Superhub : ANYTHING other than SH

[General Maximus]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

Just to point out that as far as I'm aware general...

are you talking to me because I haven't made a post in this thread yet?

[techguyone]

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

Well all I can say is I've thrashed my SH1, modem mode, to death with torrents and it has never faltered or reset even with my net access saturated. From the early days I've used a separate router where I can control things with much better precision than the SH could ever achieve.

Same here I reckon if I reboot mine once a month, i'd be pushing it, it's probably nearer every two.

OP does make me laugh 'Suspicious of his shub' What does he think it's going to do, report him to GCHQ or something?

[MagicMavis]

Originally Posted by Gobble

Agreed, the Superhub 1 as anything but a modem was useless.

Absolutely.

Funny how you mention irony... You're asking them for a modem, to do what with... My guess is plug it into a router, yet when they say you will be able to put the superhub into modem mode, thus being no less better or worse than a modem (on paper), then you have a problem with it?

I think you've missed my point. The whole issue starts with VM forcing terrible kit on users to avoid supporting diverse equipment, but then actually recommending diverse equipment to overcome the shortcomings of the supplied kit.

So VM like a **** ton of other ISP's don't want to spend the money having to train their staff on lots of equipment when they can purchase 3rd party equipment (you didn't think they built it themselves did you?) and put a nice VM logo and stamp on it.

I understand that they don't want to support a ton of different kit, and yes, I realise the SH is built by a 3rd party. Badging it largely makes it 1st party in my eyes.

The only logical reason for you argument is having 2 boxes and 2 power supplies in use, which for some is annoying, but other than that, there is no actual benefit what-so-ever of you trying to achieve what you're trying to do. In fact, you'd put yourself into a non-legit setup, now matter which way you try and put it, with less support than you're already moaning about.

That is not the only logical reason, and there is the potential for plenty of benefit as previously mentioned. If you read what I'd previously written properly then you would know that at no stage have I "moaned about support". I don't need support from VM, largely because the field I work in gives me better knowledge of switched/WiFi networking than the script/diagnostic flow their team is forced to work from. When I had to support broadband for my employer I just got on with it no matter which router the customer was using. Google gives you GUI addresses and logins for most routers, then asking the right questions gives you the rest. What I have actually done is complain about equipment which is not fit for purpose, ask for assistance circumventing their terrible choice of kit, state that I don't want to be told to "just use modem mode" (if that was an answer I was happy with then I wouldn't be asking the question in the first place) then reply to the people who suggested just that.

If you have some logical reasoning for any of this thread, I'm open to hear it. Otherwise, put it in modem mode, get a router and get on with it.

The logical reason for this thread is that I didn't know if there was a reasonably easy way to circumvent the forced use of the dire kit. That question was properly answered by someone's second reply. Since then I've answered lots of questions posted in response to my initial question. If I wanted to "put it in modem mode, get a router and get on with it" then I wouldn't bother asking the initial question.

---------- Post added at 18:22 ---------- Previous post was at 18:17 ----------

Originally Posted by techguyone

Short answer: He doesn't want two boxes.

To be fair I already have four boxes, if you discount the SH. My point is I do not want the SH. I want a standalone modem because I can trust that to not be *****. From that I can pull a single cable to the firewall/VPN/server I have. That has a single line to the switch, which then has a connection to one other switch, one router - actually supplied by VM as part of their two-box solution years ago - and one wireless AP used to deliver signal where the router can't reach. A simple setup this is not, but it does exactly what I want in exactly the way I want it to.

---------- Post added at 18:25 ---------- Previous post was at 18:22 ----------

Originally Posted by ianch99

Can't he tape them together?

It was a cheap shot, but still made me laugh! The problem with taping them together is when I set fire to the SH it would also damage my switch

---------- Post added at 18:26 ---------- Previous post was at 18:25 ----------

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

This suffers the same problem as above, except with extra fuel for the fire!

---------- Post added at 18:33 ---------- Previous post was at 18:26 ----------

Originally Posted by techguyone

They're not my pals, I don't think you get it. VM don't have any modems, its S Hub or nothing. If you don't want the shub, you get a router & use it in modem mode or you don't and have nothing. There isn't a VM supplied modem only solution anymore...

