Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.mobile.android > #20835 > unrolled thread

Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi?

Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-07-11 23:58 -0400
    Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? "D. F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2015-07-12 04:22 +0000
      Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-07-12 15:51 +0000
        Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-07-12 09:09 -0700
          Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-07-12 16:37 +0000
            Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-07-12 10:14 -0700
              Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-07-12 11:51 -0700
              Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-07-13 00:03 +0000
          Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2015-07-12 11:52 -0700
          Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? "D. F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2015-07-12 21:37 +0000
            Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-12 18:07 -0400
            Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-07-12 15:09 -0700
            Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2015-07-12 15:50 -0700
              Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2015-07-12 21:19 -0700
              Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2015-07-17 18:16 -0500
          Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-07-13 02:02 +0000
            Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2015-07-13 01:30 -0400
            Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? "D. F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2015-07-13 14:57 +0000
              Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2015-07-13 08:16 -0700
                Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? "D. F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2015-07-13 15:51 +0000
                Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? "D. F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2015-07-13 15:55 +0000
                  Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2015-07-13 09:57 -0700
                    Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? "D. F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2015-07-13 19:46 +0000
                      Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2015-07-13 14:17 -0700
                        Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? "Kerr Mudd-John" <admin@127.0.0.1> - 2015-07-14 10:53 +0100
                        Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2015-07-17 18:46 -0500
                          Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2015-07-18 09:03 -0700
                      Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2015-07-17 18:48 -0500
              Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-07-13 16:17 +0000
                Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? "D. F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2015-07-13 19:46 +0000
                  Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-13 16:00 -0400
                    Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? "D. F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2015-07-13 20:32 +0000
                      Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-07-13 21:21 +0000
                      Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-13 17:28 -0400
                        Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? "D. F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2015-07-13 23:06 +0000
                          Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-13 19:28 -0400
                        Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? "D. F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2015-07-13 23:09 +0000
                          Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-07-13 19:28 -0400
                            Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? "D. F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2015-07-14 00:45 +0000
                            Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? "D. F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2015-07-14 02:48 +0000
                        Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? "D. F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2015-07-13 23:12 +0000
                        Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? "D. F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2015-07-14 00:05 +0000
                        Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? "D. F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2015-07-14 00:14 +0000
                        Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? "D. F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2015-07-14 00:28 +0000
                          Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2015-07-13 19:16 -0700
                            Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2015-07-17 18:42 -0500
                              Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2015-07-17 18:05 -0700
            Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-07-13 16:13 +0000
            Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-07-13 16:15 +0000
              Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? "D. F. Manno" <dfmanno@mail.com> - 2015-07-13 20:23 +0000
            Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2015-07-17 18:19 -0500
        Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-07-12 12:46 -0400
          Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2015-07-12 16:57 +0000
            Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-07-12 13:20 -0400
      Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi? JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-07-12 12:42 -0400

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#20835 — Re: What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi?

On 15-07-11 19:41, D. F. Manno wrote:
> What is a decent DOCSIS3.0 modem with WiFi?

Whil OT for an iPhone group, each cable system has a set of "approved"
models that will work with their CMTS. And these approved models
generally have cable operator specific patches. For instance, in Canada,
the DCM 475 patched for Vidéotron may not work on the ROgers' network.

When you get a modem, its WAN side MAC address must be registered with
the cable operator and associated with your subscription. Some cable
operators will not register modems they have not sold to you (since
there is no garantee they are compatible with the right revision/pathches.).

ISPs in Canada that TPIA for Vidéotron, Rogers and SHaw keep 3 sets of
modems even if they are the same models. (because each cable operator
needs different firware patches).

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#20836

JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote in message
55a1e5f2$0$24446$c3e8da3$f6268168@news.astraweb.com

> When you get a modem, its WAN side MAC address must be registered with
> the cable operator and associated with your subscription. Some cable
> operators will not register modems they have not sold to you

Comcast told me I can get any DOCSIS3.0 modem and it would work so
that's not the case here in the states (thank heaven).

Jeff mentioned they "control" the modem, and you mention they 
"register" the WAN side MAC.

