Superhub : Superhub 2

[qasdfdsaq]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I'm explaining how it works in the DOCSIS environment.

And I'm explaining that's not how it works in the DOCSIS environment.

---------- Post added at 22:44 ---------- Previous post was at 22:44 ----------

Originally Posted by Skie

I thought Ignition had pretty much debunked the VMNG300's supposed ability to support more than 4 downstreams ages ago? Pretty sure someone found the design documents and it only ever had the hardware to support 4.

I thought the design documents we found suggested it did support 8... :-/

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

I thought the design documents we found suggested it did support 8... :-/

That is as I recall too. Can't remember which model of modem it's based on.

[qasdfdsaq]

On the plus side, everything we ever say here is preserved eternally for all to see.

On the downside some of us (me) post so much crap it's impossible to find the useful bits of information in between...

I do remember it being a Ubee though, so that's a starting point...

---------- Post added at 23:11 ---------- Previous post was at 23:10 ----------

Tada:

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/87...l#post35483996

Still nice to laugh at people who bragged about the Superhub being "futureproof", here we are with the previous-gen modem still supporting the fastest speed available on the network and the Superhub 2's already here (and no more futureproof than the last)

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

On the plus side, everything we ever say here is preserved eternally for all to see.

On the downside some of us (me) post so much crap it's impossible to find the useful bits of information in between...

I do remember it being a Ubee though, so that's a starting point...

---------- Post added at 23:11 ---------- Previous post was at 23:10 ----------

Tada:

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/87...l#post35483996

Still nice to laugh at people who bragged about the Superhub being "futureproof", here we are with the previous-gen modem still supporting the fastest speed available on the network and the Superhub 2's already here (and no more futureproof than the last)

Nice find qas, thenry does say further down that Ignition mentioned the VMNG could lock onto 8 channels with a firmware upgrade.

[craigj2k12]

lol peter

[qasdfdsaq]

Haha, yeah. I was wondering why he'd gone so quiet. Now I know.

---------- Post added at 02:33 ---------- Previous post was at 02:23 ----------

Originally Posted by pip08456

Nice find qas, thenry does say further down that Ignition mentioned the VMNG could lock onto 8 channels with a firmware upgrade.

Indeed, though we're getting to the point of he said she said he said I think somebody else said... Would be nice to find the original posts but in any case a bit O/T.

[Chrysalis]

vmng300 still sitting next to me.

[Kushan]

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

Still nice to laugh at people who bragged about the Superhub being "futureproof", here we are with the previous-gen modem still supporting the fastest speed available on the network and the Superhub 2's already here (and no more futureproof than the last)

Just because older modems are still running on the network and because there's been a successor released doesn't make the Superhub any less "future proof". It supports enough downstream and upstream channels to be usable for many years to come and most likely we won't see that change until DOCSIS 3.1 devices start rolling out. Even then, it'll still be usable as a modem.

There's still people out there today on Ambit 120's (probably connected via USB) and probably even the odd terayon assuming it hasn't burned their house down yet.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the SH didn't need replacing, the SH2 is a welcome and much needed upgrade but only due to the wireless side of things, as a modem the Superhub is just as "future proof" as the SH2. No doubt the SH2 will be replaced soon enough as well, either with wireless-ac or DOCSIS3.1 onboard (or both).

[Sephiroth]

Qasi's argument is better than your's Kush.

[Kushan]

I'm not really sure what his argument is, other than both older and newer equipment is still on the network - which has never been any different.

[raging bull]

Do the experts agree that if SH2 marketed as strongly as the offering from BT, would Virgin be allowed to shout about how good the SH2 was!

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by raging bull

Do the experts agree that if SH2 marketed as strongly as the offering from BT, would Virgin be allowed to shout about how good the SH2 was!

You'll get a debate going now as to who's an expert!

But first, "experts" would need to understand the question!!!

---------- Post added at 12:35 ---------- Previous post was at 12:26 ----------

Originally Posted by Kushan

I'm not really sure what his argument is, other than both older and newer equipment is still on the network - which has never been any different.

Kush - his argument is simple though put in terser language by him.

I'll put a bit of wrap on. Bringing out a SH2 to cure the wireless issues of the SH1, only deals with range - not later functions like ac. Furthermore, putting the Puma5 chip into the SH2 doesn't make the VMNG300 future proof; conversely the use of Puma5 in the VMNG300 certainly renders the SH2 non-future proof.

For the above reasons, his point about older and newer equipment delivering the top VM speeds and capable of going higher exactly makes his point about the SH2 not being any more future proof than its predecessors.

[Diesel2011]

Anyone know why Virgin are taking forever to release a firmware update for the Superhub 2? I am still on version 19 and I gather the beta testers were using version 23 months ago.

I thought this or a version 24 would have rolled out by now.

[Sephiroth]

I know what they told me. Our V23 had problems that they wouldn't want to see released but they wouldn't elaborate - as they won't.

But I do understand what it was. The SH2 behaved very well and was highly stable in router mode for customers (such as I) attached to a Cisco CMTS. But customers on the trial attached to the Motorola CMTS were having problems akin to those experienced by the same people in the VMNG300 days. (The problem was known as the TEK event problem which caused the modem to reset).

V26 is supposed to cure this and by all accounts that I can see on the trials forum it has.

I suspect that VM had to release the flaky V19 because they were running out of SH1s (I don't know that officially) and peops were generally nervous that would receive the discredited SH1. Sort of thing.

Anyway the V26 SH2 is a credible get-you-going device in router mode. I still hold to the modem mode mantra, of course.

[Kushan]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

You'll get a debate going now as to who's an expert!

But first, "experts" would need to understand the question!!!

---------- Post added at 12:35 ---------- Previous post was at 12:26 ----------



Kush - his argument is simple though put in terser language by him.

I'll put a bit of wrap on. Bringing out a SH2 to cure the wireless issues of the SH1, only deals with range - not later functions like ac. Furthermore, putting the Puma5 chip into the SH2 doesn't make the VMNG300 future proof; conversely the use of Puma5 in the VMNG300 certainly renders the SH2 non-future proof.

For the above reasons, his point about older and newer equipment delivering the top VM speeds and capable of going higher exactly makes his point about the SH2 not being any more future proof than its predecessors.

I guess I just fail to see how the Superhub (or SH2) could be any more future proof than they already are. 8 DS channels seems more than adequate for what future plans are (200Mbit?) before they start rolling out 3.1 hardware. Could always have more DS channels I suppose.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I know what they told me. Our V23 had problems that they wouldn't want to see released but they wouldn't elaborate - as they won't.

But I do understand what it was. The SH2 behaved very well and was highly stable in router mode for customers (such as I) attached to a Cisco CMTS. But customers on the trial attached to the Motorola CMTS were having problems akin to those experienced by the same people in the VMNG300 days. (The problem was known as the TEK event problem which caused the modem to reset).

V26 is supposed to cure this and by all accounts that I can see on the trials forum it has.

I suspect that VM had to release the flaky V19 because they were running out of SH1s (I don't know that officially) and peops were generally nervous that would receive the discredited SH1. Sort of thing.

Anyway the V26 SH2 is a credible get-you-going device in router mode. I still hold to the modem mode mantra, of course.

If I had to guess, I'd suggest that someone somewhere decided that the SH2 was to be launched on a certain day and that's why they've pushed it out with the most stable firmware to date.