Reviews:
 ·Start Communicat..
| reply to duckdown
Re: [Extreme Plus] rogcesadmin login no longer working 10/26/201 This just makes me sick.. I will donate money or time or anything I can do to help if somebody actually figures out a way for us to be in control of our OWN device..
Somebody told me at the pub the other night (another tech savvy buddy) that Rogers is now offering 2 modems for those of us on their 50mbit package: Our piece of crap SMC, and now, some type of new Cisco?
However both are still routermodem's, not just plain cablemodems, which is incredibly lame.. Can anybody clarify on any of this at all? I'm curious to hear more, especially if I can lose this piece of junk SMC once and for all.
I miss the days of having an SB5100 and WRT54xyz router and life was good. |
|
|
|
 bfkscUnlimited and Unthrottled on Distributel
join:2011-11-22
Toronto, ON | reply to Ott_Cable
said by Ott_Cable :Can you go to small claims court to ask for compensation for the cost of the modem because Rogers essentially damaged it by disabling your access to some of its function?
That's a good question...the legality of Rogers disabling your property...I'd like to sit in on such a case.
I'd wager that yes you could convince the courts that Rogers accessed and altered "YOUR PROPERTY" since you "own" the modem/router, and any damages are the responsibility of the "hacker".
Hmm... |
|
bfkscUnlimited and Unthrottled on Distributel
join:2011-11-22
Toronto, ON | reply to duckdown
said by duckdown:Somebody told me at the pub the other night (another tech savvy buddy) that Rogers is now offering 2 modems for those of us on their 50mbit package: Our piece of crap SMC, and now, some type of new Cisco? It's not that new...it's a Cisco DPC3825 gateway. It has a DOCSYS 3.0 cable modem and full NAT router included in one box. Anyone getting Rogers' Express+ service who shows interest in wireless will ge given the DPC3825.
However, if you don't want a router from Rogers, you can simply have the box changed to a simple bridged modem and then use your own router for security. |
|
| reply to Ott_Cable
said by Ott_Cable :Can you go to small claims court to ask for compensation for the cost of the modem because Rogers essentially damaged it by disabling your access to some of its function? He bought his Rogers modem from Rogers in its "disabled" state in the first place, I doubt Rogers has any obligation to restore the device to factory default when subscribers leave. The expectation from the DOCSIS spec is that his modem will get re-flashed if it gets re-authorized on a different cableco's network if that network's operator deems the re-flash necessary, after which you end up with whatever restrictions the new cableco puts on devices, assuming they have a suitable firmware image for it.
If you look at where all CPE-WAN manufacturers for DOCSIS, DSL and FTTx are going, things are clearly pointing to WAN devices becoming extensions of the incumbents' own networks rather than something intended to be owned and managed by subscribers. |
|
 HiVoltPremium
join:2000-12-28
Toronto, ON
kudos:17
 ·TekSavvy Cable
·TekSavvy DSL
| reply to bfksc
said by bfksc:However, if you don't want a router from Rogers, you can simply have the box changed to a simple bridged modem and then use your own router for security.
That's fine and dandy, except Rogers does not have a DOCSIS 3.0 "modem only" device. They only have the old Webstars & Moto Surfboard 510x's, those are DOCSIS 2.0 and they will not provision higher speeds than Express on it I believe.
I think they push everyone to the D3 gateways and you're screwed if you want a proper Modem only.
--
GO LEAFS GO! |
|
 pal
@teksavvy.com | reply to jeffster2k
You don't quite get it jeffster2k
It's not about who owns the firmware. It's about what that firmware does and disables. If you read my posts you already know I have no problem with upgrades to facilitate harmony between my modem and Rogers equipment. In fact I see it as necessary and totally understand.
My problem is that Rogers has overstepped facilitating functionality and have disabled not the modem but the router access and switch I may or may not decide to use.. They locked me out of an important part of my equipment that they have no justifiable reason to even go. If you don't understand the difference between the LAN & WAN then you need to educate yourself.
I can offer you this much help.
A local area network (LAN) is a computer network that interconnects computers in a limited area such as a home.
Rogers has no business going here!!!! Especially without my permmision.
A wide area network (WAN) is a telecommunication network that covers a broad area (i.e., any network that links across metropolitan, regional, or national boundaries
This is where Rogers gets to play.
This is about privately owned SMCD3NG (not rented) and the unsolicited disabling of useful functionality on the LAN side.