The lack of the modem only solution is the exact issue. As stated previously, I don't need them to support my network. I'd take a fair bet that 95%+ of their staff couldn't if they tried, but that's fine. It is by no means a standard home network.

All I want is a small, efficient, tidy device that I can rely on. None of those things are the SH. I'm prepared to obtain this device at my own financial expense, and to a certain degree with an amount of difficulty and learning thrown in too. The reply which made me more fully aware of the actual difficulty doing this also made me aware that this is probably several bridges too far.

---------- Post added at 18:38 ---------- Previous post was at 18:33 ----------

Originally Posted by BenMcr

Just to point out that as far as I'm aware general it's not just Virgin Media UK that now only supply the combined router / modem solution. The aim will be that all Liberty Global companies supply the same broadband hardware.

I saw this much in an article a few weeks/months ago on one of the usual suspects online - techradar/Engadget etc. The three is a complete **** take. I tried to manually set the WPA key to one of my choosing and it won't even allow me to save it. I give neither a flying f**k nor rolling doughnut if VM see my password as suitable/safe; it's not obvious but is memorable to friends and family, which is the point. Brilliantly their Twitter lot said the password "has to be up to scratch for me own safety" so I screenshot the option to just turn security off altogether. Strangely, they've not yet answered me on that from over 24 hours ago. If you're going to give me a corporate answer a least don't make it nonsensical.

---------- Post added at 18:43 ---------- Previous post was at 18:38 ----------

Originally Posted by techguyone

Good point.



Maybe the OP can answer that.

I'd expect it would be because if you want Wi-Fi or more than one device hardwired it's because you need a Wi-Fi enabled ROUTER as well, and lets face it, the number of households these days that only use a single hardwired point must be far & few between.

But Extra router to meet the extra demands of today's technology means box #2
and that's BAD.
Apparently.

You don't need a router to connect more than one hard wired device. My server will happily pick up the DHCP load without noticing so a switch would suffice, but that's me being pedantic.

I'm sorry to give the same basic answer but I just don't want anything to do with any of the SH family. The only reason it is foisted upon us is rendered null and void by it's lack of capability. With that an actual fact, there is no good reason to force it upon us, and plenty of good reasons to not. All I'm asking for is a common sense solution.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by MagicMavis

Absolutely.



I think you've missed my point. The whole issue starts with VM forcing terrible kit on users to avoid supporting diverse equipment, but then actually recommending diverse equipment to overcome the shortcomings of the supplied kit.



I understand that they don't want to support a ton of different kit, and yes, I realise the SH is built by a 3rd party. Badging it largely makes it 1st party in my eyes.



That is not the only logical reason, and there is the potential for plenty of benefit as previously mentioned. If you read what I'd previously written properly then you would know that at no stage have I "moaned about support". I don't need support from VM, largely because the field I work in gives me better knowledge of switched/WiFi networking than the script/diagnostic flow their team is forced to work from. When I had to support broadband for my employer I just got on with it no matter which router the customer was using. Google gives you GUI addresses and logins for most routers, then asking the right questions gives you the rest. What I have actually done is complain about equipment which is not fit for purpose, ask for assistance circumventing their terrible choice of kit, state that I don't want to be told to "just use modem mode" (if that was an answer I was happy with then I wouldn't be asking the question in the first place) then reply to the people who suggested just that.



The logical reason for this thread is that I didn't know if there was a reasonably easy way to circumvent the forced use of the dire kit. That question was properly answered by someone's second reply. Since then I've answered lots of questions posted in response to my initial question. If I wanted to "put it in modem mode, get a router and get on with it" then I wouldn't bother asking the initial question.

---------- Post added at 18:22 ---------- Previous post was at 18:17 ----------



To be fair I already have four boxes, if you discount the SH. My point is I do not want the SH. I want a standalone modem because I can trust that to not be *****. From that I can pull a single cable to the firewall/VPN/server I have. That has a single line to the switch, which then has a connection to one other switch, one router - actually supplied by VM as part of their two-box solution years ago - and one wireless AP used to deliver signal where the router can't reach. A simple setup this is not, but it does exactly what I want in exactly the way I want it to.

