BT Hub 4 Trial - Page 3

Skie · 22-05-2013, 13:09

Yeah, limiting the internal network bandwidth to 100/10 means its more of a hob than a hub.

Qtx · 22-05-2013, 18:16

As much as I think they should be putting gigabit ports on new hubs, the reality is that something like 99 out of 100 customers would never make use of it. The price of a gigabit switch is next to nothing so those requiring better network speeds can easily get one.

No doubt a cost management decision.

Sephiroth · 22-05-2013, 18:32

I think the real issue here is the weasel wording of BT's claims for a somewhat lame device.

It also places into perspective VM's decision to have a gateway device. Because if it's a BT cost management decision, then the cost of the VDSL modem plays into ths. Whether or not the SH2 gets much closer to its "Super" handle is something time will tell. As a triallist (and I will return to modem mode), mine is utterly stable and efficient in router mode with wireless on. So it's clearky getting somewhat closer to it name.

Qtx · 22-05-2013, 19:18

The Superhub is not super, in the same way the BT Home hub is not cutting edge. Sky's own offering is nothing special either but both Sky and BT can claim their hubs are at least stable and their software/firmware is not bug ridden.

For most users a stable hub that works along with decent wireless is all they need. VM have a chance of jumping ahead in the supplied hub offering if they can sort out the firmware, as they have the gigabit ports. The wireless on both the VM and BT hub is better on paper than the sky hub. If users don't use the alternative frequency or both at the same time, the extra antenna should be better but some proper comparisons need to be done to be sure. Bad software can negate those benefits.

Chrysalis · 22-05-2013, 21:10

I value faster ports over better wireless, each to their own I guess.

You say cheap and simple to add a gigabit switch, arguably I could say why not just supply a modem and user supply their own wireless point.

Qtx · 22-05-2013, 21:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

I value faster ports over better wireless, each to their own I guess.

You say cheap and simple to add a gigabit switch, arguably I could say why not just supply a modem and user supply their own wireless point.

I also prefer wired and use it for the majority of my devices. When I said most users wanting good wireless, I was referring to the average user who are non-techy and simply want the internet on their laptop/tablet/phone or will be getting wireless devices in the near future.

The average customer wants to order an internet connection and find after install that they can just use it. Not everyone understands how the internet works though wireless routers, they just think that once they get internet installed, the internet just works on their laptop or computer. Asking these non-network savvy customers to find and buy hardware just isn't right and likely to breed contempt in the isp.

Remember that those with networking knowledge are a tiny majority of customers. Could be lower than 5% of them. Easy to forget that if you frequent computer and network forums....

Chrysalis · 22-05-2013, 22:56

Note they just use it.

Meaning they probably would be happy with wireless g.

Qtx · 23-05-2013, 03:18

No dropouts and a decent range would probably be enough for those customers.

I'm ashamed to say that my older laptop had its wireless card swopped out for a VMDG280 internal wireless card, just so I could get full speed