@wotusaw wrote:I'm pretty sure someone sooner or later will take Virgin to court regardless whether they stand a good chance of winning or not.
Customers are very angry about this and Virgin with their refusal to keep us well informed about the whole sad sorry affair are just making it worse.
The 'advert' alone makes my blood boil every time I see it!!
Virgin should have checked the modem BEFORE they gave it out to customers to see if it was fit for purpose.
It may be fit for their purpose but it's certainly not fit for the customers who pay them as can be seen from the length of this post.
Smugly repeating that they are providing what's in the contract just rubs salt into the wound and it will all come back on Virgin when it's contract renewal time.
As has been mentioned, during testing there were less downstream channels, in this scenario the modem did not show any issues, its only once the upstream channel count was increased that this problem was shown to exist, so when it was tested it WAS fit for purpose, at the end of the day VM are a victim of this issue as much as end users, threatening them with legal action won't speed the process up, it won't force them to allow 3rd party modems on their network, it won't force them to release a hub4 any sooner than they would have, literally the only thing you're likely to get out of it is an offer to leave without penalty, as for VM not informing us, what exactly would you have them say, if i remember correctly there is a post on here somewhere that states they are aware of the issue and that intel are working on a fix, what else could they even say apart from copy and pasting "A fix is still in development" every month in to a thread, i personally won't be leaving over this and i imagine a majority of their customer base won't either and i'm not even still in a minimum term contract so i can just up and leave at any time
@MUD_Wizard wrote:
@shanematthews wrote:its only once the upstream channel count was increased that this problem was shown to exist,It's the increase in downstreams that mainly affects it. Most of us were on 2 upstreams then and still are now. I was on 16 downstreams then, so it was quite noticeable.
Totally agree with @MUD_Wizard here, I have seen my BQM get worse every time I was given more downstream channels, in the past 9 months I have gone from:
8 downstream channels to 16 downstream channels (STILL ONLY 2 UPSTREAM CHANNELS 16 qam 
)
16 downstream channels to 20 downstream channels (STILL ONLY 2 UPSTREAM CHANNELS 16 qam )
20 downstream channels to 24 downstream channels (STILL ONLY 2 UPSTREAM CHANNELS 16 qam )
So I am now sitting at 24 downstream and just 2 upstream channels running on the old 16 qam just look at the state of my BQM and people wonder why I get salty when I see VM advertisements 
I just expect to get what I am paying for nothing more nothing less VM cannot go around advertising a gaming tier and then supply it with 200 ms latency
@nallar wrote:
Hub 2ACs are not being sent out from stock, engineers have been told to return any 2ACs they have. New packages will require the hub 3.
I still have a hub 2ac but using it = even slower speeds due to only having 8 downstream channels
In the US the FCC require third party modems to be allowed after a reasonable amount of testing. Charter lost a lawsuit over this and now allow third party modems. Unfortunately there is no such rule in the UK so that will not happen.
I would happily buy my own modem and put an end to this puma 6 nightmare however like you see VM will never allow this to happen.....
Here's a direct comparison of my SH2ac and Hub 3 tested on the same VM line just now, minutes apart:
SH2AC - 8 downstreams obviously (router mode):
Hub 3 with 20 downstreams (router mode):
