VM finally post news on bridge mode - superhub

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by KenK

... the testing wasn't good enough. Get a bigger test base if it's known to be "limited".

That wasn't what I meant.

Any test base is going to 'limited' compared with the final customer target. That's the way testing works.

However, even if you have a test base of thousands, tens of thousands or millions you are never going to pick up every single senario that could cause an issue. You also have to balance the amount of test users against costs of supplying the test units.

I have yet to see a computer product launched that has never required some form of update

[qasdfdsaq]

Every test base is limited, yes. But you don't need a test base of thousands or millions to spot fundamental problems with the basic design of the unit. You don't need an unlimited test base to be able to simulate basic network functions. One technically competent person could do it. A good test base of 10 is better than a bad test base of 100.

In the end most of the problems are with the router part, not the cable modem part, and these are issues other comparable routers don't have. In the end whatever test base they had they were well aware of some of the problems before release and also of how to solve them (and how customers wanted to solve it themselves - bridge mode). Other Netgear routers don't have most of these issues, the old DIR-615 didn't have these issues either. It's not like the DIR-615 had any bigger a test base, and that didn't have nearly as many problems.

As for consumer products without updates - the vast majority of consumer devices get by without any firmware updates. TVs, monitors, home phones, digital cameras, microwaves, printers, network cards, network switches, computer peripherals, to name a few. Even mobile phones until recently were not able to be user updated, and got on just fine without.


I don't think VM ever issued an update for the DIR-615 either, since they all still come with 1.00VG on them.

[adduxi]

@ qasdfdsaq - I've had this same discussion with BenMcr over on the VM forums, and it was explained there is a Commercial implication with this as well. If VM can get thier hardware base down to a single product, i.e. the 'Super'hub(sic), then the cost savings on training Helpdesk etc. are huge.
At present, there are various CM's and users own routers to be 'assisted', and this must be a big overhead in support costs, and like any other business VM are always striving to cut costs.

VM was never going to be happy supplying both CM and Router to customers, as to the average joe, it's too complicated. By sending a single plug and go unit, they save a lot of grief, get good Customer feedback, and easier an Helpdesk life.

Don't get me wrong, I would love nothing better than a good quality stand alone modem, and dump the Shub. However reading between the lines in various forum threads, I think, this will never happen. The firmware bridge mode is just an attempt to placate the 'few people' who want to supply their own hardware on the LAN side.

[davidthornton]

Originally Posted by adduxi

Don't get me wrong, I would love nothing better than a good quality stand alone modem, and dump the Shub. However reading between the lines in various forum threads, I think, this will never happen. The firmware bridge mode is just an attempt to placate the 'few people' who want to supply their own hardware on the LAN side.

I've got 50Mbit with the original standalone modem that was supplied when 50Mbit came out. What's it capable of, speedwise? I wonder because I discussed whether I'd have to ditch it for a Superhub when 100Mbit comes to my area and he thought that it'd still be okay to use. I said that I'd heard that everyone was being moved over to the Superhub, however if the original 50Mbit modem is capable of 100Mbit+ could I keep it?

[General Maximus]

Originally Posted by davidthornton

I've got 50Mbit with the original standalone modem that was supplied when 50Mbit came out. What's it capable of, speedwise? I wonder because I discussed whether I'd have to ditch it for a Superhub when 100Mbit comes to my area and he thought that it'd still be okay to use. I said that I'd heard that everyone was being moved over to the Superhub, however if the original 50Mbit modem is capable of 100Mbit+ could I keep it?

me too, it is relativeky new tech and docsis so you would have thought it could handle it. I don't want more crap forced on me like when I had to have the netgear router when I got 50mbit

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by davidthornton

I said that I'd heard that everyone was being moved over to the Superhub, however if the original 50Mbit modem is capable of 100Mbit+ could I keep it?

It depends what you mean 'capable'. The 50Mbit modem can do 100Mbit, however it is limited for some channel bonding - which means it's not actually capable to do Virgin's 100Mbit product based on how they want to deliver it on the network

That's why all 100Mbit installs come with the SuperHub

Originally Posted by Mr K

Paying customers shouldn't be used as testers.

Dont volunteer then.

[qasdfdsaq]

Originally Posted by adduxi

@ qasdfdsaq - I've had this same discussion with BenMcr over on the VM forums, and it was explained there is a Commercial implication with this as well. If VM can get thier hardware base down to a single product, i.e. the 'Super'hub(sic), then the cost savings on training Helpdesk etc. are huge.
At present, there are various CM's and users own routers to be 'assisted', and this must be a big overhead in support costs, and like any other business VM are always striving to cut costs.

