PDA

View Full Version : VM Router Seperate or Combined Broadband Equipment


thenry
09-03-2012, 00:49
would you rather have a solid seperate modem and seperate router provided by Virgin Media or the SuperHub ?

BenMcr
09-03-2012, 01:00
There should really be a 'not bothered' answer there ;)

thenry
09-03-2012, 01:03
anyone voting not bothered shouldnt be on here as their world must be perfect ;)

qasdfdsaq
09-03-2012, 01:22
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 £37 a month.

craigj2k12
09-03-2012, 01:59
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, 15:42
Just a modem is all that's required. :tu:

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, 15:46
might be good if people voting here can vote here http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/12/33686176-superhub-usage.html so can get a better idea why people choose what there choosing here

Mick Fisher
09-03-2012, 15:58
might be good if people voting here can vote here http://www.cableforum.co.uk/board/12/33686176-superhub-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. :D

Andrewcrawford23
09-03-2012, 16:02
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. :D

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, 17:12
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:

https://www.cableforum.co.uk/images/local/2012/03/76.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/Linksys_befsr41_dsl.jpg

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, 17:16
I think that falls under seperate kit David. The router could be optional which it would be anyway.

kwikbreaks
10-03-2012, 19:54
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, 20:00
I want a superhub that works

Mick Fisher
10-03-2012, 20:09
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, 21:04
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 £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.

Andrewcrawford23
10-03-2012, 21:12
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 think you havea point there

personally i think what they do is get a new superhub that acutalyl does it job, but for people who really dnt want one offer a alternative offer teh shelf modem at a addiotnal cost i would pay to have a modme only and make the new superhub standard so it onyl really peopel who want serperate modem that will get and pay for one

cookdn
10-03-2012, 21:20
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. [....]


You are correct that nowadays Joe-public expects a hub, with BT Retail making the hub central to their service and marketing VM had no choice but to follow-suit. However I found it odd that the modem-mode was either low-priority or an after-thought. This simply alienated the more technical and vocal parts of their existing customer base. It wouldn't even have been unreasonable for the SHUB to default to modem mode as this would have then been a direct replacement for the previous modem to existing subscribers. Instead they ended up with a load of people with less than ideal double-nat configurations, either by choice or by accident.

I started to consider the VM Internet service last year, the BT copper pair to our house is under-ground and in a terrible state. My neighbour who is fed from a over-ground pole gets 19 Mb/s +, ours varies between 2.5 and 3.5. Luckily I was able to watch and wait as VM had already closed the firmware loop-hole allowing people to subvertly enable modem-mode and R29 hadn't even gone into the testing phase. This seems to have paid off - our SHUB was in router mode for about thirty minutes while I registered to the service and has been problem-free in modem-mode ever since. Maybe I have been lucky?

Best regards
David

qasdfdsaq
10-03-2012, 21:36
I want a superhub that works
And I want pigs that can fly.

In related news, so far neither of my Superhubs have done anything particularly interesting or unusual - good or bad. Except for flying off the windowsill.

[Edit] Never mind, 30 seconds after connecting to it, they start screwing up :)

Jumping
10-03-2012, 21:57
I would prefer one unit as it would save space. Should be better and more reliable than the shub tho.

Mick Fisher
11-03-2012, 15:14
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 £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.
So to reduce support costs they issue a device that they must have known didn't work properly. :D

Sounds about right for VM who still seem to be trying, albeit unsuccessfully, to perfect there plans for heavy drinking sessions in places where beer is made. :rolleyes:

Stuart
11-03-2012, 15:29
I started to consider the VM Internet service last year, the BT copper pair to our house is under-ground and in a terrible state. My neighbour who is fed from a over-ground pole gets 19 Mb/s +, ours varies between 2.5 and 3.5. Luckily I was able to watch and wait as VM had already closed the firmware loop-hole allowing people to subvertly enable modem-mode and R29 hadn't even gone into the testing phase. This seems to have paid off - our SHUB was in router mode for about thirty minutes while I registered to the service and has been problem-free in modem-mode ever since. Maybe I have been lucky?

Best regards
David

My experience with BT is that I live just over 100 metres from the exchange (as the crow flies, but I'd be surprised if the network took a much longer route). My connection should have averaged between 20 and 22 meg. It averaged 14 to 19. Be (my ISP) blamed BT. When I phoned BT, they said the cost to even start investigating what was wrong was £100. As I wasn't that bothered about the speed difference (and, at the time, didn't have £100 spare), I didn't pursue it.