Private side.... KEEP OUT ROGERS!!!!!!!!!
Some corprat bright light, burning dimly at Rogers, came up with brainless idea....
Now it's time to move the elephant. Unfortunately there is a big red wall with a monkey on top telling my no,no,no......... |
|
Pal
@teksavvy.com | reply to InvalidError
Your name says it all.....lol
WRONG!!!!
I did NOT buy the modem as disable...!
It was disabled well after TS became my provider through a pushed firmware downgrade....
It would be helpful if you read the full post and tried to understand what you are reading. The problem and my complaint is NOT about the WAN but the disabling, my control of the router which is the LAN not WAN!!!!
INVALIDError...hehe thanks for the funny.... |
|
| reply to pal
said by pal :You don't quite get it jeffster2k
If you don't understand the difference between the LAN & WAN then you need to educate yourself.
I've been in IT for 12 years, and have two Cisco certs, so yes, I understand. I also agree with you about what it SHOULD be. However, it doesn't work that way in real life. I don't know the details of Rogers terms of service regarding this issue, but if they no longer provide non router modems to use, I assume they've changed their demarc. Assuming that the router/modem they gave you is their demarc, that means they manage it, not you. It doesn't matter if your LAN plugs into it or not. If they say it's their demarc, it's their demarc. My guess is that anything plugged into the LAN port on their managed device is under your control. So plug your own managed router in, or something. |
|
 sbrookPremium,Mod
join:2001-12-14
Ottawa
kudos:4
·TekSavvy Cable
| You're missing the point.
Rogers both rents and sells ONLY residential gateways (modem/router combo units). It's a single unit to save the customer having 2 boxes on/under his desk.
The modem firmware is up to Rogers to maintain to conform to work properly according to DOCSIS specs.
The router is NOT Rogers to maintain, and specifically if I purchased the gateway.
So, yeah, block user access to modem options if they must (heck they did that with the Toshiba PCX2600 modem ... as soon as it connected, you couldn't access the modem's diags from the customer side.
But don't block user access to the router.
If they have firmware upgrades for the router firmware, do as car makers do and issue a "recall" ... you call in and say "OK, send me the latest router firmware" ... even if it's a mandatory upgrade. But the router is NOT Rogers to lock users out of.
Beyond a doubt this is all part of Rogers smart home monitoring system ... so they want control of the router so that users don't screw up the monitoring. Provide a port for a user to connect his own router that's independent of the Rogers stuff as if it were DMZ'ed. |
|
| reply to Pal
said by Pal :The problem and my complaint is NOT about the WAN but the disabling, my control of the router which is the LAN not WAN!!!! The simplest and cheapest solution to that is to use a modem-only device in the first place... if you were not a Rogers subscriber, why did you choose one of Rogers' modem-routers that everyone else wants to avoid like the plague when you could have picked a 6120/6121 instead?
The TPIA tariffs most likely include a clause either directly or indirectly authorizing cablecos to put whatever firmware they want on modems attached to their network. Unless TPIA ISPs offer to cover the cablecos' costs for ordering and maintaining separate sets of firmware images for TPIA, wholesale is going to be stuck with branded firmware.... just like how TPIAs have to pay the cablecos' costs for "certifying" new modem models if a TPIA wants a modem the cablecos are not using themselves. |
|
Pal
@teksavvy.com | said by InvalidError:if you were not a Rogers subscriber, why did you choose one of Rogers' modem-routers that everyone else wants to avoid like the plague when you could have picked a 6120/6121 instead? You if are anything. you are consistent....
Sadly you are consistently uniformed as your question is answered by earlier posts.
Though it's of no help, for the sake of clarity I will try again to inform you. I WAS a Rogers customer! I bought the unit they offered! I dumped Rogers for my own reasons (I don't care to bash) and moved to TS. While at TS they forced firmware onto my SMC. The same Firmware as everybody else. This locked me out of some necessary features of my private router, LAN(modem part WAN non issue). Basically I lost access to my Router. Why I chose the SMC is not a legitimate question and worth no answer other than to express my ignorance of possible future scenarios and misplaced trust in Rogers . In no way does going in this direction help anything and is just plain argumentative and useless to the facts.
My Ignorance and it would seem misplaced trust is the answer to your question. Now can you move on to something more constructive.... Do you like have any help to offer or are all about non constructive argument....?
