[AZ] Not a good sign? in Cox HSI http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r21231709 en Wed, 11 Nov 2009 03:31:07 EDT Wed, 11 Nov 2009 03:31:07 EDT Re: [AZ] Not a good sign? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21269262 dvd536 : That ping to your CMTS isn't good. that should be under 10.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21269262 Wed, 15 Oct 2008 03:49:26 EDT Re: [AZ] Not a good sign? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21264635 MaiShiranui74 : Well, here is the line test

»/linequality/nil/2442338

This is basically what I have.
Goes up and down whenever it feels like.
It's not smooth it's staggering all over the place.

Tracing route to cox.net [68.1.17.9]
over a maximum of 30 hops:

1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.1.1
2 45 ms 113 ms 19 ms 10.128.0.1
3 20 ms 25 ms 164 ms ip68-2-7-21.ph.ph.cox.net [68.2.7.21]
4 68 ms 21 ms 44 ms 70.169.73.37
5 93 ms 72 ms 61 ms 68.1.1.121
6 102 ms 81 ms 68 ms 68.1.16.70
7 63 ms 68 ms 75 ms www.cox.net [68.1.17.9]

Trace complete.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21264635 Tue, 14 Oct 2008 13:05:02 EDT Re: [AZ] Not a good sign? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21249341 dvd536 :
said by MaiShiranui74 See Profile :

Well it's still a problem and I don't know what to do besides sit here and be clueless and not being able to do anything fluent.
Capacity issues are nothing you or the techs can address until cox decides to spend the money to split your node IF it is indeed a capacity issue.
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21249341 Fri, 10 Oct 2008 23:39:11 EDT Re: [AZ] Not a good sign? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21244620 CoxTech1 : Right now I don't see your cable modem synchronized. Do you have it unplugged?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21244620 Fri, 10 Oct 2008 08:16:17 EDT Re: [AZ] Not a good sign? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21243950 MaiShiranui74 : Pinging yahoo.com [68.180.206.184] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 68.180.206.184: bytes=32 time=170ms TTL=55
Reply from 68.180.206.184: bytes=32 time=233ms TTL=55
Reply from 68.180.206.184: bytes=32 time=297ms TTL=55
Reply from 68.180.206.184: bytes=32 time=220ms TTL=55
Reply from 68.180.206.184: bytes=32 time=252ms TTL=55
Request timed out.
Reply from 68.180.206.184: bytes=32 time=176ms TTL=55
Reply from 68.180.206.184: bytes=32 time=237ms TTL=55
Request timed out.
Reply from 68.180.206.184: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=55
Reply from 68.180.206.184: bytes=32 time=259ms TTL=55
Reply from 68.180.206.184: bytes=32 time=260ms TTL=55
Reply from 68.180.206.184: bytes=32 time=332ms TTL=55
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Reply from 68.180.206.184: bytes=32 time=277ms TTL=55
Reply from 68.180.206.184: bytes=32 time=281ms TTL=55
Reply from 68.180.206.184: bytes=32 time=236ms TTL=55
Reply from 68.180.206.184: bytes=32 time=224ms TTL=55
Reply from 68.180.206.184: bytes=32 time=355ms TTL=55
Reply from 68.180.206.184: bytes=32 time=200ms TTL=55
Reply from 68.180.206.184: bytes=32 time=355ms TTL=55
Reply from 68.180.206.184: bytes=32 time=314ms TTL=55
Reply from 68.180.206.184: bytes=32 time=265ms TTL=55
Reply from 68.180.206.184: bytes=32 time=293ms TTL=55
Reply from 68.180.206.184: bytes=32 time=216ms TTL=55