In general, do they let you have root privileges on the modem if
you buy it yourself?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20856

On 2015-07-12, D. F. Manno <dfmanno@mail.com> wrote:
> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote in message
> 55a1e5f2$0$24446$c3e8da3$f6268168@news.astraweb.com
>
>> When you get a modem, its WAN side MAC address must be registered with
>> the cable operator and associated with your subscription. Some cable
>> operators will not register modems they have not sold to you
>
> Comcast told me I can get any DOCSIS3.0 modem and it would work so
> that's not the case here in the states (thank heaven).

I use Comcast with my own cable modem (a Motorola SURFboard SB6121). My
bill is $12.95/month cheaper without the equipment rental fee. Highly
recommended.

Here's a list of approved modems for Comcast:

<http://mydeviceinfo.comcast.net>

> Jeff mentioned they "control" the modem, and you mention they 
> "register" the WAN side MAC.
>
> In general, do they let you have root privileges on the modem if
> you buy it yourself?

Comcast controls the modem configuration, but you can still access the
modem's built-in management web page (http://192.168.100.1/) to look at
how it is configured, check the logs, reset it, and so on.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20857

In article <d0fgnsF1gpgU5@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
<jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> I use Comcast with my own cable modem (a Motorola SURFboard SB6121). My
> bill is $12.95/month cheaper without the equipment rental fee. Highly
> recommended.

I have an SB6121 also; I was wondering whether replacing it with an
SB6141 is worth the expense.  My carrier is Cox Communications.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20858

On 2015-07-12, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <d0fgnsF1gpgU5@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
><jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> I use Comcast with my own cable modem (a Motorola SURFboard SB6121). My
>> bill is $12.95/month cheaper without the equipment rental fee. Highly
>> recommended.
>
> I have an SB6121 also; I was wondering whether replacing it with an
> SB6141 is worth the expense.  My carrier is Cox Communications.

It seems the major difference between them is that the SB6141 can bond
up to eight downlink channels while the SB6121 can bond only up to four
channels. That means the SB6141 can provide double the downlink
throughput of the SB6121 (SB6121: 160 Mb/s versus SB6141: 320 Mb/s).
Most people don't have such speedy connections though. If your internet
downlink speed is capped below ~100 Mb/s I doubt you'd notice a
difference at all between the two.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20863

In article <d0fjerF1gpgU8@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
<jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> > I have an SB6121 also; I was wondering whether replacing it with an
> > SB6141 is worth the expense.  My carrier is Cox Communications.
> 
> It seems the major difference between them is that the SB6141 can bond
> up to eight downlink channels while the SB6121 can bond only up to four
> channels. That means the SB6141 can provide double the downlink
> throughput of the SB6121 (SB6121: 160 Mb/s versus SB6141: 320 Mb/s).
> Most people don't have such speedy connections though. If your internet
> downlink speed is capped below ~100 Mb/s I doubt you'd notice a
> difference at all between the two.

I'm currently capped at 50 Mb/s.

However, using their own speed test, I'm getting 60, probably because
of their "Turbo Boost", which gives a temporary speed increase.

For an additional five bucks a month, I can increase that to 100.  (And
for another $20/month, to 150.)  But that's a promotional price for at
least nine months; I don't know what the price would be after that.

I'm content with what I have, so I think that I'll just keep everything
as is.

Thanks,

-- Michelle

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20867

On 07/12/2015 10:14 AM, Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <d0fjerF1gpgU8@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
> <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> > I have an SB6121 also; I was wondering whether replacing it with an
>> > SB6141 is worth the expense.  My carrier is Cox Communications.
>>
>> It seems the major difference between them is that the SB6141 can bond
>> up to eight downlink channels while the SB6121 can bond only up to four
>> channels. That means the SB6141 can provide double the downlink
>> throughput of the SB6121 (SB6121: 160 Mb/s versus SB6141: 320 Mb/s).
>> Most people don't have such speedy connections though. If your internet
>> downlink speed is capped below ~100 Mb/s I doubt you'd notice a
>> difference at all between the two.
>
> I'm currently capped at 50 Mb/s.
>
> However, using their own speed test, I'm getting 60, probably because
> of their "Turbo Boost", which gives a temporary speed increase.
>
> For an additional five bucks a month, I can increase that to 100.  (And
> for another $20/month, to 150.)  But that's a promotional price for at
> least nine months; I don't know what the price would be after that.

