VMNG300 92Mbit limit

[DigitalShadow]

This quote is from VM regarding the double speed uplift.

We've tested the VMNG300 and it can only support a speed of approximately 92Mb on our network so if you want to get your full speed upgrade you'll need a Super Hub which we'll send to you free of charge.

Can anyone from VM please explain why they are making this statement, my VMNG300 works fine above 92mbit.

[qasdfdsaq]

You might want to post this on the VM forums where they actually have VM staff working in an official capacity.

[thenry]

because VM want SuperHubs active getting rid of all the old modems that can neither handle docsis3 or more channels.

[Dave42]

https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2012/01/46.png



thats what speed i got on myVMNG300

[Chrysalis]

its obvious, they dont want vmng300s on the network.

Or more to the point they want 'more' superhubs on the network, so a little white lie helps them on that way.

[Skie]

They used the same QA people who certified the Superhub as 'ready' to do this test I suspect.

[AndyCalling]

I thought the VMNG300 didn't have a gigabit LAN side port?

[qasdfdsaq]

It does.

[General Maximus]

just to prove a point I would love them to drop me a 200mbit config file for a day just so I can prove that it can do over 100mbit. I downloaded a substantial amount off newsgroups last week and it held at just over 12mb/sec which is 96mbits without overheads.

[qasdfdsaq]

The VMNG300 was used on their 200mb trials.

[General Maximus]

The VMNG300 was used on their 200mb trials.

well they must have been rubbish trials then if nobody got more than 92mbits. VM must have been very concerned that their network couldn't handle 100mbit, let alone 200mbit.

[qasdfdsaq]

People were getting around 180 down and 16 up last I recall. Can't find the original references though.

I could be completely wrong, this is all from vague memory. The 92 limit is complete balls either way though. It's rated at 171mbps.

[Edit]

I should point out there were excited rumours at one point that the VMNG300 could be software upgraded to 8 downstream channels (i.e. 400mbit). Not sure if they were ever proven/disproven.

[DigitalShadow]

Thought as much, amazed they are willing to do such a blatant lie to their customers.

[General Maximus]

I should point out there were excited rumours at one point that the VMNG300 could be software upgraded to 8 downstream channels (i.e. 400mbit). Not sure if they were ever proven/disproven.

That would be flipping awesome if they did that. Do you think we could do that manually or would VM just over write it with their latest version of firmware when it connects to the network?

Either way, I think we should introduce the pleb who made the 92mbit statement to the dude who was responsible for the 200mbit trial. They must think we are all idiots not picking up on stuff like this.

[roughbeast]

The VMNG300 was used on their 200mb trials.

The VMNG300 wasn't used in the Coventry 200Mb trials. We were given alternative modems capable of 8 channels, which were used. Arris WBM760B was one of them.

I can be certain that it wasn't used in Ashford either. They used a variety of modems including Netgears and Motos, but not the VMNG300.

[qasdfdsaq]

The VMNG300 wasn't used in the Coventry 200Mb trials. We were given alternative modems capable of 8 channels, which were used. Arris WBM760B was one of them.

I can be certain that it wasn't used in Ashford either. They used a variety of modems including Netgears and Motos, but not the VMNG300.
Not that phase, no, they were used in a different 200mb trial - which was more of a publicity stunt than an actual technical trial I hear.

[DigitalShadow]

https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2012/01/28.png

Seem to get a speed over 92Mbit on my VMNG300 at peak time.

Silly virgin and their silly statements.

[Chrysalis]

my new superhub is getting very jittery again like my original one, at any time of the day even when my tbb graph is ok. But I will have to keep using it as my upstream channels are very unbalanced and the one the vmng300 locks on to is still highly utilised. In VMs words "as bad as it can get".

[General Maximus]

https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2012/01/28.png

Seem to get a speed over 92Mbit on my VMNG300 at peak time.

Silly virgin and their silly statements.

you obviously feel comfortable lieing and trying to deceive everyone. Don't think you can fool us all with your photoshopped speed tests when we all know a proficient team of engineers at VM have thoroughly tested both the VMNG300 and shub ensuring high a degree of confidence and reliability in the information they provide to the public, thus making yourself speed test result impossible.

[qasdfdsaq]

How many times do I have to say this - you cannot photoshop something you cannot modify.

[DigitalShadow]

you obviously feel comfortable lieing and trying to deceive everyone. Don't think you can fool us all with your photoshopped speed tests when we all know a proficient team of engineers at VM have thoroughly tested both the VMNG300 and shub ensuring high a degree of confidence and reliability in the information they provide to the public, thus making yourself speed test result impossible.

It is nice to see that sarcasm hasn't been lost on the internet :)

---------- Post added at 22:49 ---------- Previous post was at 21:57 ----------

When things get to above 120Mbit, lets say 240mbit.

Will the config they send flat out not work with the VMNG300, or would it work, but only work up to the limits of 4 channels downstream?

[Peter_]

It is nice to see that sarcasm hasn't been lost on the internet :)

---------- Post added at 22:49 ---------- Previous post was at 21:57 ----------

When things get to above 120Mbit, lets say 240mbit.

Will the config they send flat out not work with the VMNG300, or would it work, but only work up to the limits of 4 channels downstream?
It sounds like the VMNG300 will not even receive the 120Mb config let alone anything higher, if the company are stating that it is incapable of speeds above 92Mb why would they bother as they want a Superhub on your desk.