Ping statistics for 68.180.206.184:
Packets: Sent = 26, Received = 22, Lost = 4 (15% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 57ms, Maximum = 355ms, Average = 250ms
Control-C
^C
This is what I get at 9PM]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21243950 Fri, 10 Oct 2008 00:11:33 EDT Re: [AZ] Not a good sign? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21243786 cableguy619 : has a Cox rep got in touch with you? If not PM them or call cox... You can only go so far with us throwing suggestions at you.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21243786 Thu, 09 Oct 2008 23:23:21 EDT Re: [AZ] Not a good sign? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21243015 MaiShiranui74 : Well it's still a problem and I don't know what to do besides sit here and be clueless and not being able to do anything fluent.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21243015 Thu, 09 Oct 2008 20:48:33 EDT Re: [AZ] Not a good sign? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21242930 dvd536 :
said by MaiShiranui74 See Profile :

That was taken at 5PM... to me it still doesn't make sense why people would want to overload a node.
This is a cox problem not how many users a node has problem. nodes can be split but its not cheap and cox doesn't want to pony up the cash to do so(at least not in non-fios areas)
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21242930 Thu, 09 Oct 2008 20:38:13 EDT Re: [AZ] Not a good sign? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21242749 MaiShiranui74 : It seems like it's the time of day again.
I was fine earlier today but it starts to get really bad at 4PM - 2AM...

Pinging cox.net [68.1.17.9] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=214ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=71ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=94ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=142ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=106ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=128ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=62ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=105ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=90ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=189ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=86ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=125ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=70ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=94ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=65ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=86ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=58ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=59ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=146ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=56ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=155ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=76ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=86ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=91ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=78ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=64ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=67ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=59ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=124ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=78ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=79ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=101ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=106ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=79ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=67ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=59ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=106ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=72ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=78ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=92ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=79ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=74ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=78ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=133ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=96ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=141ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=101ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=69ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=109ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=76ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=62ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=53ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=74ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=141ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=107ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=80ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=93ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=95ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=143ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=61ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=72ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=158ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=98ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=74ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=53ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=112ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=69ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=133ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=99ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=114ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=78ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=90ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=234ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=123ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=76ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=111ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=98ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=79ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=87ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=76ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=117ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=82ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=105ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=65ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=129ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=250ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=78ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=72ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=67ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=80ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=62ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=64ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=150ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=79ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=128ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=56ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=81ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=355ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=301ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=165ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=107ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=119ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=124ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=74ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=275ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=417ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=61ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=143ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=82ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=72ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=83ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=161ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=112ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=268ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=350ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=80ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=242ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=72ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=198ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=74ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=119ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=124ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=97ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=65ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=79ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=107ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=56ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=102ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=68ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=76ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=72ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=64ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=64ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=135ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=66ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=81ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=124ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=94ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=157ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=75ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=93ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=138ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=77ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=199ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=76ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=185ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=72ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=65ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=123ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=91ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=85ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=84ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=160ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=90ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=210ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=69ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=75ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=121ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=76ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=81ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=82ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=76ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=66ms TTL=120

Ping statistics for 68.1.17.9:
Packets: Sent = 175, Received = 175, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 53ms, Maximum = 417ms, Average = 104ms
Control-C
^C

That was taken at 5PM... to me it still doesn't make sense why people would want to overload a node.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21242749 Thu, 09 Oct 2008 20:09:08 EDT Re: [AZ] Not a good sign? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21239851 Fubar : I;m not worried, It's in an actively cooled compartment...

Plus Moto makes a very robust modem, And if it dies, I'll get a Docsis 3.0 modem.... LOL]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21239851 Thu, 09 Oct 2008 11:14:49 EDT Re: [AZ] Not a good sign? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21239699 daveinpoway : My Motorola SB5101 is transmitting at 43 dBmv, and I can feel warmth if I put my hand on the side (definitely not hot by any means, but you can tell that it's on). So, it is pretty much guaranteed that your modem is warm, as well.

True, 51 dBmv is not the maximum transmit power, but, in general, the less stress on the circuitry, the longer it will last. For the same reason, I have the transmit power level cranked down on my wireless router so that it is just enough to provide a full-signal indication on my laptop. This way, the router should live longer.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21239699 Thu, 09 Oct 2008 10:45:17 EDT Re: [AZ] Not a good sign? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21239316 Fubar :
said by daveinpoway See Profile :

