You are here: Home | Forum | Superhub Firmware Beta Test
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most of the discussions, articles and other free features. By joining our Virgin Media community you will have full access to all discussions, be able to view and post threads, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own images/photos, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please join our community today.
Could you possibly find out what consultation with customers was done, if any, and why you, who work for VM and have a good idea of the opinions of many customers via the forums, weren't consulted and let us know (if you're allowed to)?
Even if I could find out, I wouldn't be allowed to post it
I would point out that quite a lot of those involved in products are also customers
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
But it's not. It's just over twice the volume of what you would have got had the SuperHub not been introduced - the VMNG300. You can't compare the SuperHub with the 256
What's DOCSIS 2 or 3 got to do with it? Are you saying the chips required for '3' need a case 3 times the size of those needed for '2'?
I do realise 'superhub' is a (basic, poorly specced) wireless router as well as a modem. That's not much help if all I want is a modem.
I can compare 256 with 'superhub', VMNG300 is not relevant; I have a 256, any change will mean I 'm provided with a 'superhub':
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenMcr
Once the costs to make the SuperHub reduce enough, then I bet everyone will get one.
Even if I could find out, I wouldn't be allowed to post it
Well you could ask if you could post it, before posting it, given that customer(s) are asking for an answer?
Quote:
I would point out that quite a lot of those involved in products are also customers
You mean the staff that work in VM product development are also users (aka customers) of the service? How many people are we talking about here? 5? 20? More? Less? Are some of them are on this forum? If so, are they sheepish about getting the bridge mode feature so wrong or were they just doing what they were told?
Yes, I can. I'm comparing what I have now with what they'll give me as a replacement. Why would I care about anything in between?
Because if the SuperHub didn't exist, and you upgraded you would still be given a device that is bigger than what you have now. So you would still have to deal with that.
I've had both the VMNG300 and the SuperHub and they are not that much different. The major change is the orientation, which I would guess is because most people had the VMNG300 flat which is not good for airflow
I'm not going to go down the if/why/buts any further than I already have.
Again, we are where we are. I would be fairly confident that the situation around the modem only mode will inform any future product development
Do you really believe (or just hope) that all the complaining about the Superhub will go away when the new firmware is released supporting bridge mode? Are they writing a bridge mode firmware for the normal hub as well?
Because if the SuperHub didn't exist, and you upgraded you would still be given a device that is bigger than what you have now. So you would still have to deal with that.
I've had both the VMNG300 and the SuperHub and they are not that much different. The major change is the orientation, which I would guess is because most people had the VMNG300 flat which is not good for airflow
But it does exist,and that's what I would have to deal with. VMNG300 is not relevant to me (but no-one has explained why it's so big).
Just on the main dimensions, Calculator tells me that 'superhub' is 70+% bigger in surface area than VMNG300.
Just on the main dimensions, Calculator tells me that 'superhub' is 70+% bigger in surface area than VMNG300.
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 is 20.5x19x5. ... The VMNG300 is 16x14x4
Quote:
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
From your picture, I'd say that kwikbreaks' dimensions are in the right proportion. The stand on 'superhub' counts, since it can't be used flat.
Services: 100mb VM (R27T2) & 2x 8mb Ipstream MAX dsl (Plusnet, IDnet)
Posts: n/a
Re: Superhub Firmware Beta Test
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenMcr
Once the costs to make the SuperHub reduce enough, then I bet everyone will get one
Great to hear this from a VM rep - it validates my claim all along that people are mugs for paying £30 or whatever to subsidise the cost of this hardware (that they'll never own) with the sweetener (carrot) of 'free' extra speed.
Great to hear this from a VM rep - it validates my claim all along that people are mugs for paying £30 or whatever to subsidise the cost of this hardware (that they'll never own) with the sweetener (carrot) of 'free' extra speed.
Er, I said everyone will get one as in everyone who take out broadband will get one rather than some getting the D2 Hub and some get the D3 SuperHub
Join CF
You are here: 