[General Maximus]

It sounds like the VMNG300 will not even receive the 120Mb config let alone anything higher

it will if they want to send it down. If I need to teach some basic maths then I will:

4 x 55mbit = 220mbit

[Peter_]

it will if they want to send it down. If I need to teach some basic maths then I will:

4 x 55mbit = 220mbit
I expect they know that already, remember they are having to replace older modems just to get the new upload speeds probably because no one is writing the updated config for them such as all modems pre Ambit 256.

[qasdfdsaq]

Will the config they send flat out not work with the VMNG300, or would it work, but only work up to the limits of 4 channels downstream?
The practical limits of the VMNG300 on 4 channels downstream IIRC are around 160-180 in "real world" situations.

Assuming no critical firmware bugs, the config file would just work, up to the limit of 4 DS channels.

[Peter_]

The practical limits of the VMNG300 on 4 channels downstream IIRC are around 160-180 in "real world" situations.

Assuming no critical firmware bugs, the config file would just work, up to the limit of 4 DS channels.
It depends on whether they are willing to write the config for them seeming as they say those modems are not capable, I expect they would work if allowed.

[Andrewcrawford23]

It depends on whether they are willing to write the config for them seeming as they say those modems are not capable, I expect they would work if allowed.

if truly dnt work above 90mb then virgin where compete idiots to get a modem in which they coudl never upgrade speesd when they already planned 200mb at that point fora future service, it will handle p to 150mb fine above that it have prolems i dnt think makign the config file owuld be that hard just amend the current one it more virign just determine to hav the superhub as standard but dnt just use internal ****** to fine all teh modme and the accoutn there belong to and then send eeryone a new superhub (****** is covered sicne it a internal tool of virign)

[Peter_]

if truly dnt work above 90mb then virgin where compete idiots to get a modem in which they coudl never upgrade speesd when they already planned 200mb at that point fora future service, it will handle p to 150mb fine above that it have prolems i dnt think makign the config file owuld be that hard just amend the current one it more virign just determine to hav the superhub as standard but dnt just use internal ****** to fine all teh modme and the accoutn there belong to and then send eeryone a new superhub (****** is covered sicne it a internal tool of virign)
We are talking about the VMNG300 which Virgin Media now say is incapable of 100Mb check out General Maximus signature above.

They want everyone on a Superhub.

[Andrewcrawford23]

We are talking about the VMNG300 which Virgin Media now say is incapable of 100Mb check out General Maximus signature above.

They want everyone on a Superhub.

i ws talking about the vmng300 it can easily do 105mb and probally 200mb at a struggle, i was pointing out that if virgin really wants everyone on superhub why not use ****** and find sort it by modems and stb and send out everyoen witha old modem a new superhub and peopel with stb arrrange a engineer viist not hard ot do it, ****** can list all the devices on teh network and once everyone on superhub any clones left should be easier to identify

[Peter_]

i ws talking about the vmng300 it can easily do 105mb and probally 200mb at a struggle, i was pointing out that if virgin really wants everyone on superhub why not use ****** and find sort it by modems and stb and send out everyoen witha old modem a new superhub and peopel with stb arrrange a engineer viist not hard ot do it, ****** can list all the devices on teh network and once everyone on superhub any clones left should be easier to identify
I know not everyone will be happy with a Superhub but I expect that is the aim of the company especially with the propsed upgrades to double speeds.

[Skie]

I dont think configs are really modem specific. When I went to 50 meg, they sent the config a few hours before the engineer arrived with a VMNG300 and my old modem had a whale of a time trying to deal with it.

I think their made up "only 92meg" test statement is just a bit of posterior covering.

[Andrewcrawford23]

I know not everyone will be happy with a Superhub but I expect that is the aim of the company especially with the propsed upgrades to double speeds.

your missing hte point if there wnting it as standard kit just upgrade evryone by senidng everyone one and make it standard and dnt use old stuff anymore

[General Maximus]

imagine turning up for work Monday and having to register 2 million macs :)

It is a good idea (not the shub though) and what they should do is send them out to everyone but record the macs first and add them to the account before dispatch so they are good to go and then set a script to delete the old macs after a month.

If I was the head honcho for VM I would get Ambit to make a new VMNG300 with 8 channels and send one out to every customer and then you know everyone is sorted with a decent modem. If peeps want a router, setup a contract with Linksys for the E3200 and send them out to customers that request them and then you have standardised the CPE across the network with kick ass equipment which you know you arent going to have any problems with.

[qasdfdsaq]

It depends on whether they are willing to write the config for them seeming as they say those modems are not capable, I expect they would work if allowed.
You don't write a config file for a modem, you write one config file, it works with all modems.

(P.S. VM also claim the Superhub can do 400mb, which it probably can't)

[Peter_]

You don't write a config file for a modem, you write one config file, it works with all modems.

(P.S. VM also claim the Superhub can do 400mb, which it probably can't)
We have modems that should be capable of the uplifted uploads that have to be replaced with newer equipment so the is something not quite right there with the configs.

[General Maximus]

are you sure it's not the configs and the fact that the older modems physcially can't handle the speed. When I was on 10mbit donkeys years ago on docsis 1 I was upgraded to 20mbit still on docsis 1 with the new config files pushed down to the modem but it will wouldn't go above 12mbit though. I had to ring up for an Ambit 256 and then it blasted away quite nicely.

[Peter_]

are you sure it's not the configs and the fact that the older modems physcially can't handle the speed. When I was on 10mbit donkeys years ago on docsis 1 I was upgraded to 20mbit still on docsis 1 with the new config files pushed down to the modem but it will wouldn't go above 12mbit though. I had to ring up for an Ambit 256 and then it blasted away quite nicely.
Some do work and some do not even the same model and I think you can still buy the Motorola SB5100 series new so no idea.

