Superhub : Next DOCSIS 3 modem - these okay?

[Matth]

Hope they make the next model able to be positioned upright or flat... I have a horrible cable snag due to the upright hub having to be further from the splitter than the modem was.
Either that, or pack the self-install kit with an extra 1m link cable.

[horseman]

Nice but still no evidence yet of any attempt to embed Samknows test regime either?

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by horseman

Nice but still no evidence yet of any attempt to embed Samknows test regime either?

There's no need. Cable modems can be instructed to run speed tests without the embedded Samknows.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by horseman

Nice but still no evidence yet of any attempt to embed Samknows test regime either?

Thank goodness!

[horseman]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

There's no need. Cable modems can be instructed to run speed tests without the embedded Samknows.

Yes but I'm not personally aware of any that are (or likely) to be end user accessible (or publishable) but readily accede to your expertise and experience in this field.

[Ignitionnet]

You're correct. They exist to help operators diagnose faults rather than to supply data to end users.

[qasdfdsaq]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Okay.

The Superhub was built off the CG3100D which didn't.[COLOR="Silver"]

Not sure what you know about the difference between the CG3100D and CG3100 non-D, but all the info I can find on the D online seems to show it's identical to the non-D with the 2 VOIP ports. Regardless, it'll almost certainly be based of the same platform and SoC either way with the capability there, but disabled, whether or not it has the physical ports to show it.

The BT Home Hub 5 has the same capability (the Lantiq chipset has explicit support for two phone ports) but again unused by choice of the provider.

[BenMcr]

http://www.netgear.com/images/cg3000...c0918-4742.pdf

Bottom right of the last page of this datasheet:

Model
CG3100D

WAN
EuroD3.0

Voice
N

If you search for CG3100D you can see that there are stock Netgear units without the VoIP ports. For instance http://www.olx.ph/index.php/view+cla...outer+(CG3100D)

[qasdfdsaq]

Interesting. First few results I saw included a picture and a video of someone's 3100D which had VOIP ports, as well as an ISP's CG3100D manual which was just the 3100 manual.

Nonetheless as I mentioned above it's the same BCM3380 chipset and does have telephony support:

Advanced VoIP Subsystem
• 2-line Audio Processing Module with integrated codec and HVG
• Direct interface to low-cost external dual SLIC
• PCM interface for expansion beyond two voice lines
• Battery Management Unit
• CablexChange® software support

http://datasheet.elcodis.com/pdf/48/...3380dkfsbg.pdf

[BenMcr]

The select sourced variant from Netgear themselves did not support VoIP as Netgear offered a version without hardware ports.

As Virgin Media doesn't currently offer VoIP for residential service, then there was no business need to select a variant with ports that would not be used.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

Interesting. First few results I saw included a picture and a video of someone's 3100D which had VOIP ports, as well as an ISP's CG3100D manual which was just the 3100 manual.

Nonetheless as I mentioned above it's the same BCM3380 chipset and does have telephony support:

Most of these chipsets do. Cost increment to incorporate those features is minimal.

[qasdfdsaq]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

The select sourced variant from Netgear themselves did not support VoIP as Netgear offered a version without hardware ports.

As Virgin Media doesn't currently offer VoIP for residential service, then there was no business need to select a variant with ports that would not be used.

Indeed, that being my point all along - the capability is there, VM chose not to use it.

---------- Post added at 17:54 ---------- Previous post was at 17:52 ----------

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Most of these chipsets do. Cost increment to incorporate those features is minimal.

Cost increment to supply a decent device to begin with instead of the Superhub would have been minimal too, but we all know what VM are like with "minimal" costs

[Kushan]

Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq

Indeed, that being my point all along - the capability is there, VM chose not to use it.

I suppose it's more like "they chose not to invest in the infrastructure required to use it at that time". Nice to see that they're finally doing so.

[Ignitionnet]

There was no need for VoIP. It only starts making sense when you are planning a big infrastructure build in the future and the 'older' POTS networks begin to really creak.

Both are happening, delivering telco in the old stylie is expensive so Packet Cable / VoIP is happening.

[Kushan]

The only downside being that if your broadband goes down, you can't phone in to get it checked