30M : Finally had enough of VM BS...........

Ok.

[carlwaring]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

It doesn't matter what a VM geek has to say about his/her wireless signal, the reports of objective, honest people on the various forums make it quite clear that VM's claims for this wretched device are BS.

So on the one hand you happily discount those reports by people who claim not to have any wireless issue but then accept any reports of those people claim to have such issue?

[Mod Edit - as posters appear to not understand Mod polite requests, I am removing trolling comments - repetition of this behaviour will invoke the infraction system]

[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by carlwaring

So on the one hand you happily discount those reports by people who claim not to have any wireless issue but then accept any reports of those people claim to have such issue?

My own opinion is based on my own experience, which is the superhub is pants. Looking back at my records from 18 months ago, rebooting the superhub 8 times in 24 hours meant it was having a good day. I accept that many people are happy (maybe they know no different??), and I accept that many people (probably a minority) are unhappy.

I think the BS comes from implying that the superhub, as a router, is as good as you can get when clearly (for some) it isn't. However, I think it would be unreasonable to expect VM to supply CPE that was on a par with off the shelf equipment costing an average weeks wage.

I accept that I haven't used any of my collection of superhubs for many months and the firmware upgrades might have sorted some of the issues I was having. BUT the inbuilt inability to run concurrent 2.4 & 5GHz networks together makes it a second-rate non-starter to me. With my Asus router I get a stronger 5GHz signal outside on the patio than the superhub gave on 2.4GHz, which to me questions the validity of the VM claims regarding 'best wireless performance'.

It would be nice to see how many downstream channels VM are running in this part of the world, but as I seem to get full speed 24/7 on my old modem I'm going to stay where I am until I'm forced (or bribed - hint to VM) to switch.

Cheers

Grim

[carlwaring]

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

My own opinion is based on my own experience, which is the superhub is pants. Looking back at my records from 18 months ago, rebooting the superhub 8 times in 24 hours meant it was having a good day. I accept that many people are happy (maybe they know no different??), and I accept that many people (probably a minority) are unhappy.

And I am happy to concede that some people have some problems with the SH.

"rebooting the superhub 8 times in 24 hours"? Seriously. That's terrible. But it is certainly not my experience. Mine has barely been rebooted at all since I got it a few months ago.

I think the BS comes from implying that the superhub, as a router, is as good as you can get when clearly (for some) it isn't.

It's the "for some" that's the problem though. If it's fine for the majority then, given that all marketing is hype to a certain extent, I can't see any issues with VM's comments on the SH.

However, I think it would be unreasonable to expect VM to supply CPE that was on a par with off the shelf equipment costing an average weeks wage.

Sorry. Lost me there

I accept that I haven't used any of my collection of superhubs for many months and the firmware upgrades might have sorted some of the issues I was having. BUT the inbuilt inability to run concurrent 2.4 & 5GHz networks together makes it a second-rate non-starter to me.

And how common is this usage? (Genuine question. Not looking for an argument )

With my Asus router I get a stronger 5GHz signal outside on the patio than the superhub gave on 2.4GHz, which to me questions the validity of the VM claims regarding 'best wireless performance'.

Fair enough.

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

However, I think it would be unreasonable to expect VM to supply CPE that was on a par with off the shelf equipment costing an average weeks wage.

Why not, do you know that when you take out a mobile phone contract in most cases your subscription does not even cover the cost of the phone so why shouldn't we get a high end off the shelf modem included in our package as a matter of course instead of the 3 most recent pieces of junk they have supplied everyone to date.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by carlwaring

.....
It's the "for some" that's the problem though. If it's fine for the majority then, given that all marketing is hype to a certain extent, I can't see any issues with VM's comments on the SH.


.....

@CarlWaring

This is where we have differed all along.

The absolute numbers complaining about the SH and the nature of the complaints describes a fundamental failure in the design of that wretched device.

There should be NO data corruption attributable to modem firmware. Do you agree?

There should be NO instability arising from the router functions of the SH. Do you agree?

If the ad says it's got brilliant wireless range then it MUST live up to the claim.