[Skie]

Its all down to the local network I'd guess. Only the VMNG300 and Superhub are DOCSIS3 devices, so they tend to be able to manage unfavourable conditions better thanks to multiple downstreams.

A DOCSIS 1/2 modem in a good area might be able to use its single channel to get 30 meg (theoretical max is 38). But on an even slightly congested network that will be unlikely to happen. A D3 modem on the other hand only needs 7.5meg from each channel to achieve 30meg, 3.75meg if you have 8 channels.

[borrissey]

VM tech told me that the wnr300 can do 400meg.

[Andrewcrawford23]

VM tech told me that the wnr300 can do 400meg.

unlikely i think the masimum each channel on docsis 3 is 55mb? if so it can only do max of 220mb but in pratic ei think it iwll onyl really do up to 150-180mb

[General Maximus]

unlikely i think the masimum each channel on docsis 3 is 55mb? if so it can only do max of 220mb but in pratic ei think it iwll onyl really do up to 150-180mb

that is correct, although I would hope it would be more around 190 ish

[Sephiroth]

If they were able to increase the QAM from 256 to 1024 then each channel could handle 69 Mbps. Igni points out that the infrastructure must be capable of handling the higher SNR required for 1024QAM to operate reliably.

There is a useful paper here (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=qam+and+SNR&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbroadband.motorola.com%2Fips%2Fpd f%2FQAM.pdf&ei=mMcjT-LUPOPB0QXI5qXOCg&usg=AFQjCNFu9N8ADC0e35XxDSNY3MYxhx2HEQ). Please note that it refers to DOCSIS not EURODOCSIS; so the throughput quoted can be increased to 8/6 of the value quoted in the paper.

[qasdfdsaq]

Also, what the hell is a WNR300?

[thenry]

Also, what the hell is a WNR300?

Netgear Router

https://shop.digitec.ch/img/0x0/t-1/22688.png

[qasdfdsaq]

That's a WNR2000.

[General Maximus]

If they were able to increase the QAM from 256 to 1024 then each channel could handle 69 Mbps. Igni points out that the infrastructure must be capable of handling the higher SNR required for 1024QAM to operate reliably.

There is a useful paper here (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=qam+and+SNR&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbroadband.motorola.com%2Fips%2Fpd f%2FQAM.pdf&ei=mMcjT-LUPOPB0QXI5qXOCg&usg=AFQjCNFu9N8ADC0e35XxDSNY3MYxhx2HEQ). Please note that it refers to DOCSIS not EURODOCSIS; so the throughput quoted can be increased to 8/6 of the value quoted in the paper.

Where does the physical restriction come in as far as what the modem can handle? Could the vmng300 theoretically handle 1gbit as long as each of the 4 channels ran at something like 300mbit and it could handle the power requirements?

[thenry]

I didn't read the original post, VMNG300

[Sephiroth]

Where does the physical restriction come in as far as what the modem can handle? Could the vmng300 theoretically handle 1gbit as long as each of the 4 channels ran at something like 300mbit and it could handle the power requirements?

AFAIK, mon General,the VMNG300 only runs to 256QAM downstream, but goes up to 128QAM upstream.

Netgear do a 1024-QAM gateway, but I can't find it spec'd for the Broadcom 3380 chip in the SH.

[General Maximus]

so are we looking at something like 96mbit up?

[Andrewcrawford23]

so are we looking at something like 96mbit up?

i think the max upstream channel rate is 16to24mb/s been a whiel since i looked at het spec for it but nto sure what qam taht would be with

[Chrysalis]

4x qam64 upstream channels would yield around 120mbit of useable bandwidth I think.

[Sephiroth]

That's right. But they've gotta get the SNR up in the plant.

[craigj2k12]

gone into a lot of detail here, about frequencies and modulation but I think the main point is that VM have clearly lied about this, the VMNG is clearly capable of way more than 92mb

why do they always lie about things? if they said they just didnt want it on the network, or they said they are using more d/s channels and the VMNG isnt capable of using them or something, but they lie and lie

[Peter_]

gone into a lot of detail here, about frequencies and modulation but I think the main point is that VM have clearly lied about this, the VMNG is clearly capable of way more than 92mb

why do they always lie about things? if they said they just didnt want it on the network, or they said they are using more d/s channels and the VMNG isnt capable of using them or something, but they lie and lie
It is of little consequence either way as it is sadly up to Virgin Media how they want to run their network so even if you could prove otherwise they will do what they see as necessary to keep the network running as they want it.

[General Maximus]

but they lie and lie

because they like to make it sound like they are doing you a favour. You don't need to worry that your modem is outdated and slow, we are going to give you an amazing super fast superhub which is the best thing since sliced bread. How awesome are we?

[Skie]

but they lie and lie

Its called marketing. Virgin are full of marketing.

[qasdfdsaq]

It is of little consequence either way as it is sadly up to Virgin Media how they want to run their network so even if you could prove otherwise they will do what they see as necessary to keep the network running as they want it.
So it's OK for commercial companies to spout blatent lies as long as they give customers no choice in the matter (i.e. it's of no consequence)? :rolleyes:

[craigj2k12]

Its called marketing. Virgin are full of marketing.

its not called marketing, fair enough they can "extend the truth" i.e. calling their network fibre optic. It is partially fibre in the same way that infinity is, but most people think that its completely fibre which is the extension of truth

we have established the VMNG is capable of 180mb in its current state (with limiting factors like firmware etc.) however virgin say there only capable of 92mb, which is no marketing plea, its downright lies

[Peter_]

So it's OK for commercial companies to spout blatent lies as long as they give customers no choice in the matter (i.e. it's of no consequence)? :rolleyes:
Not what I said though is it, they will look on it as a sound commercial decision that makes perfect sense as a company.

