dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
58720
share rss forum feed

Shoeman1975

join:2011-08-03
Canada
reply to mlord

Re: Upgrading Firmware on Thompson DCM475

Mlord, I'm in Ottawa, in Orleans. How long does the flash take if I'm able to drop it off to you?
Thanks for all your work on this one!

Kelwynne

join:2012-09-16
It takes about 20 minutes but you may want to plan to be there for a half hour, just in case.

mlord

join:2006-11-05
Nepean, ON
kudos:13
reply to Shoeman1975
Lothario & Shoeman1975,

Allow about 30 minutes, start to finish, for updating the modem.
If you (or others) want this done, then PM me (click on mlord at left, and send me a Private Message aka. "PM").

Cheers

Kelwynne

join:2012-09-16
reply to mlord
Been running the updated firmware for a week now with no problems. It also appears to have resolved my periodic disconnect/reconnect problem which was my impetus for getting the upgrade done in the first place.

Thanks again for the help mlord.


Lothario

join:2009-09-30
Ottawa, ON
Do you have channel bonding yet? My modem has been relatively ok but am still getting it upgraded.

dra6o0n

join:2011-08-15
Mississauga, ON
Reviews:
·ITalkBB

4 edits
reply to HiVolt
said by HiVolt:

Rogers has the capability and should have no problems to send firmware updates to modems that are accepted to use on its network.

They did it before, I don't get why they wont do it again.

Basically it's not really mentioned but, if a company stop or refuses to give customers a service for something, it really shows how much Rogers dislikes Teksavvy (unofficially of course). Heck for some reason I get vibes that they brainwash all their employees to hate competition.

Because the way I theorize this is:
If Rogers didn't have competition, more people would have to 'resort', that's the keyword, resort, to their plans and cough up a larger amount of dough. Now with Teksavvy and third party internet, they feel that they are 'losing potential profits' now that they can sell usage to Teksavvy, etc. but not keeping the customers so they can't milk them. They think that causing distress (but they obviously won't admit to that) is a way to make people leave third party back into their milking game.

The thing about Canada, is that almost every large position of power, be it corporate or government, is into 'milking' or abusing something to it's non-existent. Today, you are starting to see the cracks of the social system, with unions and such at war with government on 'wanting to be spoiled with more money', and government wanting to pay off the debt but can't seem to 'stop spending money'...

Just recently I read that the construction industry was corrupted by a Canadian line of Mafias and was only figured out and publicly testified this week.

Slowly, but surely, all things 'power' is heading to the direction of corruption.

----

As for this thread, I have a DCM 475 also but I don't see any changes on it, other than weird packet loss and lag spikes that occurs randomly every other day...

I totally check all my network and none of them are causing the huge 600ms latency spike across outside from my home. Could be the 'peak' hour thing, but I find that strange because it's not like Teksavvy's own nodes are hitting max capacity that easily right?

mlord

join:2006-11-05
Nepean, ON
kudos:13
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..

1 edit
reply to Teddy Boom
Click for full size
Close quarters
Mmm.. The last two modems I've upgraded here now both had the processor heatsink rather close to the flash chip -- too close for the full IC test clip that Teddy Boom uses.

The latest one actually overhung the flash, preventing easy access to the pins. I managed to slide my grabbers under the heatsink onto two of the pins, but the third pin on that side was not accessible. Fortunately, this was the +3V power pin, so I used the closest pin of the nearby white header instead. Worked fine.


Teddy Boom
k kudos Received
Premium
join:2007-01-29
Toronto, ON
kudos:21
Very annoying.. I guess it is Dremel time

I might have to break out the individual test clips actually. It is only a few connections, and those big all-pin test clips aren't that easy to attach, so I might be better off with your setup anyway..
--
electronicsguru.ca/for_sale/Cablemodems

mlord

join:2006-11-05
Nepean, ON
kudos:13
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..

1 edit
I really like these EZ-Hook XKM grabbers. They latch onto SMD pins quite solidly and without shorting on neighbouring pins or clips.