---------- Post added at 18:25 ---------- Previous post was at 18:22 ----------



It was a cheap shot, but still made me laugh! The problem with taping them together is when I set fire to the SH it would also damage my switch

---------- Post added at 18:26 ---------- Previous post was at 18:25 ----------



This suffers the same problem as above, except with extra fuel for the fire!

---------- Post added at 18:33 ---------- Previous post was at 18:26 ----------



The lack of the modem only solution is the exact issue. As stated previously, I don't need them to support my network. I'd take a fair bet that 95%+ of their staff couldn't if they tried, but that's fine. It is by no means a standard home network.

All I want is a small, efficient, tidy device that I can rely on. None of those things are the SH. I'm prepared to obtain this device at my own financial expense, and to a certain degree with an amount of difficulty and learning thrown in too. The reply which made me more fully aware of the actual difficulty doing this also made me aware that this is probably several bridges too far.

---------- Post added at 18:38 ---------- Previous post was at 18:33 ----------



I saw this much in an article a few weeks/months ago on one of the usual suspects online - techradar/Engadget etc. The three is a complete **** take. I tried to manually set the WPA key to one of my choosing and it won't even allow me to save it. I give neither a flying f**k nor rolling doughnut if VM see my password as suitable/safe; it's not obvious but is memorable to friends and family, which is the point. Brilliantly their Twitter lot said the password "has to be up to scratch for me own safety" so I screenshot the option to just turn security off altogether. Strangely, they've not yet answered me on that from over 24 hours ago. If you're going to give me a corporate answer a least don't make it nonsensical.

---------- Post added at 18:43 ---------- Previous post was at 18:38 ----------



You don't need a router to connect more than one hard wired device. My server will happily pick up the DHCP load without noticing so a switch would suffice, but that's me being pedantic.

I'm sorry to give the same basic answer but I just don't want anything to do with any of the SH family. The only reason it is foisted upon us is rendered null and void by it's lack of capability. With that an actual fact, there is no good reason to force it upon us, and plenty of good reasons to not. All I'm asking for is a common sense solution.

I am amazed at the energy you are putting into something you cannot have ..

[MagicMavis]

Originally Posted by Gobble

Figure of speech...



Back the point, whilst they don't supply a modem only solution, they provide the option to put the router into a modem only state. What is the difference?

If the sole reason was for having 1 box, like I said in previous posts, I could agree that it'd be nice to be able to do, but heck some space a bit of power isn't worth losing your nut over. However, the OP's problem isn't with that, it's that he in his own words 'begrudges' using a superhub at all.

Look at it from this angle:
Imagine I refused to sell you a car to tow a caravan and forced you to take a camper van instead. Imagine the camper part of it was absolutely terrible. You would complain, wouldn't you? How about I then told you it has a tow bar and you could always sack off the camper part and just tow a caravan with it? You would think that was completely ridiculous would you not?

It's exactly the same situation here. VM don't want to support my router, so they only provide a combined unit which is s**te. They acknowledge this and offer me the ability to use it as a modem only, then expect me to not call them on that? It's senseless. If they can't provide a suitable combined unit, just allow me to use a simple modem.

The difference is that I can find a suitable modem no problem at all. Small, subtle, efficient and reliable. Four things the SH is not.

---------- Post added at 18:57 ---------- Previous post was at 18:56 ----------

Originally Posted by Gobble

For me it is a bit of a pain, just more cables and more boxes around the TV, so I can feel his pain, but needs must and all that... :P

One cable is no hardship in the pile I already have. Reliability is what I want to see.

---------- Post added at 18:59 ---------- Previous post was at 18:57 ----------

Originally Posted by techguyone

Cool, let us know your other 'options'

If it works, I may well do that. Although after the number of people getting butthurt because I don't want to use the modem only setting I'm of a mind to just leave them to deal with the SH and all the crap it brings.