[General Maximus]

Not what I said though is it, they will look on it as a sound commercial decision that makes perfect sense as a company.

cool, it makes commercial sense then for Asda to tell everyone that Tesco's, Morrisons and Sainsburys are rubbish and we should al shop at asda because they have the lowest prices, best product quality and best product availability.

It makes sense for Asda to do it but it wouldn't last long because they would get their asses sued. (Morrisons sued them for a claim last year which they were unable to substantiate)

[Peter_]

cool, it makes commercial sense then for Asda to tell everyone that Tesco's, Morrisons and Sainsburys are rubbish and we should al shop at asda because they have the lowest prices, best product quality and best product availability.

It makes sense for Asda to do it but it wouldn't last long because they would get their asses sued. (Morrisons sued them for a claim last year which they were unable to substantiate)
Oddly enough all those stores do say that about each other plus they all go on about price comparisons, Virgin Media does not have any real competition so what they say goes with regards to how they supply their services.

You may get to keep your VMNG300 and will probably struggle with your connection as the 8 downstream rollout progresses, and when the VMNG300 fails it will need replacing and the replacement will be the Superhub.

The are still people out their with very old modems and we even come across the Terayon Tailfin on the NTL side and even the Motorola SB3100 on the Telewest side, and these modems struggle even on 10Mb so even if you manage to hold on to that device you will be the equivalent of those few customers with basically outdated equipment incapable of running at 100% capacity on the network.

The VMNG300 may have been tested at higher speeds but not on the 8 channel platform, many other high end devices right off the shelf were tested but again that option was not taken up.

I personally believe that we should have 2 brands running on the network and you would get the relevant device depending on which CMTS your area had installed, and those 2 brands are Cisco and Motorola forget about Netgear or generic kit such as the VMNG300 they should have bought kit that was 100% compatible with the local networks.



Talking about generic kit, sometimes you go to the chemist and instead of the brand of drugs you are used to they give you a cheaper brand and the coating gives you a really bad cough and you have to insist on switching to the genuine brand which eventually gets rid of the cough, I have been down this route and it does fit with what most of you post about the equipment supplied.

[Andrewcrawford23]

Oddly enough all those stores do say that about each other plus they all go on about price comparisons, Virgin Media does not have any real competition so what they say goes with regards to how they supply their services.

You may get to keep your VMNG300 and will probably struggle with your connection as the 8 downstream rollout progresses, and when the VMNG300 fails it will need replacing and the replacement will be the Superhub.

The are still people out their with very old modems and we even come across the Terayon Tailfin on the NTL side and even the Motorola SB3100 on the Telewest side, and these modems struggle even on 10Mb so even if you manage to hold on to that device you will be the equivalent of those few customers with basically outdated equipment incapable of running at 100% capacity on the network.

The VMNG300 may have been tested at higher speeds but not on the 8 channel platform, many other high end devices right off the shelf were tested but again that option was not taken up.

I personally believe that we should have 2 brands running on the network and you would get the relevant device depending on which CMTS your area had installed, and those 2 brands are Cisco and Motorola forget about Netgear or generic kit such as the VMNG300 they should have bought kit that was 100% compatible with the local networks.



Talking about generic kit, sometimes you go to the chemist and instead of the brand of drugs you are used to they give you a cheaper brand and the coating gives you a really bad cough and you have to insist on switching to the genuine brand which eventually gets rid of the cough, I have been down this route and it does fit with what most of you post about the equipment supplied.

there opne bad reason for having multi brands regardless of compatbilty, esicpally in this day and age, who is to say netgear wont go under in 3 months, then what will virign do cause they wont have a supplier for the modme and they need to rush out a new make and model to replace it meaning problems, they shpoud have different types a cisco, motorola, netgear etc and if a cusotmer doesnt liek one they should offer a different maek and model but it wont happen an in way i hope netgear goes under (even though i have commerical netgear stuff) so virign learns a leason

[Peter_]

there opne bad reason for having multi brands regardless of compatbilty, esicpally in this day and age, who is to say netgear wont go under in 3 months, then what will virign do cause they wont have a supplier for the modme and they need to rush out a new make and model to replace it meaning problems, they shpoud have different types a cisco, motorola, netgear etc and if a cusotmer doesnt liek one they should offer a different maek and model but it wont happen an in way i hope netgear goes under (even though i have commerical netgear stuff) so virign learns a leason
They should just use the same brand as their CMTS's in order to ensure compatibility.

[Sephiroth]

They should just use the same brand as their CMTS's in order to ensure compatibility.

I can see why it's tempting to say that. But DOCSIS 3 is the leveller and thus the reference point. Get that right on both CMTS platforms and then all you've got to worry about is that Broadcom or whoever is the DOCSIS 3 supplier get that right on their implementation. That's gotta happen anyway and is the whole point of field trials and acceptance testing.

[Peter_]

I can see why it's tempting to say that. But DOCSIS 3 is the leveller and thus the reference point. Get that right on both CMTS platforms and then all you've got to worry about is that Broadcom or whoever is the DOCSIS 3 supplier get that right on their implementation. That's gotta happen anyway and is the whole point of field trials and acceptance testing.
They did trial Cisco and Motorola kit but never went with them as a supplier.