Expensive, though. And very difficult to solder wires onto. Not an issue for the Logic Analyzer, which has the proper mating connectors, but for this rig.. somewhat fragile.

I've got a shipment of very similar looking clips on the way from China, with proper solder tabs. I plan to switch this rig over to those once they arrive, assuming they can latch onto things as well as the XKM grabbers do.

EDIT: there is a variant on the genuine XKM hooks that might work better: XK25SS hooks are designed for easier attachment of patch cables, and look like they could be soldered onto as well.

Cheers


Lothario

join:2009-09-30
Ottawa, ON
Thanks Mlord,
Everything working fine so far. I think Teksavvy owes you a free month of service for what you are doing for some of their customers.

mlord

join:2006-11-05
Nepean, ON
kudos:13
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
said by Lothario:

Thanks Mlord,
Everything working fine so far. I think Teksavvy owes you a free month of service for what you are doing for some of their customers.

A gesture from TSI would be nice, but they definitely cannot afford my usual hourly rates. My wish is that the pain endured figuring out this fix can help keep others going on TSI Cable. That's why I do the upgrades almost for free.

As much as I'm among the first to criticize their lack of great customer support these days, there's really no good alternative to TSI.

Cheers

Tyreman

join:2002-10-08
Canada
reply to CHRoNiCWiLL
Its really good that these forum members have figured this out.

Its really bad that a firmware update can't be sent thru the system to upgrade existing products
--
Southern Ontario,Canada


metalhawk

join:2007-02-06
Nepean, ON
said by Tyreman:

Its really bad that a firmware update can't be sent thru the system to upgrade existing products

It CAN be done, Rogers just refuses to do it.


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
said by metalhawk:

It CAN be done, Rogers just refuses to do it.

Yeah, it's a bunch of bullshit because Cogeco does it. When I picked up my own DPC3000 the moment it sync'd with the network Cogeco pushed the latest approved firmware to it.


Teddy Boom
k kudos Received
Premium
join:2007-01-29
Toronto, ON
kudos:21
said by Gone:

said by metalhawk:

It CAN be done, Rogers just refuses to do it.

Yeah, it's a bunch of bullshit because Cogeco does it. When I picked up my own DPC3000 the moment it sync'd with the network Cogeco pushed the latest approved firmware to it.

Of course they can. I do wonder how often they brick modems when they do it though.

For example, with the DCM425s I get, I have to upgrade the firmware on all of them. Unlike with the newer Docsis 3 modems, I'm instructing the CPU to take up a firmware over TFTP. About 10% of recent batches of DCM425s have become corrupted, and another 10% have failed to flash just before becoming corrupted, but still can't be upgraded.

My current working theory is that the flash chip develops a bit error over the years, and from there when you try to upgrade it fails. I'm not totally happy with that theory, but..

Anyway, we know there are redundant firmware images to help avoid bricking, and the process they are using is probably more reliable in the first place, but there must still be some bricking on upgrades.

My biggest concern is how they claim some firmware versions that are originally approved are suddenly not approved for no technical reason. There are a HUGE number of ST52.05.49 DCM425s out there that work perfectly. Once a line issue effects one of those customers, Teksavvy tells them they need to buy a new modem.
--
electronicsguru.ca/for_sale/Cablemodems


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
I believe Cogeco pushed out at least one firmware update to the DCM425, so I don't think it is all a horror story as far as upgrading those modems go.


Teddy Boom
k kudos Received
Premium
join:2007-01-29
Toronto, ON
kudos:21
Well, that's a puzzle to me too, to be honest I know that Cogeco is distributing some DCM425s with ST52.05.49, yet the approved firmware for Start is ST52.05.45.

Anyway, I definitely don't think it is a horror story. I definitely agree that Rogers should be pushing firmware upgrades.

However, the idea that ST52.05.49 is suddenly not approved when it works, and it was previously approved (I assume, Teksavvy was selling modems with it), is ridiculous.
--
electronicsguru.ca/for_sale/Cablemodems


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
said by Teddy Boom:

Well, that's a puzzle to me too, to be honest I know that Cogeco is distributing some DCM425s with ST52.05.49, yet the approved firmware for Start is ST52.05.45.