You can probably haggle the 'promotional' price for at least another 
year.  We got promotional prices from Charter for several years, but 
they finally refused to haggle back to the previous price -- they WOULD 
give us the current promotional price, though -- $39/month rather than 
$49.  I hate to have to keep calling and threatening to quit.

71.89 Mbps down
  4.18 Mbps up

> I'm content with what I have, so I think that I'll just keep everything
> as is.

-- 
Cheers, Bev
========================================================
"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there
  were no religion in it."                   - John Adams

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20874

On 2015-07-12, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <d0fjerF1gpgU8@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
><jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> > I have an SB6121 also; I was wondering whether replacing it with an
>> > SB6141 is worth the expense.  My carrier is Cox Communications.
>> 
>> It seems the major difference between them is that the SB6141 can bond
>> up to eight downlink channels while the SB6121 can bond only up to four
>> channels. That means the SB6141 can provide double the downlink
>> throughput of the SB6121 (SB6121: 160 Mb/s versus SB6141: 320 Mb/s).
>> Most people don't have such speedy connections though. If your internet
>> downlink speed is capped below ~100 Mb/s I doubt you'd notice a
>> difference at all between the two.
>
> I'm currently capped at 50 Mb/s.
>
> However, using their own speed test, I'm getting 60, probably because
> of their "Turbo Boost", which gives a temporary speed increase.
>
> For an additional five bucks a month, I can increase that to 100.  (And
> for another $20/month, to 150.)  But that's a promotional price for at
> least nine months; I don't know what the price would be after that.
>
> I'm content with what I have, so I think that I'll just keep everything
> as is.

Yeah. I'm capped at a measly 16 Mbps down and 3 Mbps up on my business
class connection because I'm using the absolute lowest tier speed to
save money. I typically get more like 18/4 Mbps, according to
speedtest.net though. Before that I had consumer ~60/6 Mbps service.  It
looks like they've raised that to 105 Mbps for that tier consumer
service now. Anyway, even with a healthy Netflix appetite and lots of
regular internet use going on between multiple people in the house, I
haven't found the drop in speed to be noticeable most of the time. So
it's worth the savings on my monthly bill to me. : )

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20868

On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 09:09:11 -0700, Michelle Steiner
<michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

>In article <d0fgnsF1gpgU5@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
><jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>> I use Comcast with my own cable modem (a Motorola SURFboard SB6121). My
>> bill is $12.95/month cheaper without the equipment rental fee. Highly
>> recommended.

>I have an SB6121 also; I was wondering whether replacing it with an
>SB6141 is worth the expense.  My carrier is Cox Communications.

That depends on the speed that you're expecting and paying for.
There are maximum data rates.  Actual data throughput will be 
less due to physical layer overhead (error correction coding, burst 
preamble, and guard interval) as well as TCP/IP packet overhead.  I
don't have the number handy, but my guess(tm) is the actual maximum
throughput will be about 70% of the maximum data rate.  So, your
SB6121 should be good up to about 120 Mbits/sec download speed.
           
         Download         Upload  
         ch   Mbit/sec    ch  Mbits/sec
SB6121   4    172          4    131
SB6141   8    343          4    131
SB6183  16    686          4    131

-- 
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20869

Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote in message
120720150909113155%michelle@michelle.org

>  My carrier is Cox Communications.

Since I'm unfamiliar with the location, is it still true
that only one company generally serves cable at any one
address?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20871

In article <mnumnm$dl4$1@news.albasani.net>, D. F. Manno
<dfmanno@mail.com> wrote:

> >  My carrier is Cox Communications.
> 
> Since I'm unfamiliar with the location, is it still true
> that only one company generally serves cable at any one
> address?

it is *extremely* rare for there to be more than one company offering
cable service, which is why they don't give a shit about offering a
quality service.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20872

In article <mnumnm$dl4$1@news.albasani.net>, D. F. Manno
<dfmanno@mail.com> wrote:

> Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote in message
> 120720150909113155%michelle@michelle.org
> 
> >  My carrier is Cox Communications.
> 
> Since I'm unfamiliar with the location, is it still true
> that only one company generally serves cable at any one
> address?