---------- Post added at 19:00 ---------- Previous post was at 18:59 ----------

Originally Posted by ianch99

I am amazed at the energy you are putting into something you cannot have ..

I'm just answering questions. Which, to be fair, I had already stated that I had no interest in being asked in my OP.

[heero_yuy]

Surely you want to go with an ISP that is quite happy to let you connect your own unknown kit to their network?

BTW I'm not aware of such an ISP.

[techguyone]

It's not really fair to say that VM 'force you' to use their kit, you do have the choice of not having VM it's not like it's a secret or a surprise what their kit is.

One thing that has occurred to me, from a phone call I had the other day from EE trying to sell me Broadband was their intimation that they could use the VM fibre network under their own ISP (maybe like how ADSL places use BT stuff)
I'm not sure what equipment they provide, or require you to use.

No ones getting butthurt, and I'm sure we'd be interested in seeing a 'solution' I suspect though that reverse engineering a custom modem is extremely dubious if not outright illegal so a non-starter.

I don't normally agree with much of what ianch 99 says but he is right, you're putting in an extraordinary amount of energy to simply avoid having a shub plugged in at all.

[vm_tech]

A few points here:

Every ISP provides a hub, which is why VM do it

Look how many issues were had with the SH1, tested by VM and it wasn't great. Now imagine the quantities of unknown kit connected to their network, which the customer could have faults with and be blaming VM for issues.

Unknown kit could send ingress and errors onto the network

One of VM selling points is the free service/repairs it offers, that kind of takes that point away

The OP is the only person I've known to complain the hubs are rubbish in modem mode, when every single other person agrees they work fine.

The config files for speeds on the hubs are written by VM. With your own piece of kit what's preventing you from writing your own config file to add to your kit?

And also that will mean that VM has to provide config files for every single bit of kit that could be released onto the market. Which would involve testing them, which will cost a lot of money.

There are probably a lot more but I can't be bothered

[Ken W]

Originally Posted by vm_tech

A few points here:

Every ISP provides a hub, which is why VM do it

Look how many issues were had with the SH1, tested by VM and it wasn't great. Now imagine the quantities of unknown kit connected to their network, which the customer could have faults with and be blaming VM for issues.

Unknown kit could send ingress and errors onto the network

One of VM selling points is the free service/repairs it offers, that kind of takes that point away

The OP is the only person I've known to complain the hubs are rubbish in modem mode, when every single other person agrees they work fine.

The config files for speeds on the hubs are written by VM. With your own piece of kit what's preventing you from writing your own config file to add to your kit?

And also that will mean that VM has to provide config files for every single bit of kit that could be released onto the market. Which would involve testing them, which will cost a lot of money.

There are probably a lot more but I can't be bothered

The only people that complain about the SH are the ones that are having problems, I had a SH1 for a number of years and after about 3 years it gave problems, VM engineer called the following day and replaced it with a SH2ac at no cost to me which I am very pleased with.

That is good service.

[Gobble]

Originally Posted by MagicMavis

Look at it from this angle:
Imagine I refused to sell you a car to tow a caravan and forced you to take a camper van instead. Imagine the camper part of it was absolutely terrible. You would complain, wouldn't you? How about I then told you it has a tow bar and you could always sack off the camper part and just tow a caravan with it? You would think that was completely ridiculous would you not?

On a scale of 1-10 on how fitting an analogy is, you're about 1 and a half lol. You can't use something that means changing physical aspects, when in case of the router, it is not. I mean... how about maybe a washer dryer. You can use it for both, but heck if you don't want to you can use it for drying, you can use a separate drier.

Now that makes a tad more sense, but you see using this analogy, if I'm getting a washer drier (for the same price as a sole washing machine) and works exactly the same as a standard washing machine for this function, then what would my problem be if my sole intention was to use another drier?

I can moan that the drying side of it is not up to standard, sure, if I plan on using it for everything it can do, but as you're not then I'm struggling to understand any of your problem at all.

It's exactly the same situation here. VM don't want to support my router, so they only provide a combined unit which is s**te. They acknowledge this and offer me the ability to use it as a modem only, then expect me to not call them on that? It's senseless. If they can't provide a suitable combined unit, just allow me to use a simple modem.