[Sephiroth]

They did trial Cisco and Motorola kit but never went with them as a supplier.

You just opened up a whole new can of whoopee. Love it.

[Peter_]

You just opened up a whole new can of whoopee. Love it.
That is old news and has been posted before so nothing new as it was done before 50Mb was even rolled out during the trials.

[General Maximus]

I personally believe that we should have 2 brands running on the network and you would get the relevant device depending on which CMTS your area had installed, and those 2 brands are Cisco and Motorola forget about Netgear or generic kit such as the VMNG300 they should have bought kit that was 100% compatible with the local networks.

I couldn't agree with you more dude, I am Cisco all the way. Not only are you ensuring compatability across the network but you are buying performance and reliability. If you told me I was getting a Cisco combi modem/router instead of a shub I would be over the moon.

I have just promoted you to CEO, now make it happen :)

[carbon60]

The are still people out their with very old modems and we even come across the Terayon Tailfin on the NTL side and even the Motorola SB3100 on the Telewest side, and these modems struggle even on 10Mb so even if you manage to hold on to that device you will be the equivalent of those few customers with basically outdated equipment incapable of running at 100% capacity on the network.

The Motorola SB3100 was great but you are right it couldn't do 10Mbit, I seem to recall getting ~6Mbit out of it. It was extremely reliable so I was reluctant to change it but the SA2100v2 they replaced it with has been just as reliable :)

For some reason I still miss the SB3100 though, I think it looked nicer.

[Peter_]

The Motorola SB3100 was great but you are right it couldn't do 10Mbit, I seem to recall getting ~6Mbit out of it. It was extremely reliable so I was reluctant to change it but the SA2100v2 they replaced it with has been just as reliable :)

For some reason I still miss the SB3100 though, I think it looked nicer.
The Sb5100 was my favourite modem and they are still on sale.

[Turkey Machine]

I think that if Virgin want to standardise the routers they send out (remember folks that the [Super]Hub can be set to bridge mode so quit yer whining) then more power to them.

It makes perfect sense from a support tech's viewpoint, and speaking as somebody who has to deal with completely variable equipment to try and diagnose faults on IP phones, routers and phones that have been sourced from a 3rd party are the bane of my life.

[Peter_]

I think that if Virgin want to standardise the routers they send out (remember folks that the [Super]Hub can be set to bridge mode so quit yer whining) then more power to them.

It makes perfect sense from a support tech's viewpoint, and speaking as somebody who has to deal with completely variable equipment to try and diagnose faults on IP phones, routers and phones that have been sourced from a 3rd party are the bane of my life.
Having a single piece of kit can make my job easier its just a pity we never bought branded kit as above, that would have appeased even the most ardent broadband users plus we would have had quality kit with a long life expectancy.

[General Maximus]

Having a single piece of kit can make my job easier its just a pity we never bought branded kit as above, that would have appeased even the most ardent broadband users plus we would have had quality kit with a long life expectancy.

exactly, it is common sense to everyone and appears to be a win win all round so it makes you wonder why on earth they didnt do it. I know it is all to do with £££ but you would have thought that even if any modem/router they bought off Cisco cost twice as much, they would get all that back and more from not having to replace so many faulty units and not having to waste so much time on support phone calls because it would do it's job and work.

[qasdfdsaq]

Single piece of kit also means single point and means of failure - which is why many important carriers refuse to rely on a single make/manufacturer of kit for critical systems.

[Peter_]

Single piece of kit also means single point and means of failure - which is why many important carriers refuse to rely on a single make/manufacturer of kit for critical systems.
Virgin Media have always used a single modem at any one time as per BT with its Homehub, they get replaced as new kit emerges so having 2 devices to match the CMTS could be the way forward but doubtful it will ever happen.

[qasdfdsaq]

Were they? I thought the standard non-Super Hub was being distributed last year at the same time as the VMNG300 was still being provided.

Either way, in general I meant the other way round - network infrastructure is often based on two different vendors so failure of one vendor's equipment would not cause the entire network to break. See for example LINX, who run two separate networks for resiliency, specifically using two different vendors' hardware. End-user CPEs are rarely critical bits of infrastructure :)

[Peter_]

Were they? I thought the standard non-Super Hub was being distributed last year at the same time as the VMNG300 was still being provided.

Either way, in general I meant the other way round - network infrastructure is often based on two different vendors so failure of one vendor's equipment would not cause the entire network to break. See for example LINX, who run two separate networks for resiliency, specifically using two different vendors' hardware. End-user CPEs are rarely critical bits of infrastructure :)
The second Superhub appears to have been quietly shelved ( allegedly ) so please never mention it again.:D

[qasdfdsaq]

The second Superhub appears to have been quietly shelved ( allegedly ) so please never mention it again.:D
I'd totally forgotten about that. Looks like the quiet shelving actually worked.

[craigj2k12]

yeah it got scrapped because the wireless was crap....

well at least huawei did a good job of making an equivalent to the netgear superhub lol

[Chrysalis]

well the upstream channel my vmng300 locks onto appears to have not so bad utilisation again so I am tempted to switch back again.

My guess is in raw processing capabilities the vmng300 could probably handle higher speeds than the superhub, although the superhub has modem mode now it still has to do more with that than the vmng300 has to with its data. Of course the superhub tho does have the 8 channel limit but thats a software limitation on the vmng300 with its 4 channels.