In general, yes.  It's true of where I live.

In fact, the only high-speed internet services I can get are Cox and
Satellite.  There's no DSL, Uverse, etc., available in my subdivision.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20873

On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 21:37:59 +0000 (UTC), "D. F. Manno"
<dfmanno@mail.com> wrote:

>Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote in message
>120720150909113155%michelle@michelle.org
>
>>  My carrier is Cox Communications.
>
>Since I'm unfamiliar with the location, is it still true
>that only one company generally serves cable at any one
>address?

Generally true.  Municipalities grant franchises to cable providers,
usually in trade for various service and monetary concessions.

However, there are a few areas where the incumbent service was so bad,
that an alternative provider became a possibility.  These are called
"overbuilders".  The most prominent are WOW, RCN, and Google Fiber:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide_Open_West>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RCN_Corporation>
<http://www.lightreading.com/broadband/fttx/google-fiber-has-a-shot-as-an-overbuilder/d/d-id/702526>

-- 
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20901

On 07/12/2015 03:50 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 21:37:59 +0000 (UTC), "D. F. Manno"
> <dfmanno@mail.com> wrote:
>
>>Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote in message
>>120720150909113155%michelle@michelle.org
>>
>>>  My carrier is Cox Communications.
>>
>>Since I'm unfamiliar with the location, is it still true
>>that only one company generally serves cable at any one
>>address?
>
> Generally true.  Municipalities grant franchises to cable providers,
> usually in trade for various service and monetary concessions.

At some point they were no longer able to grant monopolies, but it's a 
lot more expensive to lay cable now than it was 30 years ago so they're 
still effective monopolies.  AT&T had landlines everywhere, so they're 
generally one option, and one cable company is generally the other.

Lots of wireless carriers if there are enough people to make it pay.

> However, there are a few areas where the incumbent service was so bad,
> that an alternative provider became a possibility.  These are called
> "overbuilders".  The most prominent are WOW, RCN, and Google Fiber:
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide_Open_West>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RCN_Corporation>
> <http://www.lightreading.com/broadband/fttx/google-fiber-has-a-shot-as-an-overbuilder/d/d-id/702526>
>


-- 
Cheers, Bev
  "Qui custodiet ipsos custodes?"  --Juvenal

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#21048

On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 15:50:25 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 21:37:59 +0000 (UTC), "D. F. Manno"
><dfmanno@mail.com> wrote:
>
>>Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote in message
>>120720150909113155%michelle@michelle.org
>>
>>>  My carrier is Cox Communications.
>>
>>Since I'm unfamiliar with the location, is it still true
>>that only one company generally serves cable at any one
>>address?
>
>Generally true.  Municipalities grant franchises to cable providers,
>usually in trade for various service and monetary concessions.
>
>However, there are a few areas where the incumbent service was so bad,
>that an alternative provider became a possibility.  These are called
>"overbuilders".  The most prominent are WOW, RCN, and Google Fiber:
><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide_Open_West>
><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RCN_Corporation>
><http://www.lightreading.com/broadband/fttx/google-fiber-has-a-shot-as-an-overbuilder/d/d-id/702526>

There are certain areas of Kansas City that have multiple (two) cable
providers. As you mentioned, Google fiber is available in some areas as an
overbuild, and in other areas there's a smaller ISP called Evergreen or
Wintergreen, something like that, as an overbuild. The two big guys, though,
Comcast and TWC, don't overlap each other. In general, Comcast has the
Kansas side of the city and TWC has the Missouri side.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20885

In message <120720150909113155%michelle@michelle.org> 
  Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <d0fgnsF1gpgU5@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
> <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

>> I use Comcast with my own cable modem (a Motorola SURFboard SB6121). My
>> bill is $12.95/month cheaper without the equipment rental fee. Highly
>> recommended.

