Superhub : Superhub 2

[qasdfdsaq]

Originally Posted by Kushan

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.

It's no more futureproof than what already existed before it. As discussed the VMNG300 is capable of the same DOCSIS 3 speeds. The wireless on the Superhub 1 is poor and outdated and has been substantially upgraded - it's effectively two generations behind and cannot support more than ~100Mbps in typical households. It's gigabit LAN capabilities must be disabled in order to bypass the wireless limitation, and the actual routing performance is... go figure. So tell me one single way in which it is any more "future proof" than the VMNG300.

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

But the whole definition of future proof is "does not need replacing"...

is just as "future proof" as the SH2.

Well no, the SH2 can actually deliver 200Mbps over wireless, therefore enabling the next generation of speed doubling customers to still get full speed nomatter how they connect. The SH1 cannot.

No doubt the SH2 will be replaced soon enough as well, either with wireless-ac or DOCSIS3.1 onboard (or both).

Probably. BT, Sky, EE, and various others are including AC in their routers this year, VM would be foolish not to follow suit considering their higher headline speeds. Though not sure about the SH2, the SH1 has modular wireless which in theory could be field-upgraded (by a competent technician) to support 802.11ac anyhow. Course VM seem to prefer to send out new hardware than actually upgrading existing equipment...

[Angua]

Got one by surprise today. Faster for the wireless by far.

[StevenNT]

Originally Posted by Angua

Got one by surprise today. Faster for the wireless by far.

That's interesting, does it look like this? http://www.cableforum.co.uk/article/...ias-superhub-2 Not being patronising but just asking to be 100% sure

If so that's rather interesting, what did you have before?

[Angua]

Originally Posted by StevenNT

That's interesting, does it look like this? http://www.cableforum.co.uk/article/...ias-superhub-2 Not being patronising but just asking to be 100% sure

If so that's rather interesting, what did you have before?

Yup. Even has a sticker on the side with "Some WiFi wisdom..." Which has one of those square scan to connect boxes.

We had the shiny upright black one with the big button before.

The guy only came to change us to a TiVo box so I thought. Not complaining.

[Kushan]

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

It's no more futureproof than what already existed before it. As discussed the VMNG300 is capable of the same DOCSIS 3 speeds.

What makes you say that? The SH1 can do 8 downstream channels versus the 4 on the Ambit 300. If 200Mbit becomes a thing, the Ambit 300 will struggle to hit that but the Superhub shouldn't have much of an issue.

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

The wireless on the Superhub 1 is poor and outdated and has been substantially upgraded - it's effectively two generations behind and cannot support more than ~100Mbps in typical households.

I think 100Mbps is being generous there, I wouldn't rate its wireless capabilities at all, but I think that's where we're butting heads here - I'm talking about it as a modem, not as a wireless router. I guess you're correct in saying that it's not good enough and thus needs to be replaced for better equipment but in terms of DOCSIS capabilities I don't think it's any less able than the SH2 and I'd say anyone with a SH1 in Modem mode isn't in any real need to replace it any time soon.

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

It's gigabit LAN capabilities must be disabled in order to bypass the wireless limitation, and the actual routing performance is... go figure. So tell me one single way in which it is any more "future proof" than the VMNG300.

As I stated before, 8 DS channels versus 4 makes it more future proof than the Ambit 300.

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

But the whole definition of future proof is "does not need replacing"...

Well no, the SH2 can actually deliver 200Mbps over wireless, therefore enabling the next generation of speed doubling customers to still get full speed nomatter how they connect. The SH1 cannot.

I do actually agree with this, as I mentioned before, I should have made it clearer that I was talking about the modem side of the Superhub rather than its wireless capabilities. I guess I've just gotten used to seeing it as nothing other than a Modem.

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

Probably. BT, Sky, EE, and various others are including AC in their routers this year, VM would be foolish not to follow suit considering their higher headline speeds. Though not sure about the SH2, the SH1 has modular wireless which in theory could be field-upgraded (by a competent technician) to support 802.11ac anyhow. Course VM seem to prefer to send out new hardware than actually upgrading existing equipment...

That's right, I was surprised when I read about that as well and always hoped Virgin would use it as an opportunity to stick better wireless chips in a hardware refresh, but it never happened. I honestly can't see the techs going out and replacing wireless chips inside the SH2 though. It's too time consuming and it'd be faster to just swap it straight out and have someone replace the chips somewhere else to be sent out as "new" equipment.

Or they'll just do what they did with the SH1 and have a different model entirely. It would be a good opportunity to start pushing out DOCSIS3.1 hardware and it's been established that the 3.1 rollout would start with modems before anything else. Who knows, that makes sense so Virgin will probably do something else entirely.