VM was never going to be happy supplying both CM and Router to customers, as to the average joe, it's too complicated. By sending a single plug and go unit, they save a lot of grief, get good Customer feedback, and easier an Helpdesk life.

Don't get me wrong, I would love nothing better than a good quality stand alone modem, and dump the Shub. However reading between the lines in various forum threads, I think, this will never happen. The firmware bridge mode is just an attempt to placate the 'few people' who want to supply their own hardware on the LAN side.

I don't disagree with this, I work in support as well and we have various different "supported" systems as well as a "managed desktop" which we maintain on behalf of all users. It saves a lot of headaches, but there's a reason we're rolling out Windows 7 to the supported desktop this summer rather than 2 years ago - it takes time to get stuff right and some of us want to ensure things are as close to perfect as possible *before* release rather than after.

There are many benefits to VM and the customer about having a single integrated unit, there's a reason almost all DSL providers do it too. The issue is VM releasing said unit onto the masses before it was ready, and giving them no choice about the matter.

I was actually quite supportive of the Superhub to begin with, and still acknowledge that the overwhelming majority of feedback was positive for the first few weeks after release, then it turned sour... I still don't have one myself, but all I see these days are complaints about it. Clearly it's not doing something right, since again, competitor products of the same class and the old DIR-615 VM handed out didn't have these problems.

(And apparantly they're still sending out DIR-615's to some people, whether or not this is in error I don't know, but clearly there is no reason why they cannot give customers a choice)

---------- Post added at 14:35 ---------- Previous post was at 14:32 ----------

Originally Posted by davidthornton

I've got 50Mbit with the original standalone modem that was supplied when 50Mbit came out. What's it capable of, speedwise? I wonder because I discussed whether I'd have to ditch it for a Superhub when 100Mbit comes to my area and he thought that it'd still be okay to use. I said that I'd heard that everyone was being moved over to the Superhub, however if the original 50Mbit modem is capable of 100Mbit+ could I keep it?

It's capable of 200mbps, but VM are unlikely to ever allow it in this configuration.

It's also capable of 100mbps in the same configuration the Superhub uses, so there's no technical reason VM wouldn't allow it, saying you "need" a Superhub for 100mb is only correct insofar as it's the way VM say they want it to work but it would perform exactly the same (and generate the same strains on the network) as the 50mb standalone modem.

---------- Post added at 14:37 ---------- Previous post was at 14:35 ----------

Originally Posted by BenMcr

It depends what you mean 'capable'. The 50Mbit modem can do 100Mbit, however it is limited for some channel bonding - which means it's not actually capable to do Virgin's 100Mbit product based on how they want to deliver it on the network

That's why all 100Mbit installs come with the SuperHub

This is incorrect.

100mb is currently delivered down 4 bonded downstream channels and 1 unbonded upstream channel. This is exactly the same as the 50mb and 30mb services, and the 50mb modem is perfectly capable of this configuration.

This may not always remain true, and could change in the future. But at this point in time the 50mb modem is not at all limited as far as how VM want to deliver 100mb is concerned. The Superhub does indeed have more bonding capability (8 DS) but this is unused.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

Clearly it's not doing something right, since again, competitor products of the same class and the old DIR-615 VM handed out didn't have these problems.

See I'm not so sure on that. Personally I think that there is concentration of issues that happens with the SuperHub that doesn't with the previously issued routers.

If you type in DIR-615 into Google, then you are likely to hit other sites and information about an issue you may have i.e. the overall userbase to resolve queries is global

However type in SuperHub or VMDG480 and you are only going to hit a Virgin related site (here/Digital Spy/Community Forums etc), so of course you are going to see 'more' complaints than you would do otherwise

---------- Post added at 14:44 ---------- Previous post was at 14:38 ----------

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

This is incorrect.

100mb is currently delivered down 4 bonded downstream channels and 1 unbonded upstream channel. This is exactly the same as the 50mb and 30mb services, and the 50mb modem is perfectly capable of this configuration.

This may not always remain true, and could change in the future. But at this point in time the 50mb modem is not at all limited as far as how VM want to deliver 100mb is concerned. The Superhub does indeed have more bonding capability (8 DS) but this is unused.

I'm well aware of how the service is delivered now. The reason the SuperHub is issued is so that Virgin have the ability to alter how it is delivered in the future without the hassle (and cost) of writing to some customers to swap equipment at a later stage (as they've had to do for the upstream increase).

