Superhub : Just got the SuperHub 3

[SnoopZ]

Originally Posted by Synthetic

Wondering when they're gonna roll out a decent firmware to us who aren't trialists, but stuck on this buggy version

And i wonder when they will rollout a decent firmware to the trialists! Well atleast another improved one anyway!

[Synthetic]

Originally Posted by SnoopZ

And i wonder when they will rollout a decent firmware to the trialists! Well atleast another improved one anyway!

Ah, that doesn't sound good.

Still can't believe they're sending out this half finished product to actual customers

[SnoopZ]

Originally Posted by Synthetic

Ah, that doesn't sound good.

Still can't believe they're sending out this half finished product to actual customers

The latest firmware does improve things but as always it'll take a while to fix everything.

I too am surprised they released the Hub3 to new customers in this state, and surprised there isnt any official news slagging it off on various news sites as that would really make them look bad!

[ianch99]

The image posted earlier implies HUB3.0 is now std equipment for new customer installs. *If* your CMTS has been upgraded to make it compatible, would a HUB3.0 (in modem mode) improve the peak-time speeds on an over utilised segment? If so, any idea on by how much?

[SnoopZ]

Originally Posted by ianch99

The image posted earlier implies HUB3.0 is now std equipment for new customer installs. *If* your CMTS has been upgraded to make it compatible, would a HUB3.0 (in modem mode) improve the peak-time speeds on an over utilised segment? If so, any idea on by how much?

i suffered from congestion (20-50mbit in evenings) when on 8-10 channels and an old CMTS, when they upgraded my CMTS to Arris i went to 16 channels and i now hit 150mbit 24/7.

I am not sure when they change the CMTS whether capacity is automatically upgraded though?

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by ianch99

*If* your CMTS has been upgraded to make it compatible, would a HUB3.0 (in modem mode) improve the peak-time speeds on an over utilised segment? If so, any idea on by how much?

Yes and piece of string respectively.

---------- Post added at 13:05 ---------- Previous post was at 12:59 ----------

Originally Posted by toady

So nice to see them looking after their loyal customers on the top tier by giving them the oldest model

Existing customers aren't entitled to the newest CPE, that's wasteful. VM aren't going to stay in business long if they replace every modem every time they bring out a new one. They'll provide people what they need for what they pay for and not a lot else.

It makes sense to give new customers the SH3 as they have to receive 'something' to use the service and there's relatively little cost difference there.

Can't say I've met many loyal customers though. VM are a cable company who provide a service in a business arrangement, not a mate, so any loyalty unnecessary

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Yes and piece of string respectively

So you don't know, no problem.

---------- Post added at 13:55 ---------- Previous post was at 13:54 ----------

Originally Posted by SnoopZ

i suffered from congestion (20-50mbit in evenings) when on 8-10 channels and an old CMTS, when they upgraded my CMTS to Arris i went to 16 channels and i now hit 150mbit 24/7.

I am not sure when they change the CMTS whether capacity is automatically upgraded though?

This is useful, thanks ..

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by ianch99

So you don't know, no problem.

I said it would help. How much is a question no-one can answer.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by ianch99

The image posted earlier implies HUB3.0 is now std equipment for new customer installs. *If* your CMTS has been upgraded to make it compatible, would a HUB3.0 (in modem mode) improve the peak-time speeds on an over utilised segment? If so, any idea on by how much?

I take Igni on at my peril - so I won't, this time.

You presumably mean that the CMTS has been upgraded to support 16 or more downstream channels and 8 or more upstream channels. You then ask how much increase in speed would you see in an over utilised segment.

Igni's answer is correct. To answer that question the way you would have liked needs more assumptions which can't really be provided. This notional "over utilised segment" concept needs to be bounded by the number of connected homes, their concurrency, segment and node details before/after any re-segmentation (if any).

You can say that if, without re-segmentation, they add downstream capacity such that the additional downstream channels are not pinched from an existing set, then at the instant of cut over to the new system, downstream congestion would be halved.

HTH and I await some scathing point of disagreement from Igni.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I take Igni on at my peril - so I won't, this time.

You presumably mean that the CMTS has been upgraded to support 16 or more downstream channels and 8 or more upstream channels. You then ask how much increase in speed would you see in an over utilised segment.

Igni's answer is correct. To answer that question the way you would have liked needs more assumptions which can't really be provided. This notional "over utilised segment" concept needs to be bounded by the number of connected homes, their concurrency, segment and node details before/after any re-segmentation (if any).

You can say that if, without re-segmentation, they add downstream capacity such that the additional downstream channels are not pinched from an existing set, then at the instant of cut over to the new system, downstream congestion would be halved.

HTH and I await some scathing point of disagreement from Igni.

Of course, I am not taking him on either

My question was, all other things being equal, if the CMTS has been upgraded to support the Hub 3.0 channel set, would you see any significant peak-time speed increase over and above the current 8 channel shub2. What I mean by "all other things being equal" is that there is no change in the segment topology etc. All we are changing here is the CMTS and corresponding CPE equipment.

Your sentence:

You can say that if, without re-segmentation, they add downstream capacity such that the additional downstream channels are not pinched from an existing set, then at the instant of cut over to the new system, downstream congestion would be halved.

I think answers my question so thank you.

The reason I ask is that our segment into the Southampton headend has been over utilised for 4 years now so any change that doesn't invole a re-segmentation and just involves work at the headend may be more likely to happen. If it does, it would be useful to know that this work may alleviate the 200Mbps -> 20 Mbps speed drop-offs we currently get.

Snoop's earlier response indicates there may be hope

[Sephiroth]

... till the motorway effect kicks in! Those mega-downloaders can be bustards sometimes!

[MUD_Wizard]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

You can say that if, without re-segmentation, they add downstream capacity such that the additional downstream channels are not pinched from an existing set, then at the instant of cut over to the new system, downstream congestion would be halved.

They would be pinched from an existing set though, most likely.

It really depends whether it's just one node that is over-utilised or more than one node in the area.

Also the amount of over-saturation. If one drain gets clogged rain will flow into another nearby drain, but once all drains are maxed out the water has nowhere to go.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by MUD_Wizard

They would be pinched from an existing set though, most likely.

It really depends whether it's just one node that is over-utilised or more than one node in the area.

Also the amount of over-saturation. If one drain gets clogged rain will flow into another nearby drain, but once all drains are maxed out the water has nowhere to go.

But if they pinched it from another set, the misery continues. I'd say they were more likely to upgrade their optical systems to uniformly use WDM so that at least 16 channels could go down one fibre. (This is just the downstream we're talking about - corresponding upgrades for the upstream would be necessary, a different topic). Or they would lay more fibres.

Igni may well get stuck in to us both!

[vm_tech]

The channels are RF channels not optical channels, so the wavelength doesn't matter in this instance. There are different scenarios where using different wavelengths come into play, but I'm not going to divulge that much information on that at the moment.

[Sephiroth]

I'm referring to the fibre not the coax. RFoG is only used for FTTP by VM AFAIK.

What have I misunderstood? The optical node has been a classic bottleneck in the past; add more fibre or use WDM.