Virgin Media to Double Broadband Speed

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by Jayster

But do you not trust Ignition?

I do not trust the company to bring out a firmware for a device they would love to see gone off the platform, they would replace every single VMNG300 out there in a flash if they could just to hide their red faces.

Both the VMNG300 and the Superhub were costly mistakes that they will never own up to, they are more likely to bring out a replacement rather than admit to that.

[cookster]

Originally Posted by Jayster

Im on the same apart from the Hardware version which is 1.48.0

Same here 1.48.0

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by Peter_

they would replace every single VMNG300 out there in a flash if they could just to hide their red faces.

Rubbish

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by General Maximus

I dont know but I thought I would blame you for it

Seriously though, it was either you, Masque or Nopanic, I can't remember which one though. It was probably Masque because I can remember the speach about the shub and how that is all VM are interested in and the vmgn300 is end of line bla bla bla and they arent interested in supporting it and if anything goes wrong it will be replaced with the shub etc etc.

I am honestly well chuffed that they have gone to the effort of having new firmware written though to fix whatever is wrong with the upstream. It shows they are happy with us keeping the vmng300 for a while because they could easly have said screw you, you need a shub to get it to work if previous comments made in the past were anything to go by.

hmm.

it could also be to bump up the vmng300's US buffering after a few of us told VM it was lower than the superhub's. I hope not as then jitter will increase.

Funny news tho after masque said the vmng300 was dead and buried.

[Jayster]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

hmm.

it could also be to bump up the vmng300's US buffering after a few of us told VM it was lower than the superhub's. I hope not as then jitter will increase.

Funny news tho after masque said the vmng300 was dead and buried.

Dont give them ideas.

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

Rubbish

Not at all they made a mistake with that device and a bigger one with the Superhub by not buying either device off the shelf, if you want quality you do not buy something with a mixed heritage ( I think you can guess my real sentiment here ).

Both devices are inherently rubbish due to some fool/s trying to cut corners and trying to buy equipment that had aesthetically pleasing looks, they spoke about the next device possibly having external antenna if it did not spoil the looks of the device and this information can be found if you look for it on the intranet.

I used to peruse the documentation on the intranet surrounding both devices before I left and the is much on there which is fascinating to read as the people in charge are so far up themselves they believe external antenna will displease people.

So before posting that it is rubbish maybe try reading it yourself but the confidentiality agreement will prevent you from posting about it with it being business sensitive information.

[Chrysalis]

well the vmng300 doesnt need an antennae as its wired only.

[General Maximus]

Originally Posted by Peter_

Both the VMNG300 and the Superhub were costly mistakes that they will never own up to, they are more likely to bring out a replacement rather than admit to that.

I think I am going to have a heart attach, Peter is dissing the shub

Originally Posted by BenMcr

Rubbish

omg, Ben is disagreeing with Peter. What is the world coming to

Originally Posted by Peter_

they spoke about the next device possibly having external antenna if it did not spoil the looks of the device

that has got nothing to go with it at all. My Linksys router has got internal antennae and it kicks ass. The problem is the whole ethos around cost and not caring about quality, especially when they are/were forcing you to use it without any other option (pre-modem mode). Even if the shub has external antennae, there have been tonnes of other problems seperate from wireless which should not have existed in the first place and took them donkeys to fix.

[carlwaring]

Originally Posted by Peter_

( I think you can guess my real sentiment here ).

Well it sounds like you don't like Negtgear. Yet I have used exclusively Netgear stuff for years (mainly their cable router) and never had a single problem with any of it. And I'm not having any problems with the Hub either. But I guess that's because I'm only on 10meg, right? (Or some such other excuse.)

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Peter_

I would not hold your breath until you actually see a different firmware in your VMNG300 as I would trust them as far as I could throw Necker Island.

Upstream bonding compatible firmware is already present on other cable networks.

The modem the VMNG300 is a rebranded and recased version of is deployed on a number of networks including the largest cable company in the world, there's no reports of massive amounts of issues, unlike the Superhub which Comhem users of its unbranded version, the Netgear CG3100D, report as being garbage as well and have many of the same issues with it in router mode.

