots with Netgear) have been able to manage. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the superhub was designed/built/marketed in about 3 months, because it certainly has all the finesse of a device in extended beta (i.e. completely unfinished before release, like Windows Vista).

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

It doesn't "fix" the fact that some people just don't want it.

You can fix a knife all you want but if all I want is a fork, you can damn well keep it.

...and doesn't qas have a nice way of cutting straight to the quick?

Originally Posted by kenoliver

Blue and green flashing from the side and the same with a grid pattern from the top

Basically you want to hide the superhub away in a cupboard because of the lights, yeah? I know I did when I had it running. The lights gleam out the front and spill out from all the air vents too. Those LEDs aren't only too bright, but because the case has vents on it will light up any room you put it in.

Let's fact it, the superhub is terrible from both an aesthetic and technical performance aspect. It's an offense, lacklustre piece of junk masquerading as flagship hardware.

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

It's an all Broadcom solution built around a Broadcom BCM3380 SoC (which some already knew) - it's a fairly common and reasonably stable (but outdated) SoC found in a few Cisco CPE's as well so by the looks of it most of the problems are firmware related, not crappy hardware.

No surprise there. I'm not the most technically adept but my experience with Broadcom-based hardware had been positive until the superhub came along. It's amazing how poor firmware can cripple a reasonable hardware solution; the Broadcom based Linksys WRT54GS v2.1 I have (100Mbps/54Mbps G for everyone else, remember) can still offer better performance despite older hardware.

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

On another note the wireless comes as a seperate mini-pci card (of the type commonly found in laptops) which makes it bigger, more complex, more expensive, and more power consuming that it needs to be, though it does let VM upgrade the wireless independantly without needing a new MB for the SH.

Jesus. My six-year-old Dell D810 sports a Mini-PCI. Difference is, the Atheros-based TP-Link 300Mbps wireless N device I have shoehorned in there has nice, stable drivers able to handle about 12.5MB/s sustained transfers (limited by old single-core CPU, often) on a good N router. Wish I could say the same about the superhub at even HALF that speed.

Poor design on a supposedly "flagship" device. I mean, this kind of tech was dated when my laptop was released in 2005, so now it just looks like a joke.

I suppose the real question is, who sweet-talked VM into believing this was a good solution? Even putting aside that non-integrated mini-PCI solutions are more expensive to mass-manufacture (a good reason why the Linksys WRT54G v1.0 had mini-PCI and pretty much all the successors had it integrated on the mobo.)