With Cogeco the firmware revisions is really a non-issue. So long as the modem is an approved model and revision on their network, Cogeco will just push out the firmware they want the modem it syncs to the network. If they do a network-wide firmware upgrade of a particular model of modem, both their retail and TPIA customers will get it.

Rogers is just being retarded about everything. And to think, Cogeco was portrayed as the bane of ISPs who wanted to do TPIA with them, and now it seems like they actually know what they're doing and handle things properly - though I would certainly hope so, since their capacity pricing model is almost twice as much as Rogers (for now, anyway)

mlord

join:2006-11-05
Nepean, ON
kudos:13
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
reply to mlord

I wonder what the cause of the 02.08 problem actually is?

Now that we've cracked "fixing" the DCM475 modems, I'm wondering what the actual problem is with the 02.08 firmware. Sure, some people with it suffer frequent disconnects/reconnects, but.. why? And why not everyone with that firmware?

One idea, is that it's related to the hourly DHCP renewals that Rogers is switching to in several areas. I wonder if perhaps the 02.08 firmware doesn't deal well with DHCP renewals.. not much of an issue for month-long renewals like we used to get, but with hourly renewals perhaps..

Anyone got any evidence one way or the other?

Thanks


Teddy Boom
k kudos Received
Premium
join:2007-01-29
Toronto, ON
kudos:21

2 edits
said by mlord:

One idea, is that it's related to the hourly DHCP renewals that Rogers is switching to in several areas. I wonder if perhaps the 02.08 firmware doesn't deal well with DHCP renewals.. not much of an issue for month-long renewals like we used to get, but with hourly renewals perhaps..

The general theory until now is that the hourly DHCP renewals are put in for areas undergoing upgrade to 4 channel upstream bonding, and that Rogers switches the area back to 7 day renewals after the upgrade is complete. You'll see some mention of that in the 4-channel bonding threads.

The problem with the 2.08 firmware? Who knows.. Last year, or more like the summer of 2011, it was believed that the 2.08 firmware was actually causing some disconnect problems. Like, the 2.08 firmware didn't work well with some CMTSs, in particular associated with Brampton. I think this is the main thread:
»Modem Reset Everyday in Brampton + Slow Download Speeds

Here's another:
»[Cable] BRAMPTON Disconnects DCM 475

Edit: TSI Martin should be able to confirm exactly though
--
electronicsguru.ca/for_sale/Cablemodems


dissilusion

@teksavvy.com
reply to mlord
I for one can say that the disconnect issues on my 2.08 firmware were definitely related to the channel bonding upgrades in my area. Before then, the modem was rock solid.


Teddy Boom
k kudos Received
Premium
join:2007-01-29
Toronto, ON
kudos:21
said by dissilusion :

I for one can say that the disconnect issues on my 2.08 firmware were definitely related to the channel bonding upgrades in my area. Before then, the modem was rock solid.

Which is great to know, but.. It is important to remember that upstream channel bonding is just a lot harder to do than anything that went before. So, the issue you saw effected all docsis 3 modems regardless of firmware.

What did you do to fix your issues? Did a firmware upgrade improve things, or did a technician come out and fix signal levels? Can you describe a bit about how a firmware was implemented and when the improvement was obvious (like, did Teksavvy ship a new modem)?
--
electronicsguru.ca/for_sale/Cablemodems

mlord

join:2006-11-05
Nepean, ON
kudos:13
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
We've got documentation in this very thread of a simple firmware update to 02.16 on the same physical modem clearing up this kind of issue.

I'm (much) more interested in what triggers the issue. Increased channel-bonding is a definite clue, that has been cited many times by many users. It's not clear to me if it's the channel bonding itself though, or the lowered DHCP lease times that accompany it in most (all?) areas. Or some other factor perhaps.

???


bbbc

join:2001-10-02
NorthAmerica
kudos:2
Reviews:
·FreedomPop
reply to CHRoNiCWiLL

Firmware on Shaw provisioned Thompson DCM475

Any chance this firmware update could stick and not be superseded by Shaw's sh*tty firmware? Is the blocking of a cable modem's stats page controlled by a custom firmware (from Shaw) or is the DOCSIS provisioning from the cable ISP responsible for this bullsh*t?

