Battle of the Hubs - The prequel

After my last attempt at inspiring level headed debate (half-hearted as it was) resulted in yet another abject slanging match of "Superhub sucks" "Superhub is fine" "No it sucks" "No you suck" "You suck more" "Your momma" "STFU NOOB" etc., I decided it might be better to post results... elsewhere. That elsewhere is, as you guessed, here.

Battle of the Hubs is as the title might suggest, a comparison of the two biggest UK ISPs' consumer home gateway equipment (commonly known as wireless routers/modems, but referred to by the ISPs as hubs). These are supplied by default to all new customers, including on their top end "Fibre optic" packages*. These will be compared to a number of low, mid and high-end third-party aftermarket home gateways. It should be noted that while both ISPs supply their respective CPE equipment as the only officially supported equipment on their service, only one of the two actively prevents users from using any alternative CPE (although a "modem mode" is offered bypassing many of the "router" functions).

* Not really fibre optic. Actual services are HFC FTTN or VDSL2 FTTC.

Both these CPEs share a similar feature set:

• Both are custom-built in both hardware and software, made to order for each ISP
• Both have built-in modems for their respective connection technologies (Cable and DSL)
• Both are provided on all of each ISPs packages without variation, including "fibre optic" packages, all the way up to 100mb.
  
• Both support "Up to 300mbps" (2x2 MIMO + HT40) wireless N, and come with two built-in, non user-changeable wireless antenna
• Both ISPs make extravagant claims about the wireless capabilities ("The UK's most reliable wireless", "Unbeatable wireless" "Best wireless performance available" "best ever wireless signal" etc.)
• Both come with 4 LAN ports, at least one of which is gigabit.
• Both are claimed to be highly energy efficient
• Both have identical external controls (power switch, WPS, pinhole reset)
• Both stand upright rather than the traditional flat-book style, presumably for better wireless dissipation

And the most important thing of all, both have received numerous complaints about their performance and reliability, some of which have been admitted.

So where do I come in? I'm a customer of both providers top packages, I'm in possession of both CPEs, a fair bit of information technology and networking experience, a large amount of testing equipment, multidisciplinary scientific training, and a taser. For the really misbehaving routers.

So, for those who haven't guessed yet, the two "hubs" I'm talking about are the BT Home Hub 3 and the Virgin Media Superhub. And I'll be pitting them head to head with each other and a dozen other wireless routers to see exactly just how they perform. To the best of my ability, I'll be testing the wired, wireless, routing & NAT performance, power consumption, and reliability of the above devices. Though without approval from either ISP, I'll be limited in some ways.

The comparison devices to be used will be a selection of what I have to hand, which for now are a WRT54G, WPN824, DIR-615, DIR-825, WNDR3700, WR2543ND, and possibly some HP 530wls. Plus a thousand or so Cisco enterprise WAPs we have at work. Client devices for "real-world" performance tests include laptops equipped with Intel 5100, 6205, and 6300 cards, Atheros AR92xx and AR93xx cards, Realtek 8188CE and 8187B, and mystery Broadcom card. Additionally, mobile handsets including a HTC Desire, Samsung GS2 and Nokia Eseries will be used. Course, I won't be testing every possible combination of everything, I'd probably grow old trying.

Oh, and in addition to a "Standard" stock Superhub, I'll be comparing a modified Superhub equipped with two external RP-SMA connecters for upgradeable antennae. I'll only be using cheap, basic omni rubber-duck antennae rather than anything big or special.

So without further ado, let the battle begin.