That we don't hear from the majority isn't a justification for VM's BS.

And what's more, and even worse, VM know exactly what a piece of cack that SH is.

No disrespect, but some of us don't have the same issues that others have (but I do believe they have them, and hope they get resolved).

I am sat in my back garden posting this on my iPad (and my wife is sat beside me, posting on FB on her iPad), approx 60ft from the shub - one size fits all statements don't benefit anyone, whichever side of the argument they come from.

[Sephiroth]

Trouble is, Hugh, that those who shy away from criticising VM for that wretched device and the descriptive BS, shy away from properly acknowledging the evidence of faults that simply shouldn't be live 20 odd months down the line.

I and thousands others might cross a dangerous road safely and one person gets knocked over. And another etc. That makes it a bad something, Likewise a device claimed to be at the pinnacle of perfection that the supplier knows to be rubbish. Why can't such as yourself, CarlWaring and a very few others actually acknowledge both this and the BS about the device put out by the supplier?

[carlwaring]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

The absolute numbers complaining about the SH and the nature of the complaints describes a fundamental failure in the design of that wretched device.

So quote these "absolute numbers" and then we can work out what %age that is of VM customers overall and see if it is anywhere approaching >50%.

There should be NO data corruption attributable to modem firmware. Do you agree?

There should be NO instability arising from the router functions of the SH. Do you agree?

Absolutely. But then I also realise that nothing is ever perfect.

If the ad says it's got brilliant wireless range then it MUST live up to the claim.

Absolutely. And if you can prove it hasn't for a majority of VM's broadband customers I will happily add my voice to your complaint to the ASA about their lies in their advertising.

That we don't hear from the majority isn't a justification for VM's BS.

It is precisely because we don't know exact figures that we cannot say for certain that the SH is as bad as you make out.

And what's more, and even worse, VM know exactly what a piece of cack that SH is.

Cite a source for this please.

---------- Post added at 19:04 ---------- Previous post was at 19:02 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

No disrespect, but some of us don't have the same issues that others have (but I do believe they have them, and hope they get resolved).

Exactly. I have said all along that I am happy to concede that some people are having some problems with the SH. Whereas Sephiroth et al have always simply made the blanket statement that ALL SHs are "a pile of cack", etc. Which is, quite clearly and simply - and demonstrably -wrong.

---------- Post added at 19:06 ---------- Previous post was at 19:04 ----------

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Trouble is, Hugh, that those who shy away from criticising VM for that wretched device and the descriptive BS, shy away from properly acknowledging the evidence of faults that simply shouldn't be live 20 odd months down the line.

Except no-one is "shying away" from anything. That I can see, anyway

---------- Post added at 19:08 ---------- Previous post was at 19:06 ----------

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Why can't such as yourself, CarlWaring and a very few others actually acknowledge both this and the BS about the device put out by the supplier?

I will, as soon as you acknowledge that your blanket statement (see above) is also, ironically, complete BS.

In fact, I have never actually said otherwise anyway.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Trouble is, Hugh, that those who shy away from criticising VM for that wretched device and the descriptive BS, shy away from properly acknowledging the evidence of faults that simply shouldn't be live 20 odd months down the line.

I and thousands others might cross a dangerous road safely and one person gets knocked over. And another etc. That makes it a bad something, Likewise a device claimed to be at the pinnacle of perfection that the supplier knows to be rubbish. Why can't such as yourself, CarlWaring and a very few others actually acknowledge both this and the BS about the device put out by the supplier?

You don't seem to acknowledge that I acknowledge it has problems - but not as all-encompassing as you state.

Do VM over-hype it? Yes, welcome to the world of Marketing.

Is it as bad for as many people as you (and others) continually state? I don't believe so (a reasonable minority, perhaps, but not the total failure you (and others) seem to posit).

You are, of course, entitled to your viewpoint.

[Sephiroth]

To both of you - just go to the VM forums. It's SH, SH, SH. You can be pedantic and say there's other stuff too - you can say that the forums are only a fraction of the customer base.