[qasdfdsaq]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

See I'm not so sure on that. Personally I think that there is concentration of issues that happens with the SuperHub that doesn't with the previously issued routers.

If you type in DIR-615 into Google, then you are likely to hit other sites and information about an issue you may have i.e. the overall userbase to resolve queries is global

However type in SuperHub or VMDG480 and you are only going to hit a Virgin related site (here/Digital Spy/Community Forums etc), so of course you are going to see 'more' complaints than you would do otherwise.

You may be right about the concentration of issues, it's going to be impossible to tell via standard searches though. The different revisions of the DIR-615 (A,B,C,D, etc.) were completely different hardware platforms and AFAIK the D revision was the one offered by VM and only by VM, might as well have been custom designed. The firmware, and any problems with the firmware would have been specific only to VM customers.

Anyhow the issue is not giving customers the choice when they quite clearly could. The Superhub isn't quite mature enough yet to satisfy everyone, and until it is, people who want a standalone modem should be given the choice to use one (and support their own router themselves).

There is simply no reason to force it onto everyone right now. Maybe in 12 months time when it actually becomes neccessary for 100mbit services, but until then...

I'm well aware of how the service is delivered now. The reason the SuperHub is issued is so that Virgin have the ability to alter how it is delivered in the future without the hassle (and cost) of writing to some customers to swap equipment at a later stage (as they've had to do for the upstream increase).

Good, I would have been concerned if you weren't. But as far as your post goes, it is simply not neccessary right now. A customer would not experience degraded service by being given a 50mb modem, nor would the network be disproportionately loaded. People however *are* suffering right now due to the shortcomings of the Superhub, and for no good technical reason.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

Good, I would have been concerned if you weren't. But as far as your post goes, it is simply not neccessary right now. A customer would not experience degraded service by being given a 50mb modem, nor would the network be disproportionately loaded. People however *are* suffering right now due to the shortcomings of the Superhub, and for no good technical reason.

How do you know when Virgin may change the number of downstream channels (or upstream) used for 100Mbit, or whether all areas will be done in the same way?

Of course the other reason 100Mbit requires the SuperHub is Virgin had no seperate routers that would work with it - the DIR-615 only has 100Mbit ports compared with the Gigabit for the SuperHub

[qasdfdsaq]

I don't know when they'll do it or if they'll do it, all I know is they haven't done it now. Until they do, there are users getting an unnecessarily poor experience now.

True, the 615 only has 100mb ports, but IMO that's perfectly sufficient for a 100mb service; most of the industry considers 100mb ethernet ports to be 100mb, every 100mb service I've ever had has been delivered over a 100mb ethernet port. VM wanting to do it differently is not an excuse for giving customers no choice or a broken service. I'm sure the people having problems with 100mb and the Superhub would rather have 98.4mb with the ability to use their own router or no router at all (last time I joined VM you still had to pay for your own router on all tiers).

And don't forget the much higher number of people on 50mb and 30mb for whom that's all irrelevant anyway.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

True, the 615 only has 100mb ports, but IMO that's perfectly sufficient for a 100mb service

According to this page http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/index.php?option=com_chart&Itemid=189 the DIR-615 only manages 87Mbit between the WAN and LAN interface, so not sufficient it seems for a 100Mbit service.

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

(last time I joined VM you still had to pay for your own router on all tiers).

Wireless kit has been included by default for 50Mbit since launch.

[qasdfdsaq]

I personally don't trust any figures Smallnetbuilder report, as their numbers have always been consistently well below what I get with the same devices.

I've gotten well above 90mbps on my 615 from WAN to LAN, and on wireless tests I can get over 180mbps on devices that they claim don't go above 80mbps.

Even if the 615 is incapable *and* 100mb requires the Superhub (which it doesn't right now) we've still got the issue that VM are not giving users with problems the option to get a standalone modem - even for 30mb and 50mb - and properly use their own router or no router at all. Until the Superhub is mature enough to work for 100% of users instead of just 95%, those last 5% should be given a choice.

Also I don't know of any other consumer ISP that actually doesn't give users the option of using their own modem or router at all, granted VM have never let users supply their own modem but for now own routers don't work properly either. And even when bridge mode comes out, it won't be a true layer-2 bridge device, it will still still function as a layer-3 router (even if only in a minimal capacity) and could still have routing bugs if they don't implement it properly.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

it won't be a true layer-2 bridge device, it will still still function as a layer-3 router (even if only in a minimal capacity) and could still have routing bugs if they don't implement it properly.

How do you know that? I wasn't aware you were writing the firmware?