Your statement about TPIA tariffs is nothing but a guess as you use the words "Likely Include" which means you are ignorant of the facts.... hence you comment is meaningless and not helpful.
for the umpteenth time. Firmware upgrades are not the issue but the disabling or locking of any part of the LAN.
You reference to cost incurred is the laugh stock of the world when you understand Canada is the most expensive place in the world to get internet, cable, or phone service.......
It may be worth the effort to popularize international competition and break this stagnant strangle hold of a couple of big players. Just to honestly even the playing field... If the Berlin wall could fall so will the Big Red Wall and then what will the monkey do....? but now I digress....... sorry
All I really want is my LAN back..... |
|
| said by Pal :All I really want is my LAN back..... Put the modem in bridge mode and get your own router, problem solved. |
|
Pal
@teksavvy.com | DOH....
I understand that a forum like this is full of all types. Variety can enrich the experience. It may be that you are unable or too young to fully comprehend what you read. So I'll try to be patient with you.
Putting the SMC in bridge mode IS disabled. That is problem (.)
I can't put it in bridge mode because the firmware disabled my access.... This problem exists and may not be solved at all....
Do you need me to say it again???
((((((( Bridge mode Access = DISABLED...!!!)))))
Are you getting this... N.O. No access..... Nun.... NIL... ZiLTCH
I hope this clarifies for you..... |
|
Pal
@teksavvy.com | reply to jeffster2k
You have 12 years so you'll fully understand when I tell you. I've been effectively locked out of my Bridge mode. That is the problem. Owning my SMC and Rogers not being my service provider means I have no access to the bridge mode switch as only Tech Support (I don't have) can put it in bridge mode. Since I own, Don't rent I want access to my equipment the way it was sold to me. WAN firmware upgrades should have nothing to do with the Removing LAN capabilities. Disabling switching between bridge mode is unacceptable after the fact. I am left with a modem and an unmanageable router. |
|
| You might get lucky with CCTS and some how force Rogers to unlock the modem/router, but not sure if that's going to survive the next upgrade.
That's why I suggested to go to small claims court to ask for compensation for the damages. Yes that's going to cost some $$$ for court fee and prep time. If you do win, you can go and buy a modem and a separate router and not having to worry about it again. |
|
| reply to Pal
said by Pal :Putting the SMC in bridge mode IS disabled. That is problem (.) It isn't disabled, you just need to put in a ticket to have it switched. |
|
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
| said by InvalidError:said by Pal :Putting the SMC in bridge mode IS disabled. That is problem (.) It isn't disabled, you just need to put in a ticket to have it switched. And how is he supposed to do that when he ins't a Rogers customer? He might get lucky a get Teksavvy to submit a ticket for it. Even if they do that, you really think that Rogers would act on it?
--
MS MVP Windows Expert-Consumer 2010-2011 |
|
Pal
@teksavvy.com | reply to InvalidError
said by InvalidError:said by Pal :Putting the SMC in bridge mode IS disabled. That is problem (.) It isn't disabled, you just need to put in a ticket to have it switched. Wrong!!! |
|
Pal
@teksavvy.com | reply to stormy13
And how is he supposed to do that when he ins't a Rogers customer? He might get lucky a get Teksavvy to submit a ticket for it. Even if they do that, you really think that Rogers would act on it?
Stormy13
You hit the nail on the head.... TekSavvy, my provider was the first help I turned to... They wanted to help and understood right away what the problem was. I had them put in a ticket at Rogers even though Rogers warns of a possible $99- charge. TS got a quick answer.... It went something like this "no". They refused to help. I have few other angles I'm looking into. One of them is legal advice..... The other a consumer advocate from the News.... and of course the Office of the President....(not holding my breath) |
|
| reply to stormy13
said by stormy13:And how is he supposed to do that when he ins't a Rogers customer? He might get lucky a get Teksavvy to submit a ticket for it. Even if they do that, you really think that Rogers would act on it? While this may be inconvenient, it is the "Rogers process" due to Rogers' custom firmware so I would expect Rogers to have to deal with wholesale requests to (de-)activate gateway functions.
If Rogers receives enough requests for that to offset whatever they might be saving in support calls from people accidentally disabling the modem while toying around which could be the main reason for moving that option from customer to MSO config, they might eventually decide to move it back to customer config... considering how unpopular the SMCs' gateway/wireless functions are, I'm almost surprised this hasn't been done yet. |
|
