Superhub : Superhub Firmware Beta Test

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by davidthornton

I do wonder why VM are going through the process of paying to write this firmware update for what is a router with a switch and wifi built in, so that it renders 90% of the device surplus to requirements. I understand the single device for "tech support" response but when the Superhub is running in bridge mode there'll be so little of the Superhub to actually support. Afterall what is there to a VMNG300 at the moment? It's plug it in and go, with a couple of status pages if you want to look at them.

They are writing it because it's what customers have been asking for. It's a simple as that.

It's the easiest compromise for both parties. Virgin want the SuperHub as the only bit of kit going forward for quite a few reasons, some customers want to use their own kit for other reasons.

It will not be cost effective going forward (whether paid for or not) to provide a seperate hardware solution for a modem only.

[davidthornton]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

They are writing it because it's what customers have been asking for. It's a simple as that.

Customers have asked for it because they want modem-like facilities and because VM are only prepared to offer this via the Superhub. Couldn't it be reasonably argued that if VM had really known what all their customers wanted, they'd have commisioned the Superhub with bridge mode in the first place or thought twice about discontinuing modem-only solutions?

It's the easiest compromise for both parties. Virgin want the SuperHub as the only bit of kit going forward for quite a few reasons, some customers want to use their own kit for other reasons.

It is if VM are adamant that they want everyone to have a Superhub, regardless of how many people decide to run it in bridge mode rendering 90% of the device superfluous. VM are going to be assuming that the vast majority of their customers will want to use the Superhub as a router rather than as a modem because otherwise they'll have commisioned a rather expensive and over specified cable modem.

It will not be cost effective going forward (whether paid for or not) to provide a seperate hardware solution for a modem only.

I cannot really think why not. Charge £150, or whatever its cost is, for the modem if it makes VM happy and only buy in 500. What is there about a modem that is really there to support? It's plug in and go, once you know it's compatible with the network. The kind of people wanting it at this price won't put a burden on technical support.

Virgin Media like to offer discounts and different prices to different customers for the same thing. Why break that habit by not offering an additional piece of hardware.

[kwikbreaks]

I can't personally see anybody who is prepared to pay for 100Mbps being happy with the Superhub as it is today. They'll need to vastly improve the WiFi performance and reliability for sure if the two I've had are typical and as they were both identical (and defective) I imagine they were. I wasn't happy to use it on 50Mbps and if I've got a predominantly wired network. For WiFi only it would be marginal on 30Mbps imo.

[davidthornton]

Originally Posted by kwikbreaks

They'll need to vastly improve the WiFi performance and reliability for sure if the two I've had are typical and as they were both identical (and defective) I imagine they were. I wasn't happy to use it on 50Mbps and if I've got a predominantly wired network. For WiFi only it would be marginal on 30Mbps imo.

I think that Wifi is always going to be "one of those things". There are too many variables with it (type and size of building, location of Access Point, number of wireless networks in the area) to reliably offer great wifi at high speeds for a while. I've owned a number of sets of wireless access points over the past decade and they've all been mostly junk compared to what I have now. There's always an assumption that a combined wifi product is the solution for end users but I don't think it always is. It wouldn't work for me, given where my comms kit is located. I wonder when it'll be the norm for consumer access points to support roaming between access points, without brief loss of signal when a wireless device switches between access points (not acceptable when a persistent connection needs to be maintained such as on a wireless VOIP handset), and also for the same devices to support wifi provision on 2.4Ghz and backhaul to other access points on 5.0Ghz (means the additional access points, located around the bulding, only need to be powered rather than also connected to LAN via wired Ethernet).

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by davidthornton

Customers have asked for it because they want modem-like facilities and because VM are only prepared to offer this via the Superhub. Couldn't it be reasonably argued that if VM had really known what all their customers wanted, they'd have commisioned the Superhub with bridge mode in the first place or thought twice about discontinuing modem-only solutions?

I completely agree that the SuperHub should have had bridge mode from the beginning. I personally have no idea why it wasn't. However it is being added, so Virgin have realised it needs to be there because of the customer requests.

because otherwise they'll have commisioned a rather expensive and over specified cable modem.

I can pretty much guarantee that most customers with the SuperHub are using it as a router and will continue to do even after modem mode is available

The kind of people wanting it at this price won't put a burden on technical support.

But you can't assume that they won't. Support costs don't go away once a bit of kit is installed. You also have to consider it at network upgrades, product launches, and training of staff etc. That is the flip side to the Hubs, it's there to reduce Virgin's costs of equipment supply alongside the customer benefits of easier setup and installation.