[General Maximus]

software limitation on the vmng300 with its 4 channels.

great, lets get it fixed and up to 8 channels and then we'll have yet another piece of equipment which makes the shub look not so super.

[Peter_]

great, lets get it fixed and up to 8 channels and then we'll have yet another piece of equipment which makes the shub look not so super.
Never going to happen as they look on it a defunct piece of kit and want you on the Superhub.:(

[qasdfdsaq]

I look on the Superhub as a defunct piece of kit and want the Uberhub.

[General Maximus]

Exactly, they can get the vmng300 upgraded to 8 channels quicker than it has taken them to fix the shub (and they are still at it)

[Peter_]

Exactly, they can get the vmng300 upgraded to 8 channels quicker than it has taken them to fix the shub (and they are still at it)
As I posted above they would be very unlikely to get anyone writing any firmware for that device as it is no longer in the inventory and it may not even be possible.

The cost alone would prevent any such investment as it could not be justified to the board for what is now an essentially obsolete piece of kit no longer being manufactured.

[qasdfdsaq]

It may not be possible with a firmware upgrade, however if it is the cost would be negligible.

[Peter_]

It may not be possible with a firmware upgrade, however if it is the cost would be negligible.
It may not cost a great deal but can anyone see them actually bothering when they have the Superhub as the device of choice for everyone.;)

[qasdfdsaq]

Ah, but how much money is the Superhub actually saving, quantitatively? It must be someone's job in VM to work that out and I hope for his/her sake he's as good at bending the truth and liberal interpretations of "everyone" as VM's marketing department...

[Peter_]

Ah, but how much money is the Superhub actually saving, quantitatively? It must be someone's job in VM to work that out and I hope for his/her sake he's as good at bending the truth and liberal interpretations of "everyone" as VM's marketing department...
It must be ok so far as it is now the default device d not being built by a generic company, I expect time will tell.;)

[General Maximus]

It must be ok so far as it is now the default device d not being built by a generic company, I expect time will tell.;)

Is it just me or does anyone else think Masque has changed his name, assumed a new identity and is now known as Peter :D I thought we hadnt heard from him in a while

[qasdfdsaq]

Is it just me or does anyone else think Masque has changed his name, assumed a new identity and is now known as Peter :D I thought we hadnt heard from him in a while
We all knew this ages ago. It's pretty obvious since the user ID hasn't changed.

[General Maximus]

Lol, I didn't realise it was really him, I was only joking. I thought it was funny how he disappeared though and then Peter popped up out of the blue.

[Peter_]

Is it just me or does anyone else think Masque has changed his name, assumed a new identity and is now known as Peter :D I thought we hadnt heard from him in a while
I am now using my actual name albeit with an underscore at the end plus my Avatar has changed, hopefully quite soon the the signature will disappear if all bodes well.;)

[qasdfdsaq]

You want to lose your job?

[Sephiroth]

He wants to start his new job. I hope.

[qasdfdsaq]

Ah.

[Peter_]

You want to lose your job?
We are losing our jobs due to redundancy and as with many of my colleagues I am actively looking for a new position, luckily at this time the are many positions available locally.

[General Maximus]

i am sure it will work out dude with your wealth of knowledge and experience. If you need a hand with your CV or anything have a look at www.cvcl.co.uk. A couple of my friends have used them and they said they are fantastic. I am going to get my CV done by them next month so I can start moving onwards and upwards.

[Peter_]

i am sure it will work out dude with your wealth of knowledge and experience. If you need a hand with your CV or anything have a look at www.cvcl.co.uk (http://www.cvcl.co.uk). A couple of my friends have used them and they said they are fantastic. I am going to get my CV done by them next month so I can start moving onwards and upwards.
I already have a start date for one position but as it is a while off I will keep quiet for now and another company is onsite on Friday who I am also interested in so keeping my options open, I will update just before I start any job, cards close to chest at present.;)

[General Maximus]

sweet, glad to see things are working out and you havent been screwed given the current economic climate

[Peter_]

sweet, glad to see things are working out and you havent been screwed given the current economic climate
A lot of people think of Liverpool and remember the 1980's but it is quite different here now with many call centres based within an 20 mile radius and quite a few in the city centre, plus many other opportunities locally.

[qasdfdsaq]

I must say I've spoken to a few sexy sounding ladies in my banks' call centres, I wonder if they were Liverpudlian

[Peter_]

I must say I've spoken to a few sexy sounding ladies in my banks' call centres, I wonder if they were Liverpudlian
The are a few HSBC, Barclays and Santander possibly some others.

[craigj2k12]

so yeah I think that concludes that the VMNG is capable of more than 92mb :D

[DigitalShadow]

https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2013/01/56.png

http://www.speedtest.net/result/2420770062.png

[General Maximus]

nice on dude, you should email that to everyone at VM, especially the customer service plebs who tell you you need a shub in order to receive a speed upgrade.

[jb66]

Its capable but 30meg on each downstream channel is a big ask 24/7

[Chrysalis]

Its capable but 30meg on each downstream channel is a big ask 24/7

alot bigger than 25 per channel?

100mbit was sold on 4 channels for quite a while.

[jb66]

The network was not as busy then, now with all tiers moving to docsis3 I imagine the superhub would hit 120 more often than the vmng300 will during peak times

[broadbandking]

nice on dude, you should email that to everyone at VM, especially the customer service plebs who tell you you need a shub in order to receive a speed upgrade.

