@mitch84 but if the hub 5 is better and doesn't have the puma chipset which had issues, why cant I get one?
There's no proof the Hub 5 is better. Some aspects of the spec are better, but that doesn't mean the whole kaboodle is better.
The Hub 3 Puma workaround operates very successfully. Chips in the Hub 4 post-date the Puma flaw debacle (as will late production Hub 3's) so will not be affected, and evidence suggests that for two years after launch, each new hub has unresolved and sometimes serious firmware flaws. The Hub 4 is now two years old, and all or most of the serious faults have been fixed. Anybody taking a Hub 5 needs to understand that they are using a hub which has not seen widespread public trials, and will have unresolved issues (and there will probably be latency spikes because the early adopters will likely have hub firmware with regular "dial home" of performance data, as seen on early Hub 3 and Hub 4).
Let's assume you're happy to trial unproven hardware - why can't you get one? Because it isn't on general issue, and VM have already provided you with a capable hub/modem. Stocks will be limited. VM will be paying far more for the Hub 5 than current versions of the Hub 3 or 4. Even if you'd signed up for trials (which you usually have to do in advance of any offered trial), it doesn't follow that you'd be accepted because early market release trials (like the previous secret trials) have very limited numbers, and the participants are usually chosen according to particular areas, have particular use patterns or bundles. If you're willing to trial one and get offered one, it's no good later whining if it turns out to be unreliable, or to have limitations in firmware that impinge upon your use of your connection. Does that sound "better" to you?
I'm sure that the Hub 5 will eventually be a very good piece of kit, and perhaps the best hub VM have ever offered. But at the moment it's unproven, and of itself new does not equal better.