But it is wrong to avoid agreeing that none of the main faults being reported, instability, poor wireless range, data corruption, should be happening 20 odd months in. It is also wrong to avoid agreeing that it can't be best wireless or whatever superlatives VM use when it isn't even dual band. The SH is a very poor, budget driven device.

VM know exactly what is wrong because they're dealing with it day in day out. So the BS on their web site is inexcusable. Blessing it as "marketing" is both obtuse and poor judgement.

The BS could be majorly lessened with a statement such as "This is our get-you-going gateway that we supply free of charge. The more advanced user cna switch our SH to modem mode and attach their own router". Simples.

[carlwaring]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

But it is wrong to avoid agreeing that none of the main faults being reported, instability, poor wireless range, data corruption, should be happening 20 odd months in.

Please find me one person who is doing that. I'm not. Pretty sure Hugh isn't either.

[Peter_]

The thing is with the Superhub is that it may well work for the majority but it does not get away from the fact that compared to the off the shelf devices available it is to all intents and purposes a piece of junk poorly designed with aesthetics only in mind over functionality.

The same can be said about the VMNG300 which had been superseded even before release when they decided to go for 8 downstreams when the device on offer could only offer 4 downstreams.

The team in charge of planning this should lose their jobs but as I have posted many times my belief is that palms were greased otherwise we may well have had better equipment on or under our desks.

[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by carlwaring

So quote these "absolute numbers" and then we can work out what %age that is of VM customers overall and see if it is anywhere approaching >50%.

Carl why don't/can't you stop asking people to supply proof for things we all know they can't. If I started picking you up on all your comments that couldn't be substantiated, I wonder how many times a week I would be asking you to do the impossible?

Originally Posted by carlwaring

Absolutely. But then I also realise that nothing is ever perfect.

Will keep reminding you of that when you refuse to accept the inadequacies of VM kit in the future.

Originally Posted by carlwaring

Absolutely. And if you can prove it hasn't for a majority of VM's broadband customers I will happily add my voice to your complaint to the ASA about their lies in their advertising.

Originally Posted by carlwaring

It is precisely because we don't know exact figures that we cannot say for certain that the SH is as bad as you make out.

See my first comment in this post, but then you admit you are being pugnacious by confirming the figures you ask for are unknown outside VM.

Originally Posted by carlwaring

Cite a source for this please.

I think I've covered my thoughts on this type of post from you.

Originally Posted by carlwaring

Exactly. I have said all along that I am happy to concede that some people are having some problems with the SH. Whereas Sephiroth et al have always simply made the blanket statement that ALL SHs are "a pile of cack", etc. Which is, quite clearly and simply - and demonstrably -wrong.

If I'm included in the et al statement I take offence as I thought I made quite a balanced post earlier this afternoon, but if I’m included in your blanket statement then let me say that all three superhubs I've had were nothing more than a waste of natural resources so therefore ALL superhubs must be rubbish. Of course as this statement is demonstrably wrong I look forward to your demonstration showing how wrong I am and in what way.

Originally Posted by carlwaring

Except no-one is "shying away" from anything. That I can see, anyway

Except you're shying away from the superhubs shortcomings. I wish they worked perfectly and wish I'd not had any problems, but I did have problems and it felt wrong that I had to fight with VM to get a working modem that would give me the service I was paying for. I wish I still had the ~£80 in the bank that I had to spend to get the hardware to do the routing job of the superhub.

Anyway, I think I've made my point but no doubt you'll be unable to resist your 'must have the last word' urges.

Cheers

Grim

[carlwaring]

Originally Posted by Peter_

The thing is with the Superhub is that it may well work for the majority...

Well there you go then.

but it does not get away from the fact that compared to the off the shelf devices available it is to all intents and purposes a piece of junk poorly designed with aesthetics only in mind over functionality.

It works (for me) as well as anything else I have ever used. (Mainly Netgear stuff; WGR614, IIRC.) So in that respect, it's fine.

The team in charge of planning this should lose their jobs but as I have posted many times my belief is that palms were greased otherwise we may well have had better equipment on or under our desks.

I love a good conspiracy theory. But that's not one