Virgin Media like to offer discounts and different prices to different customers for the same thing. Why break that habit by not offering an additional piece of hardware.

The two are not the same thing

[davidthornton]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

I completely agree that the SuperHub should have had bridge mode from the beginning. I personally have no idea why it wasn't. However it is being added, so Virgin have realised it needs to be there because of the customer requests.

The reason the Superhub didn't have bridge mode from the beginning will likely be either:

a) The VM team that designed the Superhub specification wanted all customers to use their router and only as a router, so the company could further control the experience of their customers and perhaps be able to roll out features such as public wifi like "BT Fon".

or

b) The VM team really didn't believe that any customers would want bridge mode and to supply their own router, perhaps because they didn't ask any before finalising the specification.

I can pretty much guarantee that most customers with the SuperHub are using it as a router and will continue to do even after modem mode is available

I suspect that is actually what VM are hoping, perhaps because they don't really want users using bridge mode hence why it wasn't originally offered as part of the Superhub. Sky don't want anyone using other equipment either, so don't publish the username and password required to use the ADSL with a standalone modem, and also don't offer bridge mode on their router. BT as well. Fortunately there are ways to find out the details for both Sky and BT without too much difficulty.

What were all these customers mostly doing before they received the Superhub? Plugging their computer directly into a modem or supplying their own router? How many of those using the Superhub in router only mode will be doing double-NAT with their previous router just plugged into the Superhub because they don't understand why their old router is superflous, or cannot be bothered to switch to the wifi within the new Superhub?

But you can't assume that they won't. Support costs don't go away once a bit of kit is installed. You also have to consider it at network upgrades, product launches, and training of staff etc. That is the flip side to the Hubs, it's there to reduce Virgin's costs of equipment supply alongside the customer benefits of easier setup and installation.

How different is the standard 10Mbit hub from the Superhub? There are two different pieces of equipment, so why not offer a third in limited supply as I have already discussed. Of course there will be some costs and considerations but I cannot believe they will be so significant. I suspect when a Superhub user experiences a problem in bridge mode, in the future, the tech support will immediately tell the user to revert to router mode as part of the diagnosis script. I can tell you that if I was told to do that, I would be annoyed.

The two are not the same thing

No, but my point is not every customer has the same requirements so not all should be treated the same. If some want to pay for a standalone modem, which they've had for free for a decade, consider offering it.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by davidthornton

The reason the Superhub didn't have bridge mode from the beginning will likely be either:

a) The VM team that designed the Superhub specification wanted all customers to use their router and only as a router, so the company could further control the experience of their customers and perhaps be able to roll out features such as public wifi like "BT Fon".

Nope. The SuperHub cannot do this, as I said earlier

I suspect that is actually what VM are hoping, perhaps because they don't really want users using bridge mode hence why it wasn't originally offered as part of the Superhub

Possibly, because the majority of customers don't and won't use bridge mode, because they would much rather 'plug in and go' - which they weren't doing before. They were getting the modem installed and then phoning Virgin because they could get the router to work with the modem for whatever reason or get the router set up on Wireless etc.

What were all these customers mostly doing before they received the Superhub? Plugging their computer directly into a modem or supplying their own router?

Or possibly using the Virgin supplied router that Virgin were doing since 2008

How many of those using the Superhub in router only mode will be doing double-NAT with their previous router just plugged into the Superhub because they don't understand why their old router is superflous, or cannot be bothered to switch to the wifi within the new Superhub?

Very little. If they are, then that's their own choice. But then I don't believe the majority of customers are that ignorant of how to follow the setup instructions provided with the SuperHub.

How different is the standard 10Mbit hub from the Superhub?

Not very. To be honest, I don't expect the 10Mbit Hub to be around indefinately. Once the costs to make the SuperHub reduce enough, then I bet everyone will get one

I suspect when a Superhub user experiences a problem in bridge mode, in the future, the tech support will immediately tell the user to revert to router mode as part of the diagnosis script. I can tell you that if I was told to do that, I would be annoyed.

Actually I'm guessing they'll treat it exactly the same as they do with the current standalone modems and ask a customer to connect their PC direct to the correct 'modem only' port of the SuperHub to rule out any problems with the customers own router.

No, but my point is not every customer has the same requirements so not all should be treated the same. If some want to pay for a standalone modem, which they've had for free for a decade, consider offering it.