[General Maximus]

Originally Posted by carlwaring

But I guess that's because I'm only on 10meg, right? (Or some such other excuse.)

No excuses. Like many other members have stated in the past, the shub works perfectly fine for them but the fact remains there is an unacceptable % of faults/errors with the shub which affect far too many users. If it was a piece of equipment that you had to buy from a store it would have been recalled or discontinued ages ago because nobody would be buying it.

With reference to your 10mbit, problems with the shub become more apparent when it is put under load so you are sort of right; 10mbit doesnt tax it. It is when you get to higher speeds (like a user reporting last week that on 50mbit he had no probs but when he upgraded to 100mbit it died), put large amounts of data through the switch or start connecting multiple devices and get it to do some work that it falls apart. And yes again, I know there are some users (e.g one of the mods) who will say they have got a tonne of stuff connected to it and dont have any probs. It shouldn't be a cross your fingers and hope it works scenario though, it should just work and that is it.

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by General Maximus

I think I am going to have a heart attach, Peter is dissing the shub

It does its job adequately but not as good as an off the shelf piece of kit, I get almost 32Mb from mine wired.

Originally Posted by General Maximus

that has got nothing to go with it at all. My Linksys router has got internal antennae and it kicks ass. The problem is the whole ethos around cost and not caring about quality, especially when they are/were forcing you to use it without any other option (pre-modem mode). Even if the shub has external antennae, there have been tonnes of other problems seperate from wireless which should not have existed in the first place and took them donkeys to fix.

You have seen the screenshots of the 2 quite small antenna fitted at the back of the device unlike your Linksys or many other devices with multiple antenna around the casing.

---------- Post added at 09:36 ---------- Previous post was at 09:31 ----------

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Upstream bonding compatible firmware is already present on other cable networks.

The modem the VMNG300 is a rebranded and recased version of is deployed on a number of networks including the largest cable company in the world, there's no reports of massive amounts of issues, unlike the Superhub which Comhem users of its unbranded version, the Netgear CG3100D, report as being garbage as well and have many of the same issues with it in router mode.

VMNG300 without 8 downstreams and the Superhub with mini antenna inside at the back makes for relatively poor equipment and any firmware upgrade is going to be years to late for either device.

You buy the incorrect kit for your flagship devices and it kicks you in the face, even the first planned replacement by Hauwei failed in testing now another version is in the planning ad testing stages but it may or may not have external antenna because they are worried about it not looking pretty, that was on the intranet.

[Ignitionnet]

The specific firmware update is for upstream bonding.

VMNG in common with nearly all devices at that time ran off a 4 downstream chipset, people run fine on >100Mb services on 4 DOCSIS downstreams, VMNG300 being on only 4 downstreams isn't a show stopper for 120Mb, the lack of upstream bonding is.

The Superhub is a disaster however it is receiving new firmware steadily so unsure what your point is there.

[carlwaring]

Originally Posted by General Maximus

No excuses.

Actually, I meant to come back to delete my post as I realised I have the VMDG280 which is not one of the ones mentioned. (Yes, I know I sometimes jump in a bit quick!)

Like many other members have stated in the past, the shub works perfectly fine for them but the fact remains there is an unacceptable % of faults/errors with the shub which affect far too many users.

How would anyone know for sure unless you have asked every VM customer? (and there aren't any official figures!)

Posts on forums aren't necessarily an indication of any actual underlying problems.

This forum has 83,169. Even if everyone on it posted that they were having issues with the shub, what's that as a %age of VM's total BB customer base? Don't forget about negativity bias too. No-one joins a forum to post that they're entirely happy and not having any issues at all. (No, not even me )

I am not denying that there are any problems; just wondering how you can substantiate your claim.

[Ignitionnet]

Anyway aside from Mr Waring's need to pick arguments with all and sundry back to the topic in hand. I believe the Superhub discussion has been done to death and VM themselves have acknowledged substantial issues and fixed some through firmware updates.