If this were a newspaper's website the editor would require evidence for a journalist's postings, this is O Level Journalism, but for a community forum we can post facts without declaring the source and opinions as we see fit (subject to the usual rules against libel, racism and suchlike).
True. Though the people reading the newspaper's website wouldn't. That's the end of the response to the quote so rest isn't aimed at you Mr Gooner.
Either way, okay, even though I've been accurate far more often than not I'll just not post anything that might be of interest to the forum and really can't be bothered with drama. Did try to come back, post a bit, help a bit, educate a bit and try and unwind. My mistake.
Will leave the place to complaints, whining, responses straight from Mr Broadbandings' scriptings, technically inaccurate nonsense and the resident BSer with whatever multi-terabit connection he claims to have connected to his mansion this week.
So my apologies for inconveniencing everyone by being rude enough to have a clue what I'm talking about and being willing to share things that might be interesting. Such a mystery why pretty much no-one with a clue or inside information posts in such a fine resource when the experience of debating with basement dwellers is so rewarding.
But I did note a post earlier from somebody not happy at getting a second user Hub 3, and rather than the customer focused approach implied in the article, I wonder if VM are simply approaching the bottom of the enormous pile of Hub 3s that they ordered a few years back?
Speaking for myself, I won't be in the queue for a Hub 4 any time soon - I don't need higher speed than my 200 Mbps line (indeed, probably not that even), there's too many complex and worrying problems reported round here given the tiny number of customers on 1 Gbps, and as far as I can see there's little advantage to me in risking another cheapskate VM hub that hasn't had its bugs ironed out. .