Not going to happen.

[davidthornton]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

Nope. The SuperHub cannot do this, as I said earlier

I know it cannot do this at the moment but could it be made to do this with a firmware upgrade? If you've answered this question, this particular way, before I apologise. I know "BT Fon" like services were previously mentioned to a degree.

Possibly, because the majority of customers don't and won't use bridge mode, because they would much rather 'plug in and go' - which they weren't doing before. They were getting the modem installed and then phoning Virgin because they could get the router to work with the modem for whatever reason or get the router set up on Wireless etc.

For all those that couldn't get their own or VM supplied router working with their VM supplied modem, how many had already got it working and were happily using the service without difficulty? Why force them to change?

Very little. If they are, then that's their own choice. But then I don't believe the majority of customers are that ignorant of how to follow the setup instructions provided with the SuperHub.

Hopefully not, but some might consider it easier to plug their already working combined router/wireless access point into the Superhub rather than reconfigure # number of devices to use a new wireless network. It depends how bothered they are and it's something VM won't be able to collect statistics about.

[Not very. To be honest, I don't expect the 10Mbit Hub to be around indefinately. Once the costs to make the SuperHub reduce enough, then I bet everyone will get one

I also thought this.

Actually I'm guessing they'll treat it exactly the same as they do with the current standalone modems and ask a customer to connect their PC direct to the correct 'modem only' port of the SuperHub to rule out any problems with the customers own router.

I hope so. When bridge mode is active on a Superhub, does only port 1 on the LAN side of the device function for pass through or do all four work as one and the same?

Not going to happen.

Probably not but people do change their minds! Perhaps we'll see why VM want to push the Superhub so much in the coming years. It is all about giving VM more control over the user experience, for whatever reasons they decide to state. Aside from reduced support costs, and related matters, I suspect that other commercial benefits will be revealed. I'll also be interested to see how long VM allow some users to "hang on" to their VMNG300's for, if/when everyone has moved to the DOCSIS3 network, which only the VMNG300, Superless hub, and Superhub work with.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by davidthornton

I know it cannot do this at the moment but could it be made to do this with a firmware upgrade? If you've answered this question, this particular way, before I apologise. I know "BT Fon" like services were previously mentioned to a degree.

As far as I'm aware it won't ever be possible. The Public WiFi services Virgin are considering are in the street cabinets, not in people's homes

For all those that couldn't get their own or VM supplied router working with their VM supplied modem, how many had already got it working and were happily using the service without difficulty? Why force them to change?

No-one is forcing people to change. Most people are getting a SuperHub as part of an upgrade that they have requested.

Hopefully not, but some might consider it easier to plug their already working combined router/wireless access point into the Superhub rather than reconfigure # number of devices to use a new wireless network. It depends how bothered they are and it's something VM won't be able to collect statistics about.

Or you change the SSID and WPA of the SuperHub to match the previous Wireless details and all wireless devices will reconnect automatically.

I hope so. When bridge mode is active on a Superhub, does only port 1 on the LAN side of the device function for pass through or do all four work as one and the same?

From what has been said by those testing it, it's a single port on the Hub

if/when everyone has moved to the DOCSIS3 network, which only the VMNG300, Superless hub, and Superhub work with.

Actually it's only the VMNG300 and SuperHub that are D3. The normal Hub is the same technology as the older modems

[davidthornton]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

No-one is forcing people to change. Most people are getting a SuperHub as part of an upgrade that they have requested.

By virtue of customers wishing to take advantage of improved speeds, as a result of the Internet being increasingly driven by higher volumes of data, VM are forcing people to change from a modem-only solution to a solution where they are required to have a router (which will eventually also be able to function as just a modem). The faster speeds, which the majority of people will naturally desire, are the carrot to get people to take the Superhub which has been positioned as the only technical solution for unlocking the speed increases.

Or you change the SSID and WPA of the SuperHub to match the previous Wireless details and all wireless devices will reconnect automatically.

Yes. Hopefully the Superhub instructions highlight this easier way of migrating multiple devices from one wireless router (or access point) to the Superhub.

Actually it's only the VMNG300 and SuperHub that are D3. The normal Hub is the same technology as the older modems

I saw some line stats in a thread on the official Virgin Media forum, within the 100Mbit section I think, that seemed to indicate that in some areas VM are using 5 bonded channels to deliver DOCSIS 3 broadband via the Superhub now instead of the usual 4 bonded channels. Is this definitely the case?

