Superhub : Superhub Firmware Beta Test

[zekeisaszekedoes]

Standard corporate blanketing, Chrys. They'd do well to hire more no-nonsense types rather than those so adept at spinning that they should take a second job as a pinwheel.

Originally Posted by Welshchris

all this talk about a new superhub coming along, if its not from Ambit or Netgear who is it from? I know its the same spec as the netgear one but what is the point of having 2 hubs of the same spec from different manufacturers?

Surely it would have just been easier to carry on Supplying the VMNG300 for a modem only option or superhub for those who didnt have a router and wanted wireless.

Lets hope it's Linksys

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Failswitch

Lets hope it's Linksys

I like linksys kit

[Jon T]

Originally Posted by Sirius

I like linksys kit

You mean Cisco

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

its clear the superhub has been expensive for VM, so I find it baffling the costs argument is still been pushed.

Is it?

[Chrysalis]

in denial till the end.

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

in denial till the end.

Why not email Neil Berkett direct and see if he can answer you as you refuse to believe anyone on here.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

in denial till the end.

No that is a river in Egypt

Simply asking to to explain your post and where you got that info from?

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Masque

Why not email Neil Berkett direct and see if he can answer you as you refuse to believe anyone on here.

answer what?

---------- Post added at 10:19 ---------- Previous post was at 10:11 ----------

Originally Posted by Masque

Why not email Neil Berkett direct and see if he can answer you as you refuse to believe anyone on here.

email sent.

I have asked him why you all posting here during working hours in a claimed unoffical manner so I assume not authorised by your managers.

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

answer what?


email sent.

I have asked him why you all posting here during working hours in a claimed unoffical manner so I assume not authorised by your managers.

About us being in denial.

Such a nice person all because we disagree with you that you try to be big and clever and the big I AM.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Masque

About us being in denial.

you what?

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by zekeisaszekedoes

Then go back into mass production. A lot of areas aren't even 100Mb capable yet (and even when they are a majority are happy enough with 10Mb or 30Mb), so those modems will be fine for another couple of years

I'm sure people were saying the same about the TeraJet modem when that first came out.

Case in point: I've only just retired my Ambit 250. After six years of service and several speed upgrades.

That's comparing apples with oranges. D2 modems have been pretty much constant for a number of years because the techology was mature. The 250 was the last revision of the D2 modems ntl used. Even when the 255 and 256 versions came out they just removed the USB connection and tweaked a few bits to allow them to work on the Telewest network.

However both ntl and telewest went through multiple model numbers (and makers) of modems during their time, requiring swap outs during every speed uplift as they were unable to cope.

Same will happen with the D3 kit as the technology progresses and (for instance) channel bonding is used. At some point the VMNG300 modems will be unable to keep up and will need replacing.

I'm sorry - are you inferring that people previously trained in the deployment of the VMNG300 and still working for VM have spontaneously forgotten how these things work?

No I'm not.

Choice of broadband kit has never been part of the broadband service (excluding whether you want a router or not). So to introduce it would require changes to processes, systems and training, along with extra storage space within the supply chain.

A feature that was available in R25 with SSH, but was then dummied out for no good reason. I still fail to see the logic of removing a feature a lot of users wanted then adding it back again months later. It stands to reason the people having significant problems with the Super Hub would be able to follow a "Enable Bridge Mode on your Super Hub" post on VM's community forum and would have headed off a lot of people moaning that it still isn't here, in the middle of May. It's VM digging themselves a deeper hole and doing things so lacking in common sense heads could explode.

Because, as with any part of their service, Virgin have to make sure any setting works as is intended, is fully tested, is included in diagnostics for support staff, included in help documentation for customers, and is providing in a way that all customers can use it if they want to.

You know, I've seen this lame excuse proffered by many people suckered into the common "newer = automatically better" technology arms race.

Never said "newer = automatically better", I'm saying sometimes "newer = required".

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

answer what?

---------- Post added at 10:19 ---------- Previous post was at 10:11 ----------



email sent.

I have asked him why you all posting here during working hours in a claimed unoffical manner so I assume not authorised by your managers.

Are you a big and clever person!!

[zekeisaszekedoes]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

That's comparing apples with oranges.

Comparing one modem to another is like comparing apples and oranges? That makes no sense. AT ALL. They're more similar than different.

Originally Posted by BenMcr

However both ntl and telewest went through multiple model numbers (and makers) of modems during their time, requiring swap outs during every speed uplift as they were unable to cope.

Yet like I said, the Ambit 250 has kept up with multiple user needs and survived about half a dozen speed upgrades, and really only showed it's age when the upload contention increase was done. This is personal experience, but I hardly think I'm alone here. AFAIK the Ambit 250/255/256 (all variations on a theme) is still the most deployed modem on the VM network, regardless of who VM inherited the infrastructure from. There's a reason for that: it's still a damn fine modem.