[craigj2k12]

Originally Posted by Kushan

What makes you say that? The SH1 can do 8 downstream channels versus the 4 on the Ambit 300. If 200Mbit becomes a thing, the Ambit 300 will struggle to hit that but the Superhub shouldn't have much of an issue.

Qas' point was in terms of hardware, the Ambits tuner is capable of 16 channels and is only limited by firmware

Originally Posted by Kushan

I think 100Mbps is being generous there, I wouldn't rate its wireless capabilities at all, but I think that's where we're butting heads here - I'm talking about it as a modem, not as a wireless router. I guess you're correct in saying that it's not good enough and thus needs to be replaced for better equipment but in terms of DOCSIS capabilities I don't think it's any less able than the SH2 and I'd say anyone with a SH1 in Modem mode isn't in any real need to replace it any time soon.

the SH2 uses the same Puma 5 chip as the VMNG300, so in terms of being a modem, yeah about the same

Originally Posted by Kushan

As I stated before, 8 DS channels versus 4 makes it more future proof than the Ambit 300.

As above.

Originally Posted by Kushan

I do actually agree with this, as I mentioned before, I should have made it clearer that I was talking about the modem side of the Superhub rather than its wireless capabilities. I guess I've just gotten used to seeing it as nothing other than a Modem.

As above, it is no improvement

Originally Posted by Kushan

That's right, I was surprised when I read about that as well and always hoped Virgin would use it as an opportunity to stick better wireless chips in a hardware refresh, but it never happened. I honestly can't see the techs going out and replacing wireless chips inside the SH2 though. It's too time consuming and it'd be faster to just swap it straight out and have someone replace the chips somewhere else to be sent out as "new" equipment.

Or they'll just do what they did with the SH1 and have a different model entirely. It would be a good opportunity to start pushing out DOCSIS3.1 hardware and it's been established that the 3.1 rollout would start with modems before anything else. Who knows, that makes sense so Virgin will probably do something else entirely.

Agreed, as you point out, it is entirely impractical to have engineers modifying the CPE at the customers house. As you suggested they could be refurbed at a lower cost than having an entirely new unit produced. In terms of the SH1 I am glad they scrapped it and started again, though

[Kushan]

Originally Posted by craigj2k12

Qas' point was in terms of hardware, the Ambits tuner is capable of 16 channels and is only limited by firmware

the SH2 uses the same Puma 5 chip as the VMNG300, so in terms of being a modem, yeah about the same

As above.


As above, it is no improvement

Right, I'm getting a bit confused by this one because apparently this debate has come up more than once and each time we seem to get a different answer. The last I seen, a few posts ago, it had apparently been proven that there is still a hardware limitation on the Ambit 300 that restricts it to 4 DS channels, even though the chip can do more - but this was supposedly proven the first time the debate came around and I wasn't here for that so I don't know where that is. I'm not sure if we reached a proper consensus on this one though? A few different theories have been thrown around and I'm not sure if one of them has been "definitive" yet?

Either way and for whatever reason, it's only capable of 4 DS channels. I do remember Virgin trialling 200Mbit years and years ago, long before the SH was a thing, and I doubt a regular Ambit 300 would be capable of that so perhaps they used a stock FW on that? Or the 200Mbit trial was more of a "max out 4 channels and see what happens" trial.

Originally Posted by craigj2k12

Agreed, as you point out, it is entirely impractical to have engineers modifying the CPE at the customers house. As you suggested they could be refurbed at a lower cost than having an entirely new unit produced. In terms of the SH1 I am glad they scrapped it and started again, though

I think we can definitely agree on this one.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by Kushan

Either way and for whatever reason, it's only capable of 4 DS channels. I do remember Virgin trialling 200Mbit years and years ago, long before the SH was a thing, and I doubt a regular Ambit 300 would be capable of that so perhaps they used a stock FW on that? Or the 200Mbit trial was more of a "max out 4 channels and see what happens" trial.

Wikipedia seems to think that 4 channels would be capable of delivering 222Mbit on EuroDOCSIS, so I wouldn't be surprised if it was a 'standard' VMNG300 modem

However, the issue over 200Mbit (or even 100/120Mbit) over 4 channels would be when you are using it in a contended area. Which is why VM would prefer everyone was on a SH for the new tiers.

[Diesel2011]

Thanks for the info.

I look forward to trying out R26 as I do think there are a few bugs in R19. Very happy with it though compared to the Superhub 1 on R37. Never got to test out R38.

[craigj2k12]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

Wikipedia seems to think that 4 channels would be capable of delivering 222Mbit on EuroDOCSIS, so I wouldn't be surprised if it was a 'standard' VMNG300 modem

However, the issue over 200Mbit (or even 100/120Mbit) over 4 channels would be when you are using it in a contended area. Which is why VM would prefer everyone was on a SH for the new tiers.

