11-01-2013, 01:10
|
#61
|
|
XIV
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Crawley
Age: 35
Services: Three Unlimited
Posts: 16,043
|
Re: Superhub 2
5 external antennas?
|
|
|
|
11-01-2013, 01:21
|
#62
|
|
Inactive
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London
Services: >100Mb<TV M+,TiVo 1T,V HD
>Phone M
Posts: 483
|
Re: Superhub 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by thenry
5 external antennas?
|
Νo 5 external ... 1-2, but again maybe was just gossip
|
|
|
|
|
11-01-2013, 02:34
|
#63
|
|
cf.member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Services: Hub 5
VM 200MB Broadband
Posts: 61
|
Re: Superhub 2
No home visit here but my levels are pretty much borderline and I'm in the trial.
|
|
|
|
|
11-01-2013, 11:03
|
#64
|
|
cf.mega poster
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 11,207
|
Re: Superhub 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kushan
This is very true and you make an excellent point. I would still say that anyone comparing it to JUST a modem though is missing the point a bit but you're right that it shouldn't be that way.
|
Part of my objection is if I'm going to have to use it as a standalone modem, I'd rather just be given a standalone modem to begin with. I'm forced to take a router, so it has to be compared to a router. I'd rather they just gave me a SACM like they used to, then I'd be happy to compare it to a modem. But the fact is, it isn't. This applies equally to any successor VM are rumored to be bringing out.
Principally if I get given a piece of kit where I'm going to turn off 80% of the components of, then frankly it'd been cheaper for everybody to have the option of leaving them out to begin with.
|
|
|
|
|
11-01-2013, 11:08
|
#65
|
|
Wisdom & truth
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: RG41
Services: RG41: 1Gig VOLT
Rutland: Gigaclear 400/400
Posts: 12,930
|
Re: Superhub 2
Qasi, this can be viewed from many angles. You've chosen one. I could moot another.
The SH is a SACM with optional router functions to get you going while you buy your own higher spec router.
Indeed, that would be the best line for VM to punt.
__________________
Seph.
My advice is at your risk.
|
|
|
|
|
11-01-2013, 11:37
|
#66
|
|
cf.mega poster
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Warrington
Posts: 4,737
|
Re: Superhub 2
I don't think anyone is going to argue that the Superhub has issues - both in terms of wireless and as a router. The real issue is how Virgin handled it - poor marketing, an unwillingness to admit problems and poor testing (all the problems were well known before the Superhub Launched - and I was at Virgin when this was going on, I was part of the people that tested it - we made it very clear about the issues and they released it anyway).
At least Virgin is doing something about it with this new model, hopefully they'll make it more stable and boost the range - we can only but hope that the testing is more thorough this time. I know for a fact that Virgin had a release date in place for the SH before it even went into testing and the person who trained it out to me made a point of saying "When the testing is a success, the modem is going to be released on XXXX" because he knew how bad it was going to be.
All that aside, all we can do is wait and see how this one does. Any improvement is a good step, but we all know that there'll always be SOMEONE who isn't happy.
|
|
|
|
|
11-01-2013, 11:40
|
#67
|
|
cf.mega poster
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 11,207
|
Re: Superhub 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth
Qasi, this can be viewed from many angles. You've chosen one. I could moot another.
The SH is a SACM with optional router functions to get you going while you buy your own higher spec router.
Indeed, that would be the best line for VM to punt.
|
It's not the one they *are* punting though, as you've said yourself.
In and ideal world everyone would be doing the best thing.
Meh, I vote the Comcast way, both in terms of SACMs and traffic management.
---------- Post added at 12:40 ---------- Previous post was at 12:38 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kushan
and boost the range
|
That would be interesting to see. The existing Superhub theoretically already transmits at the legal limit. Unless I'm right, which would be bad.
|
|
|
|
|
11-01-2013, 12:19
|
#68
|
|
cf.mega poster
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Warrington
Posts: 4,737
|
Re: Superhub 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq
It's not the one they *are* punting though, as you've said yourself.
In and ideal world everyone would be doing the best thing.
Meh, I vote the Comcast way, both in terms of SACMs and traffic management.
---------- Post added at 12:40 ---------- Previous post was at 12:38 ----------
That would be interesting to see. The existing Superhub theoretically already transmits at the legal limit. Unless I'm right, which would be bad.
|
It may well do, but if I recall correctly, it has either a terrible antenna or none at all (I remember someone opening one up and they found a bog standard wireless card in there - like what you'd get on a cheap laptop - please correct me if I'm wrong, though). It certainly gets sub-par range than most routers so there's room for improvement somewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
20-01-2013, 13:07
|
#69
|
|
Inactive
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 33
|
Re: Superhub 2
|
|
|
|
|
20-01-2013, 13:49
|
#70
|
|
cf.mega poster
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 11,207
|
Re: Superhub 2
The Wifi cert quotes a "Model/SKU #: CG4000TD, VMDG485" so probably. The CM specs are identical (no improvement) over the current SH though, so if they wanted better wireless quite why they didn't go for the cheaper option of upgrading the upgradeable wireless card on its own is beyond me.
---------- Post added at 14:49 ---------- Previous post was at 14:13 ----------
Notably, the Wifi certification includes 802.11h, something the original Superhub was missing.
802.11h allows ten times higher transmit power and selection from a total of 19 channels at 5Ghz instead of just 4 channels without it. Without 802.11h, i.e. as is the case now, the 5Ghz band has no more capacity and considerably less range than 2.4Ghz
|
|
|
|
|
20-01-2013, 13:57
|
#71
|
|
Inactive
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London
Services: >100Mb<TV M+,TiVo 1T,V HD
>Phone M
Posts: 483
|
Re: Superhub 2
|
|
|
|
|
20-01-2013, 14:23
|
#73
|
|
Inactive
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London
Services: >100Mb<TV M+,TiVo 1T,V HD
>Phone M
Posts: 483
|
Re: Superhub 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq
|
Hmmm intresting
Can not see its specs at netgear page
|
|
|
|
|
20-01-2013, 15:18
|
#74
|
|
cf.mega poster
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 11,207
|
Re: Superhub 2
That's because it's not publicly available, VM had it "custom built".
|
|
|
|
|
20-01-2013, 21:56
|
#75
|
|
Inactive
Join Date: Mar 2004
Services: BB:M, TV:XL, Phone:M, Loyalty
Posts: 2,516
|
Re: Superhub 2
On most dual band 3x3 / 2x2 routers, it's 3 antennas, with the middle one beng the extra on 5GHz and the other two being dual band.
Also to be hoped the the dual band is upgraded to simultaneous, so that it can run both 5GHz and legacy 2.4GHz kit.
To be honest, the 2.4GHz band is a MESS - with just Wifi, it would be congested enough, but add videosenders, 2.4GHz keyboard/mouse sets and it's a wonder you get any throughput, especially when these days, a Wifi enabled router may be standard kit even if the user only connects wired.
And the Wifi channel planning (lack of) is pretty stupid...
In the UK, we have 1-13 available, allowing for two 40MHz channel pairs (1+5 & 9+13) or 4 fully spaced 20MHz, but so much kit defaults to USA 1-11 and using 1,6,11
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 18:04.
|
Join CF
You are here: 