> I have an SB6121 also; I was wondering whether replacing it with an
> SB6141 is worth the expense.  My carrier is Cox Communications.

I used to have my own modem with Comcast. Trouble was, anytime anything
went wrong, even if they had a huge outage in my area, they always
claimed the problem was my modem.

Assholes.

-- 
The real world was far too real to leave neat little hints. It was full
of too many things. It wasn't by eliminating the impossible that you got
at the truth, however improbable; it was by the much harder process of
eliminating the possibilities. --Feet of Clay

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20914

On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 20:28:11 -0700, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

>  if the
> TV signal is working on the cable to determine if there's a line or
> drop problem.  That happened a few weeks ago at one customers, where
> mice had chewed through the coax trying to get into the house.

Happened here once, too, though with squirrels. A service tech sent out to
investigate our problems found there was no DHCP-assigned IP address for
our device, went up the pole and found a nice vampire-tap-like puncture in
the coax right near a connector end (squirrel tooth, he conjectured),
lopped that out and spliced in a short replacement section and, upon
examination of the puncture in what he'd cut away, found it had neatly
severed the inner solid copper conductor, probably allowing some sort of HF
capacitative coupling to get some signal to the set-top equipment, but not
at a level good enough for DHCP negotiations.

Fun, eh? Cheers, -- tlvp
-- 
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20932

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in message
r2c6qahfdnknq0hjcc2skqad89348d4far@4ax.com

> Make sure that it's a dual band router.  If y'er son is living in
> student housing, the 2.4GHz band is very crowded and prone to
> interference problems.  5GHz is much wider and less crowded.

Yes, the router will be dual band, and as much power as I can get but 
they don't usually even show the power. It will be n band also.

Is there anything else of import (I'm not worried about 'easy setup').

1. Dual band (5Ghz & 2.4Ghz, with guest)
2. At least "n".

Anything else nowadays (I haven't bought a router since 'n' came out).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20934

On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 14:57:16 +0000 (UTC), "D. F. Manno"
<dfmanno@mail.com> wrote:

>Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in message
>r2c6qahfdnknq0hjcc2skqad89348d4far@4ax.com
>
>> Make sure that it's a dual band router.  If y'er son is living in
>> student housing, the 2.4GHz band is very crowded and prone to
>> interference problems.  5GHz is much wider and less crowded.
>
>Yes, the router will be dual band, and as much power as I can get but 
>they don't usually even show the power. It will be n band also.

The more acronyms, the better (and the more expensive).  You can get
the real xmit power by finding the FCC ID number, and looking up the
test results on the FCC ID web pile:
<http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/ea/fccid/>
You can also get some good reviews and details at:
<http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/tools/charts/router/view>

>Is there anything else of import (I'm not worried about 'easy setup').
>1. Dual band (5Ghz & 2.4Ghz, with guest)
>2. At least "n".

3.  Gigabit ethernet ports.  
4.  802.11ac (optional).
5.  QoS router settings for VoIP.

For my own abuse, I like to have:
6.  DD-WRT and other 3rd party firmware availability.
7.  Wireless client isolation.
8.  SNMP management.
9.  Wi-Fi Alliance certification.
10. WPA2-enterprise for running an external RADIUS server.
These are certainly overkill but might be useful.

>Anything else nowadays (I haven't bought a router since 'n' came out).

Well, the only things that have appeared since 802.11n (about 5 years)
are designer packaging, strange looking antenna farms, firmware bugs,
20/40 MHz bandwidth, and 802.11ac.

-- 
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#20938

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in message
itk7qalp4n7akjsl45ckph1o5lcki56v56@4ax.com

> You can get
> the real xmit power by finding the FCC ID number, and looking up the
> test results on the FCC ID web pile:
> <http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/ea/fccid/>
> You can also get some good reviews and details at:
> <http://www.smallnetbuilder.com/tools/charts/router/view>

Jeff, that's a GREAT HINT!

The FCC *knows* the transmit and recieve power, because they have to 
authorize the device. I love the idea. 

Thanks for the great idea and the courtesy URLs!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android

csiph-web