Originally Posted by BenMcr

Same will happen with the D3 kit as the technology progresses and (for instance) channel bonding is used. At some point the VMNG300 modems will be unable to keep up and will need replacing.

But we're not even at the point where bonded downstreams are being used, am I right? The VMNG300 will handle 100Mb no problem even without changing the infrastructure, and there's been mention that it could handle 200Mb too, keeping it current for the next couple of years.

When the thing that is supposed to replace them chokes on a lot of UBRs despite being new and hallowed, I'd rather have the older more reliable piece of kit, as would almost every other customer. Super Hub = false economy a this point.

Originally Posted by BenMcr

Choice of broadband kit has never been part of the broadband service (excluding whether you want a router or not).

That's simply not true. A customer can choose between any of the deployed CPEs that VM still support, although it's not always easy. Case in point: I got the Super Hub, it was shoddy, so despite the fact VM wanted me to move to it as the CPE I refused, staying with the Ambit 250 and politely insisting on a VMNG300, which is now fully installed and works very well indeed.

Put simply, I chose not to be fobbed off with inferior kit and at a certain level I was wholeheartedly supported by the most knowledgeable VM staff I'd ever spoken to, who carefully agreed that the Super Hub isn't up to task on certain UBRs but is fine on others. It's a shame that in the face of this proof, you still choose denial.

Originally Posted by BenMcr

Virgin have to make sure any setting works as is intended, is fully tested, is included in diagnostics for support staff, included in help documentation for customers, and is providing in a way that all customers can use it if they want to.

Well in my case and that of countless others the Super Hub doesn't do any of that, whereas the VMNG300 does and activated much faster than the Super Hub did with far fewer resets. Latency is down too, even compared to the Super Hub running on the 20Mb DOCSIS3 overlay. As far as I'm concerned, that makes it a superior piece of kit: reliability over potential future speed increases, low jitter for the gamers.

Also, just purely speaking about customers on Super Hub R2X betas, testing is not even close to thorough. Not enough subjects signed up, not enough time between testing and release, more errors being introduced along the way in some instances. This mistake was even made with the VMNG300 (now fixed, obviously) and VM haven't learned from that since with another two CPEs, and exacerbated the problem by making them combined modem/router units. It was done in the interests of transparency - i.e. I see what VM were trying to do - but it seems to have backfired drastically enough that a Mk II is being rushed out.

Originally Posted by BenMcr

Never said "newer = automatically better", I'm saying sometimes "newer = required".

Agreed, but when "newer = three legged horse" and two older CPEs run rings around it there's obviously something wrong. People will take reliability over raw speed almost every time, because what good is higher speed if it's not stable enough to use in anything but short bursts?

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by zekeisaszekedoes

Yet like I said, the Ambit 250 has kept up with multiple user needs and survived about half a dozen speed upgrades, and really only showed it's age when the upload contention increase was done. This is personal experience, but I hardly think I'm alone here. AFAIK the Ambit 250/255/256 (all variations on a theme) is still the most deployed modem on the VM network, regardless of who VM inherited the infrastructure from. There's a reason for that: it's still a damn fine modem.

All the speed upgrades were all within the specs of the 250 modem due the specs being stable.

As I said before the 250 was the 4th Ambit modem model deployed by ntl, whereas the VMNG300 is the first D3 kit deployed.

So you can't compare stable specs and hardware with first generation and changing specs.

But we're not even at the point where bonded downstreams are being used, am I right? The VMNG300 will handle 100Mb no problem even without changing the infrastructure, and there's been mention that it could handle 200Mb too, keeping it current for the next couple of years.

Of course bonded downstreams are being used but it's what bonding is supported is the difference between the two.

It's not just the network side of things that is the difference. The SuperHub allows Virgin to streamline the customer install and support experience which is just as important as to what the tech specs are.

That's simply not true. A customer can choose between any of the deployed CPEs that VM still support, although it's not always easy. Case in point: I got the Super Hub, it was shoddy, so despite the fact VM wanted me to move to it as the CPE I refused, staying with the Ambit 250 and politely insisting on a VMNG300, which is now fully installed and works very well indeed.

That's an exception and manually arranged process, not standard process.

It's a shame that in the face of this proof, you still choose denial.

Not denying anything. I agree there have been issues, and that it would have been much better to have the modem mode in from the beginning.

However for whatever reason, that's not what happened, so we have to deal with that as it is.

Well in my case and that of countless others the Super Hub doesn't do any of that, whereas the VMNG300 does and activated much faster than the Super Hub did with far fewer resets. Latency is down too, even compared to the Super Hub running on the 20Mb DOCSIS3 overlay. As far as I'm concerned, that makes it a superior piece of kit: reliability over potential future speed increases, low jitter for the gamers.

I was talking specifically about the option you raised - the 'SSH Modem mode' I wasn't commenting about anything else.

but it seems to have backfired drastically enough that a Mk II is being rushed out.

Nothing rushed about the dual vendor, it will have always been part of the plan