I seem to recall they used a specialist Arris modem for the trials

[qasdfdsaq]

Originally Posted by Kushan

What makes you say that? The SH1 can do 8 downstream channels versus the 4 on the Ambit 300. If 200Mbit becomes a thing, the Ambit 300 will struggle to hit that but the Superhub shouldn't have much of an issue.

Umm you've clearly not been paying attention to this thread, the last two or three pages have been confirming the Ambit 300 does 8 downstreams. VM are just too cheap to enable it.

I think 100Mbps is being generous there, I wouldn't rate its wireless capabilities at all, but I think that's where we're butting heads here - I'm talking about it as a modem, not as a wireless router.

The primary purpose of the Superhub at time of release, and what it was designed for, was not as a modem, it was as a combined wireless router. For the record I've managed to get over 230Mbps over wireless on my test Superhubs, but under standard 2.4Ghz operation I'd expect it to top out about 100.

I guess you're correct in saying that it's not good enough and thus needs to be replaced for better equipment but in terms of DOCSIS capabilities I don't think it's any less able than the SH2

It's no more able than the VMNG300 either.

and I'd say anyone with a SH1 in Modem mode isn't in any real need to replace it any time soon.

But again, the majority of people don't have the SH1 in modem mode, and nor was it intended to be used that way by most people. And again, in just modem mode, it's no better a modem than the VMNG300 (on paper). Admittedly practice is different, there are certain performance characteristics which are improved, of the sort you don't see on the spec sheet.

As I stated before, 8 DS channels versus 4 makes it more future proof than the Ambit 300.

No it doesn't. Because 8 DS verses 8 DS is exactly the same.

I do actually agree with this, as I mentioned before, I should have made it clearer that I was talking about the modem side of the Superhub rather than its wireless capabilities.

See above, when it gets installed by VM it's not "just a modem". It's set up as a wireless router; only certain more knowledgeable customers use it in modem mode. The average joe does not. But even as a modem it's capabilities on paper are identical to the VMNG300 before it and the SH2 after it. If the SH1 is "future proof" as a modem, so is the VMNG300 (which defeats the point of its existence as a "future proof" replacement for the VMNG300...)

---------- Post added at 23:45 ---------- Previous post was at 23:40 ----------

Originally Posted by craigj2k12

Agreed, as you point out, it is entirely impractical to have engineers modifying the CPE at the customers house. As you suggested they could be refurbed at a lower cost than having an entirely new unit produced. In terms of the SH1 I am glad they scrapped it and started again, though

Well... Being an "engineer" who's done that myself on customer premises, it's not entirely impractical, it just depends what level of service you're budgeting for. That said it would be more efficient just doing a straight swap at the customer premises and sending the old kit back to the warehouse to be upgraded en-masse.

---------- Post added at 23:48 ---------- Previous post was at 23:45 ----------

Originally Posted by BenMcr

Wikipedia seems to think that 4 channels would be capable of delivering 222Mbit on EuroDOCSIS, so I wouldn't be surprised if it was a 'standard' VMNG300 modem

It wasn't - the triallists have specifically addressed this question before - special dedicated modems were used, modems that haven't been seen or heard from on VM's network since.

However, the issue over 200Mbit (or even 100/120Mbit) over 4 channels would be when you are using it in a contended area. Which is why VM would prefer everyone was on a SH for the new tiers.

Well, yes, but then it used to be that 100Mbit over 3 channels was viable, until congestion got out of hand, but now it's improving again it's not entirely impractical. Ignition was of the impression 400Mbit service over 8 channels could actually be practical with correct network management.

---------- Post added at 23:49 ---------- Previous post was at 23:48 ----------

Originally Posted by craigj2k12

I seem to recall they used a specialist Arris modem for the trials

Indeed. Couldn't remember the name myself, but they were special modems used only for the trial; it seemed that line of development was abandoned when VM decided to go down the "all in one" Superhub track.

If it weren't for that, those modems could well been the successor to the VMNG300.

[Chrysalis]

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!

They can shout about the features and improvements over the SH1 yes.

But if they start claiming things like its market leading then no, the problem with VM shouting is it often is mistruth.

[raging bull]

Just getting fed up with the adverts proclaiming the BT hub is the best.
Can't Virgin retaliate with some decent advert on the SH2?

[Sephiroth]

How good is the SH2? Most useful router functions are slugged out (just as well) and it's nothing but a get you going device as a router. VM could be bold and promote it on versatility providing a modem mode for those requiring advanced features (!) offered by third party routers.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

How good is the SH2?

I believe it's very good in regards to performance. Obviously if you want some of the additional router features it doesn't offer at present, then that would sway your decision.