No need to call them plebs, most people in customer services are told this information by the higher ups, plus with VM rolling out more than 4 channels which the VMNG300 can only handle, I understand you think its a great modem but its about time you stop with this we all understand you prefer the VMNG300 to the snub.

[Kushan]

nice on dude, you should email that to everyone at VM, especially the customer service plebs who tell you you need a shub in order to receive a speed upgrade.

No need to call them plebs, most people in customer services are told this information by the higher ups, plus with VM rolling out more than 4 channels which the VMNG300 can only handle, I understand you think its a great modem but its about time you stop with this we all understand you prefer the VMNG300 to the snub.

Thank you, I came in to say exactly this. CS agents are only repeating what they've been told, it's not their fault. I remember having similar arguments with people who didn't want to give up their old Motorola Modems because they KNEW it could handle 20Mbit (Talking about an SB3100 here).

[General Maximus]

No need to call them plebs, most people in customer services are told this information by the higher ups, plus with VM rolling out more than 4 channels which the VMNG300 can only handle, I understand you think its a great modem but its about time you stop with this we all understand you prefer the VMNG300 to the snub.
it has got nothing to go with me liking the vmng300 and not liking the shub. It is to do with how comfortable VM seem to be getting in lieing to customers, especially when it involves them palming off rubbish cpe to customers which only causes more problems which can be entirely avoided if they they did what they were supposed to and upgraded the customer or provided a decent explanation why not.


Its capable but 30meg on each downstream channel is a big ask 24/7
I agree and rather than VM blaming the vmng300 for speed and saying it cant do it, I would rather them come out with something like "whilst many customers may enjoy full speed on their vmng300 due to the technology we employ on our network we recommend customers upgrade to the superhub as they will be more likely to achieve full speed". It is VMs fault they havent got the bandwidth their for the vmng300 to use, not the modem's.

[Kushan]

it has got nothing to go with me liking the vmng300 and not liking the shub. It is to do with how comfortable VM seem to be getting in lieing to customers, especially when it involves them palming off rubbish cpe to customers which only causes more problems which can be entirely avoided if they they did what they were supposed to and upgraded the customer or provided a decent explanation why not.



I agree and rather than VM blaming the vmng300 for speed and saying it cant do it, I would rather them come out with something like "whilst many customers may enjoy full speed on their vmng300 due to the technology we employ on our network we recommend customers upgrade to the superhub as they will be more likely to achieve full speed". It is VMs fault they havent got the bandwidth their for the vmng300 to use, not the modem's.

I actually agree with your sentiment, but you're wrong about VM not having the bandwidth for the Ambit 300. It's not just bandwidth, but load balancing. The more channels you're connected to, the less congestion is an issue - if one channel gets heavily congested, you've got more to make up the load. This is part of the benefit of switching to DOCSIS3 over older DOCSIS - surely you've seen people complaining about being on "a bad channel" and reboot hopping to get a better one? The more bonded channels, the better - for everyone.
Plus, Virgin has plenty of other reasons for ditching the Ambit 300 - it's out of support for one and they're currently paying through the nose for firmware updates, plus it's easier on the CS agents if they have to support less modems. Ultimately, they want everyone on a Superhub if possible.

[General Maximus]

I understand the reasons behind the shub and why they would want everyone to have one, it makes good business sense. But, if they want to put all their eggs in one baskey so to speak then they should have made sure what they were giving out to customers was up to standard. I am not going to say anymore because I'll start the usual banter we go through everytime :)

[Sephiroth]

I actually agree with your sentiment, but you're wrong about VM not having the bandwidth for the Ambit 300. It's not just bandwidth, but load balancing. The more channels you're connected to, the less congestion is an issue - if one channel gets heavily congested, you've got more to make up the load. This is part of the benefit of switching to DOCSIS3 over older DOCSIS - surely you've seen people complaining about being on "a bad channel" and reboot hopping to get a better one? The more bonded channels, the better - for everyone.
Plus, Virgin has plenty of other reasons for ditching the Ambit 300 - it's out of support for one and they're currently paying through the nose for firmware updates, plus it's easier on the CS agents if they have to support less modems. Ultimately, they want everyone on a Superhub if possible.

One of my professional roles in the networking field is Performance & Reliability Engineer (for safety of life systems). At risk of blowing my credibilty, I'd agree with you on the load balancing provided that its is actually so. It is indeed right to replace all the VMNG300s with SHs so that in any area no channel imbalance is introduced.

The last thing you want is channel imbalance because that can introduce latency when reassembling the packets distributed and interleaved on the bonded channels.

Finally, VM have the unenvious task of ensuring that SNR is maintained high overall the bonded channels so that there is no tendency on one channel for irrecoverable FEC errors to occur. There's much that can go wrong with 8 bonded channels, IMO and thus infrastructure standard has to be high.

[Kushan]

I understand the reasons behind the shub and why they would want everyone to have one, it makes good business sense. But, if they want to put all their eggs in one baskey so to speak then they should have made sure what they were giving out to customers was up to standard. I am not going to say anymore because I'll start the usual banter we go through everytime :)

I don't think anyone's going to argue about the Superhub being an inferior router or whatever - we've heard all that before. However, at least as a Modem, it's no less capable than the Ambit 300.

Finally, VM have the unenvious task of ensuring that SNR is maintained high overall the bonded channels so that there is no tendency on one channel for irrecoverable FEC errors to occur. There's much that can go wrong with 8 bonded channels, IMO and thus infrastructure standard has to be high.



