VM Router Seperate or Combined Broadband Equipment

thenry · 08-03-2012, 22:49

would you rather have a solid seperate modem and seperate router provided by Virgin Media or the SuperHub ?

BenMcr · 08-03-2012, 23:00

There should really be a 'not bothered' answer there

thenry · 08-03-2012, 23:03

anyone voting not bothered shouldnt be on here as their world must be perfect

qasdfdsaq · 08-03-2012, 23:22

I'd rather have nothing from Virgin Media at all, seeing as either option would still result in a service that's 10mb down and 1.5mb up for Â£37 a month.

craigj2k12 · 08-03-2012, 23:59

seeing as the "superhub 2" is already work in progress, this thread is a bit pointless, however I voted separate device, as thats what I would want with any ISP

Mick Fisher · 09-03-2012, 13:42

Just a modem is all that's required.

I would much prefer to acquire my own router that just works rather than be saddled with an ISP supplied bargain bucket model that runs custom firmware and falls over every hour on the hour.

Whether the aforesaid pile of junk is stand alone or combined is irrevalent as I just do not want one.

Andrewcrawford23 · 09-03-2012, 13:46

might be good if people voting here can vote here http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/12...hub-usage.html so can get a better idea why people choose what there choosing here

Mick Fisher · 09-03-2012, 13:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrewcrawford23

might be good if people voting here can vote here http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/12...hub-usage.html so can get a better idea why people choose what there choosing here

I already did but as the choices in your poll were so restrictive I couldn't fully express myself.

If only you had included the catagory "I have to use modem mode because the superhub is so absolutely crap in wireless router mode" you could have saved yourself the job of defining all the other superfluous catagories.

Andrewcrawford23 · 09-03-2012, 14:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mick Fisher

I already did but as the choices in your poll were so restrictive I couldn't fully express myself.

If only you had included the catagory "I have to use modem mode because the superhub is so absolutely crap in wireless router mode" you could have saved yourself the job of defining all the other superfluous catagories.

i am trying to give the best options using what people ususlay claim i am hoping the mods can edit it and adda few more options

cookdn · 09-03-2012, 15:12

You should of had a third option - modem only. Keeps complexity down and leaves the customer to choose their own wireless router etc. At least then VM would have no responsibility for the performance of Joe-Public's wireless network.

This might seem a backwards step but a little over a decade ago you would have probably ended having these:

I had a Linksys BEFSR41 back in 2000 connected to a Motorola Surfboard 3100 modem, this was on the Telewest 512/128 Kb/s service.

Best regards
David

thenry · 09-03-2012, 15:16

I think that falls under seperate kit David. The router could be optional which it would be anyway.

kwikbreaks · 10-03-2012, 17:54

The truth is Joe public actually wants a hub and that's what all the ADSL ISPs give them so VM followed suit.

However if you are on ADSL you can chose to use something different and on cable you can't. I see the Superhub with modem mode as a good compromise and only wish VM had provided that from the outset.

Properly testing it as a hub wouldn't have gone astray either then we wouldn't have seen best part of a year of complaints about instability.

Providing one with external antennas and router functions on a par with low end commercial cable routers would have made it what it should have been.

jb66 · 10-03-2012, 18:00

I want a superhub that works

Mick Fisher · 10-03-2012, 18:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwikbreaks

The truth is Joe public actually wants a hub and that's what all the ADSL ISPs give them so VM followed suit.

However if you are on ADSL you can chose to use something different and on cable you can't. I see the Superhub with modem mode as a good compromise and only wish VM had provided that from the outset.

Properly testing it as a hub wouldn't have gone astray either then we wouldn't have seen best part of a year of complaints about instability.

Providing one with external antennas and router functions on a par with low end commercial cable routers would have made it what it should have been.

I would think that would cost more money than VM are prepared to spend. In their usual short-termistic mode they always buy cheap crap that only just, if at all, does the job. In the short term they upset their subscribers and in the long term, probably, end up costing themselves more than if they has sourced kit of an appropriate quality in the first place.

kwikbreaks · 10-03-2012, 19:04

I imagine that they shelled out good money to have features in the stock firmware crippled assuming this is standard kit and if it isn't it should be if they want to save money.

Where can you get a router these days without some sort of support for DynDNS and hopefully others such as NO-IP? What commercial routers don't allow ISP DNS override? Port translation? Plus all manner of other features present in a Â£15 TP-Link router.

Why cripple features? Because they don't trust their customers not to screw up and their call centre staff to be able to sort any screwups out. The main driver is to reduce support costs and staff training.

They are catering for the lowest common denominator and if you wanted better then before they grudgingly provided modem mode you either had to whistle or ask the CEO office.