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by davidthornton

By virtue of customers wishing to take advantage of improved speeds, as a result of the Internet being increasingly driven by higher volumes of data, VM are forcing people to change from a modem-only solution to a solution where they are required to have a router (which will eventually also be able to function as just a modem). The faster speeds, which the majority of people will naturally desire, are the carrot to get people to take the Superhub which has been positioned as the only technical solution for unlocking the speed increases.

Yes, but it's not forcing people to change. The higher speeds are advertised before people choose to change as coming the with SuperHub. The SuperHub is advertised as being an all in one device, therefore should factor into the choice that a customer makes as to whether they want to upgrade to or not

However what has been happening is that people are upgrading to products that are advertised as coming with the SuperHub and then complaining that they got a SuperHub.

I saw some line stats in a thread on the official Virgin Media forum, within the 100Mbit section I think, that seemed to indicate that in some areas VM are using 5 bonded channels to deliver DOCSIS 3 broadband via the Superhub now instead of the usual 4 bonded channels. Is this definitely the case?

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/35269428-post780.html

[davidthornton]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

Yes, but it's not forcing people to change. The higher speeds are advertised before people choose to change as coming the with SuperHub. The SuperHub is advertised as being an all in one device, therefore should factor into the choice that a customer makes as to whether they want to upgrade to or not.

However what has been happening is that people are upgrading to products that are advertised as coming with the SuperHub and then complaining that they got a SuperHub.

Yes it's all published beforehand but if one wishes to go beyond 20Mbit with VM, save for those who have a VMNG300 for whatever reason, one is required/obliged to change from a modem-only to a router which will eventually also offer a modem-only mode. Most people know that faster speeds will be a requirement for being able to engage in many Internet related activities that are or will be considered "everyday". VM are offering these speeds on condition that customers take this equipment which currently functions, and was always originally intended to function, quite differently to the equipment that customers have been connecting to VM with in the past, putting aside whether VM threw in a router with an older modem or not.

Given that it is likely that VM either decided they didn't want customers to continue using bridge mode when they originally designed the Superhub, but are relenting and offering this in a future firmware, or didn't do any research about how many wanted just a modem so they could continue using their own equipment, the company would have been pretty stumped if the majority of customers had said "no thanks" and stayed on DOCSIS 2 speeds or 50Mbit with a VMNG300, because they didn't want a Superhub. VM must have had a pretty good idea that that wasn't going to happen when they revised their Internet offerings to only offer the Superhub (in it's present guise) with the faster speeds. So given this assumption by VM that increased speeds outweighed everything else, in terms of how most customers perceive things, and also given that it might not have been clear to everyone upgrading their speed that the Superhub wouldn't function in modem-only mode, I do feel that by only offering the Superhub as a technical solution VM are forcing this change on customers at least to some degree. I hope you can appreciate my point.

http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/35269428-post780.html

Thanks. Any ideas which UBRs this is occuring on?

[Pantsu-san]

Originally Posted by davidthornton

or 50Mbit with a VMNG300, because they didn't want a Superhub.

This was my situation and it took considerable effort to get VM to understand that I didn't want to be forced to take a 100Mb Superhub and that the existing equipment was (and is) doing it's job very-nicely-thank-you.

[davidthornton]

Originally Posted by Pantsu-san

This was my situation and it took considerable effort to get VM to understand that I didn't want to be forced to take a 100Mb Superhub and that the existing equipment was (and is) doing it's job very-nicely-thank-you.

If VM had said to you "Superhub for 100Mbit or stay on 50Mbit with VMNG300, no other option", what would you have done?

[Pantsu-san]

Originally Posted by davidthornton

If VM had said to you "Superhub for 100Mbit or stay on 50Mbit with VMNG300, no other option", what would you have done?

The visiting tech tried that and was swiftly told to vacate my property. Then his supervisor tried the same thing. They didn't know that I'd previously had agreement with people far above their station (about keeping my current hardware) as I'd been through a long complaint with the ISPA and CISAS, ironically enough, about my VMNGsus™.

I'm a techy, by trade, so I'd done my research about the 100Mb product long before it was available in my area. After having my wallet violated when beta testing previous VM kit, I was never going to do the same thing again.

TL;DR : No 100Mb on VMNG300, no upgrade.

PS. I should also say here that if 'bridge mode' was available, and the reports were fantastic, then I'd have happily taken the Superhub and used my own gigabit/wifi router without question.