Indeed, this is probably why Virgin tends to insist on Engineer visits for a lot of installs that could be simple modem swaps, particularly when a customer is going from DOCSIS1/2 to DOCSIS3. While it sounds daft, being that swapping a Modem is easy, as you've stated there's a lot more that can go wrong with it. You seem to see this a lot with virgin, they make questionable decisions with a hint that there's a valid reason behind it that gets lost in the ether.

[qasdfdsaq]

One of my professional roles in the networking field is Performance & Reliability Engineer (for safety of life systems). At risk of blowing my credibilty, I'd agree with you on the load balancing provided that its is actually so. It is indeed right to replace all the VMNG300s with SHs so that in any area no channel imbalance is introduced.
That won't help when you still have hundreds of legacy DOCSIS 1/2 modems that can only use the primary channel in any set and cannot be load balanced. They're a far bigger problem than any VMNG300 will ever be...

[Sephiroth]

Not sure that's entirely true. Some D1 services live on the D3 frequency plan and they, as you say, buggerate the load balancing. But a huge chunk are still on legacy frequencies not yet gathered into the D3 range. But it matters not a jot as to whether it's VMNG300 or Ambit 256 - we are agreed that they buggerate load balancing.

[qasdfdsaq]

They do, but VMNG300 being DOCSIS 3 compliant can be load balanced across all channels, just not all at the same time. Say you got 10 VMNG300's across an 8 channel set, 5 could use channels 1-4 and the other 5 would be on channels 5-8. The VMNG300 has a 16-channel wide tuner and can use just about any 4 channels out of 16. Not all need to be on the same subset of channels. DOCSIS 2 modems would all have to be on channel 1.

Well it's not quite that simple but you get the idea. Still nowhere near as bad as a bunch of legacy modems.

[Coffeeguy]

Indeed, this is probably why Virgin tends to insist on Engineer visits for a lot of installs that could be simple modem swaps, particularly when a customer is going from DOCSIS1/2 to DOCSIS3. While it sounds daft, being that swapping a Modem is easy, as you've stated there's a lot more that can go wrong with it. You seem to see this a lot with virgin, they make questionable decisions with a hint that there's a valid reason behind it that gets lost in the ether.

It's a shame as some of these visits are a complete waste of time. I had 2 in a row after my install. After the original swap, the engineer didn't bother checking my power levels and left me with 58 upstream power. The second engineer who was booked to fix the power level told it was perfectly within limit until I told him about my line dropping out and second line telling me high upstream was the cause.

Back on topic my area has recently been upgraded to double speeds. Before the area upgrade my speeds would hit 12000KB/s but now I barely sustain 9000KB/s. Come on VM stop starving our VMNG300 modems :p:

[horseman]

…. DOCSIS 2 modems would all have to be on channel 1.

Well it's not quite that simple but you get the idea. Still nowhere near as bad as a bunch of legacy modems.

Indeed it's not as simple because legacy single channel CM's would only be limited to primary channels as and when VM decided to disable MAP on the secondary channels in order to reduce DOCSIS overheads (to increase data payload), otherwise legacy CM's could potentially load balance across any d/s channel configured within their load balance group. ;)

[Chrysalis]

I was able to change channels on my docsis 1 modem. Its just the usual channel hopping process, turn modem off for long enough then turn it back on again and hope it uses a new channel, so my experience was not that it always used a primary channel.

There is no doubt tho that the docsis3 experience on a docsis1 modem is severely hindered, qas probably remembers when I signed up to 30mbit on the docsis1 modem on the 20mbit service on docsis3 network my speeds were at the time chaotic, I upgraded and got the superhub and then on a docsis3 device they stabilised and that was with a 50% higher speed package also.

[horseman]

….There is no doubt tho that the docsis3 experience on a docsis1 modem is severely hindered, qas probably remembers when I signed up to 30mbit on the docsis1 modem on the 20mbit service on docsis3 network my speeds were at the time chaotic, I upgraded and got the superhub and then on a docsis3 device they stabilised and that was with a 50% higher speed package also.

Again there is indeed every doubt you can validly state(or infer) that experience is typical unless you present some degree of objective comparison with some analysis of the linecard types, number of cm's deployed per LC/port and types involved along with load balance groups, channel/frequency plans used.

For example I was quite happily provisioned on an Ambit256 via a D3 compliant CMTS for 18months without a degraded service until migrating to a SHub(with same IP) a couple of months ago. Similarly my son was on Ambit250 legacy (with 20XL tier, and still is!) before migrating to SuperHub over a year ago. However only when both d/s & u/s channels increased could a significant improvement be observed!

That said however using DOCSIS "mixed mode" is going to be finitely less efficient anyway without a doubt but until VM eventually migrate the remainder of their 4million+ BB subscribers it's going to be around for a long time yet. If VM did reduce the number of channels with MAP data and/or had not allocated correct load balance group configurations then your scenario may well have occurred to the detriment of the DOCSIS legacy CM, and perhaps even more so than the D3 unit.

Like most things here it's another pointless argument without supportive evidential data to compare objectively and thus only represents a couple of observations based on a limited statistical sample base.

[Chrysalis]

horseman my area has had high DS utilisation for years, so when that is combined with a modem that relies on just 1 DS channel its clear it will have issues. My guess if your area had lower DS utilisation than mine.

eg. there is currently a high DS utilisation fault open on my area now (again).

the scenario I had may have been.

DS channels - utilisations
1 - 80%
2 - 90%
3 - 70%
4 - 75%

with all 4 bonded 30mbit throughput available so no visible congestion downloading, but on a d1 modem no single channel had 20mbit throughput available hence congestion.