dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
9
share rss forum feed


CoxTech1
VIP
join:2002-04-25
Chesapeake, VA
kudos:79
reply to daveinpoway

Re: What is a good cable modem supported by cox?

We currently have a handful of employees beta testing 6120's on our network provisioned in 2.0 mode but our primary provisioning system cannot handle this. As a result if you call in to get one provisioned it simply will not work. I'm already personally aware of a few instances of this happening.

daveinpoway
Premium
join:2006-07-03
Poway, CA
kudos:2
As I indicated, in order to encourage sales of the SB6120, Motorola should have allowed it to appear as a DOCSIS 2.0 model in the ISPs' provisioning systems until the customer upgrades to DOCSIS 3.0 service. Apparently, they didn't do this.

Out of curiosity, if the SB6120 is used in DOCSIS 2.0 mode, does it offer any advantages (better tolerance of marginal signal levels, perhaps) over models like the SB5101 (due to improved chipsets)?


CoxTech1
VIP
join:2002-04-25
Chesapeake, VA
kudos:79
I have not heard any feedback either way concerning that model. The primary benefit of course is the channel bonding which is lost when running in 2.0 mode.

daveinpoway
Premium
join:2006-07-03
Poway, CA
kudos:2
In the 7th post on this page (» Buying a DOCSIS 3 Compliant Cable Modem), "thively" claims that the SB6120 is channel-bonding on Comcast's "Blast" service, which I believe is DOSCIS 2.0. He could be mistaken, however,


CoxTech1
VIP
join:2002-04-25
Chesapeake, VA
kudos:79
It's my understanding that Comcast has publically announced DOCSIS 3.0 deployments in several of their larger markets so I wouldn't be suprised if his claims are valid although I certainly wouldn't have specific knowledge as to how their network functions.

daveinpoway
Premium
join:2006-07-03
Poway, CA
kudos:2
So far as I know, Blast is 16 Mbps download speed, which wouldn't require DOCSIS 3.0 technology.


CoxTech1
VIP
join:2002-04-25
Chesapeake, VA
kudos:79
That is correct, 16Mb/sec is well within DOCSIS 2.0 specifications.

rinky

join:2009-04-09
Mesa, AZ
reply to CoxTech1
I ran into the same problem in the Phoenix market today after picking up the SB6120. Can't be provisioned. Here's hoping they get it up and running soon, or I just wasted $79.


CoxTech1
VIP
join:2002-04-25
Chesapeake, VA
kudos:79
Yes, no DOCSIS 3.0 modems are approved for non-DOCSIS 3.0 markets as how they will not work properly on a non-DOCSIS 3.0 headend. It's also worth mentioning that for the time being, only Cox provided DOCSIS 3.0 modems can be used on any Cox headends, no retail modems are approved as of yet.


odog
Cable Centric Vendor Biased
Premium,VIP
join:2001-08-05
Atlanta, GA
kudos:17
Reviews:
·Comcast
Just wanted to chime in with some info on how bonding works. First you need a D3.0 modem. Once you have that you need a CMTS with bonded service feeding your modem multiple bonded carriers. At that point CMTS and modem "know" each other are wideband capable and it will split your data across the bonded carriers. If you have a 50mbps package its 17Mbps each on three carriers etc etc. bonding doesn't really have a number in Mbps where it "kicks in". it gets turned on when the devices on both ends are capable of it, regardless if the device "needs" it to achieve it speed.

daveinpoway
Premium
join:2006-07-03
Poway, CA
kudos:2
reply to CoxTech1
Interesting that DOCSIS 3.0 modems aren't working properly on non-3.0 headends, as it was my understanding that these modems were supposed to be backwards-compatible with older systems.


tubbynet
reminds me of the danse russe
Premium,MVM
join:2008-01-16
Chandler, AZ
kudos:1
said by daveinpoway:

Interesting that DOCSIS 3.0 modems aren't working properly on non-3.0 headends, as it was my understanding that these modems were supposed to be backwards-compatible with older systems.
i would assume that this would have something to do with the firmware pushed to them. if the incorrect code is pushed to from the cmts to the modem (or no code at all), then i could see issues arising with new modems.

q.