Well, you see I just don't agree with you at all here. Sure, the SH 1 is about as much use as a snooze button on a fire alarm, but the 2 and 2ac perform just fine as a basic router. If you want to do more advanced things, then there's huge market of routers out there for a reason. No single ISP router I've seen has the range of features they do, otherwise there'd be no market for them.

The difference is that I can find a suitable modem no problem at all. Small, subtle, efficient and reliable. Four things the SH is not.

Ok, small and subtle is only judged in the eye of the beholder, but how do you efficiency? The SH in modem mode will perform as efficient as the network allows. If you have no network related issues which the Hub has no control over, then I don't know of a single person having any issues at all.

Throughout this thread you've not provided any cases of issues you've had in either router or modem mode. As we're ignoring any of the router sides of this, can you give us any examples of a time you've put your hub into modem mode, used another router and what issues you've come across? Have you even put set it as a modem and tested it, or are you just so naive as to think that as it's not to your standard as a router, as a modem it can't be any better?

Happy to continue to discuss this with you, but not unless you come up with something of substance, I can't even begin to see your point.

[horseman]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

It's a link to a document discussing the security specifications of the technology VM use.......
Given you're asking on here I'm not convinced you're quite up for that level of investment in time, money and effort

Not wishing to appear to support any attempt to contravene VM's T&C's but while the reasons are obvious to many except those that can't/won't use google/forum searches then it is both intriquing yet exasperating that other DOCIS/HFC ISP's (eg BigPond/BigT in Oz and many in USA) give compatability list for allowable CPE that user can purchase?

Just curious as to how their risk assessment for theft of service etc compares to VM's?
Presumably this amounts to "cost breaks" of volume purchasing, limiting firmware support/models and avoiding costly/potentially intrusive (more frequent) IAS online auditing and expensive punitive enforcement/litigation for rogue devices/users?

[BenMcr]

I don't think it's just about 'risk of theft'. Cable in the UK comes from a different place than in the US, Australia or even within Europe from both a company and regulatory perspective.

Cable in the UK (barring once small period at the start for Broadband access) has never directly sold kit for either TV or for Broadband Internet - it's always been rented. Because of this VM's network setup is built around the full end to end control of their kit i.e. if it's not their kit you can't use their services.

There is currently no pressing reason for them to change this - and as I said earlier the Hub 3.0 is a Liberty Global bit of kit, so even in other countries across Europe the same access model applies.

[pip08456]

There was also no pressing need for ISP's to supply anything other than a modem to access services.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by pip08456

There was also no pressing need for ISP's to supply anything other than a modem to access services.

Except that's not true.

The expectation in the UK from at least around 2009 / 2010 is that your ISP would provide kit that would include Wireless.

Just as it's an expectation that TV kit can do HD, and the future expectation is that it'll do 4K.

Even for some customers on cable that joined before then and only had a modem, there was definitely a push for VM to supply them wireless kit for free, rather than they go and buy their own routers because they could always move to a different ISP that was supplying free wireless kit.

So with the expectation of wireless, then why wouldn't VM look to offer the most efficient way of doing that - which is a combined gateway.

Now that they supply that, it is not cost effective to maintain a source of standalone modems for those that do wish to use their own router for whatever reason - which is why modem mode exists.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

Except that's not true.

The expectation in the UK from at least around 2009 / 2010 is that your ISP would provide kit that would include Wireless.

Just as it's an expectation that TV kit can do HD, and the future expectation is that it'll do 4K.

Even for some customers on cable that joined before then and only had a modem, there was definitely a push for VM to supply them wireless kit for free, rather than they go and buy their own routers because they could always move to a different ISP that was supplying free wireless kit.

So with the expectation of wireless, then why wouldn't VM look to offer the most efficient way of doing that - which is a combined gateway.

Now that they supply that, it is not cost effective to maintain a source of standalone modems for those that do wish to use their own router for whatever reason - which is why modem mode exists.

I specifically said ISP's not just VM.