If the transmit circuitry has to work harder, that generates more heat and puts more stress on the amplifying transistors. Just like your stereo amplifier will run hotter if you are blasting out music at a party, versus just listening at a background level. Heat is an enemy of electronics.
But no heat is building up, and 51 is not nearly maxed out for these modems....]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21239316 Thu, 09 Oct 2008 09:33:52 EDT Re: [AZ] Not a good sign? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21238814 daveinpoway : If the transmit circuitry has to work harder, that generates more heat and puts more stress on the amplifying transistors. Just like your stereo amplifier will run hotter if you are blasting out music at a party, versus just listening at a background level. Heat is an enemy of electronics.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21238814 Thu, 09 Oct 2008 06:41:34 EDT Re: [AZ] Not a good sign? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21238451 Fubar :
said by dvd536 See Profile :

said by Fubar See Profile :

Your signals are fine, My modem has been transmitting at 51 forever with no problems...
Maybe but having it running hot like that can shorten its lifespan.
Huh????? It's not like it mechanically has to perform harder..

It's in a well ventilated spot so it doesn't get hot...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21238451 Thu, 09 Oct 2008 02:11:00 EDT Re: [AZ] Not a good sign? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21238248 dvd536 :
said by Fubar See Profile :

Your signals are fine, My modem has been transmitting at 51 forever with no problems...
Maybe but having it running hot like that can shorten its lifespan.
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21238248 Thu, 09 Oct 2008 00:32:20 EDT Re: [AZ] Not a good sign? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21232768 Fubar : Your signals are fine, My modem has been transmitting at 51 forever with no problems...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21232768 Wed, 08 Oct 2008 01:52:33 EDT Re: [AZ] Not a good sign? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21232639 m8trix : these are the official levels they like to have you within.0 is best on the downstream

Equipment Level(s)
Tx 37-50


Rx-10- +10


SNR 30-50
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21232639 Wed, 08 Oct 2008 00:53:20 EDT Re: [AZ] Not a good sign? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21232592 cableguy619 :
said by dvd536 See Profile :

said by cableguy619 See Profile :

Signals ae perfect.

Rx +5 to -10
TX 39-49
SN 32-38

These are the parameters they shoot for. your levels are all within specs
I believe cox prefers -7 - 7 for downstream power, 38 to 45 for upstream power and 35 or above for signal to noise.
actually sweet spot is rx 0
TX 42-48
sn 35 or greater

but What i posted is the acceptable parameters]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21232592 Wed, 08 Oct 2008 00:39:07 EDT Re: [AZ] Not a good sign? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21232433 dvd536 :
said by cableguy619 See Profile :

Signals ae perfect.

Rx +5 to -10
TX 39-49
SN 32-38

These are the parameters they shoot for. your levels are all within specs
I believe cox prefers -7 - 7 for downstream power, 38 to 45 for upstream power and 35 or above for signal to noise.
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21232433 Wed, 08 Oct 2008 00:03:06 EDT Re: [AZ] Not a good sign? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21231974 cableguy619 : Signals ae perfect.

Rx +5 to -10
TX 39-49
SN 32-38

These are the parameters they shoot for. your levels are all within specs]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21231974 Tue, 07 Oct 2008 22:32:19 EDT [AZ] Not a good sign? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21231709 MaiShiranui74 : Status Comment
Acquire Downstream Channel 579000000 Hz Locked
Connectivity State Operational Operational
Boot State OK Operational
Security Enabled BPI+


Downstream Channel


Lock Status Operational
Modulation 256QAM
Channel ID 3
Provisioned Rate 17250 kbps
Symbol Rate 5360.537 Ksym/sec
Downstream Power 2.0 dBmV
SNR 38.9 dB


Upstream Channel


Lock Status Operational
Modulation 16QAM
Channel ID 3
Provisioned Rate 1725 kbps
Symbol Rate 2560 Ksym/sec
Upstream Power 49.3 dBmV

Isn't my downstream high?
Anyways on another note, pings are going up and down again.
Not the router or cable modem. Bypassed router same result I also got d/c when I was talking to the live chat on the cox site.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,21231709 Tue, 07 Oct 2008 21:53:39 EDT