--
Consumerist.com | Consumers Union

nbinont

join:2011-03-13
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
·TekSavvy Cable
reply to mlord

Re: I wonder what the cause of the 02.08 problem actually is?

said by mlord:

We've got documentation in this very thread of a simple firmware update to 02.16 on the same physical modem clearing up this kind of issue.

I'm (much) more interested in what triggers the issue. Increased channel-bonding is a definite clue, that has been cited many times by many users. It's not clear to me if it's the channel bonding itself though, or the lowered DHCP lease times that accompany it in most (all?) areas. Or some other factor perhaps.

???

I've got DCM475 with STAC.02.08 and 8x4 bonding (+5dBmV)256QAM down/ (45dBmV)16QAM up. 60 min leases. I don't have a disconnect issue here (anymore).


Teddy Boom
k kudos Received
Premium
join:2007-01-29
Toronto, ON
kudos:21
reply to bbbc

Re: Firmware on Shaw provisioned Thompson DCM475

said by bbbc:

Is the blocking of a cable modem's stats page controlled by a custom firmware (from Shaw) or is the DOCSIS provisioning from the cable ISP responsible for this bullsh*t?

I'm pretty sure it is in the configuration file, along with what speed of service you are getting, and what priority on the network you should get.

Whether the firmware flash sticks or not depends entirely on whether Shaw is actively pushing the firmware version they want you to be using.
--
electronicsguru.ca/for_sale/Cablemodems

chrisl83

join:2011-06-21
Almonte, ON
reply to dissilusion

Re: I wonder what the cause of the 02.08 problem actually is?

My modem was perfect before 8/4 bonding. The day rogers changed it over the modem flaked out on me.

mlord

join:2006-11-05
Nepean, ON
kudos:13
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
said by chrisl83:

My modem was perfect before 8/4 bonding. The day rogers changed it over the modem flaked out on me.

Mmm.. okay, so some people show a pretty direct connection between 02.08 flaking out on 8/4, whereas others have no issue.

So no direct guaranteed connection there. That really just leaves a couple of possibilities then: (1) signal levels, except many people with issues report excellent signal stats, and (2) it depends upon the brand/model/version of equipment Rogers deploys at the local node (most likely) or at the CMTS (less likely).

I'm not sure if there's a good way to determine the brand/model of gear at the local node -- maybe nmap could figure it out if we had an IP address for it. But I think (?) the first IP we see in a traceroute is the CMTS, not the local node. Or is it?

traceroute teksavvy.com
traceroute to teksavvy.com (206.248.155.70), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
1 tomato (xx.xx.xx.xx) 0.419 ms --- my local router/firewall

2 10.124.5.1 (10.124.5.1) 7.628 ms --- CMTS ??
3 69.63.255.189 (69.63.255.189) 15.282 ms --- Rogers router ??

4 fallowfield3.cable.teksavvy.com (24.52.255.78) 8.195 ms
5 fallowfield3.cable.teksavvy.com (24.52.255.77) 13.828 ms
6 2120.ae0.agg01.tor.packetflow.ca (69.196.136.77) 14.127 ms
7 206.248.154.117 (206.248.154.117) 25.048 ms
8 206.248.155.70 (206.248.155.70) 24.025 ms


dissilusion

@teksavvy.com
reply to Teddy Boom
I first waited for about a month to see if it would clear up, it didn't. Multiple daily reboots. As well I also waited to see if TS was going to announce a company wide directive for the issue. As none was forthcoming, and as the modem was purchased and still under warranty through TS, the exchanged it for a modem with the 2.16 firmware.

nbinont

join:2011-03-13
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
·TekSavvy Cable
reply to mlord
said by mlord:

So no direct guaranteed connection there. That really just leaves a couple of possibilities then: (1) signal levels, except many people with issues report excellent signal stats, and (2) it depends upon the brand/model/version of equipment Rogers deploys at the local node (most likely) or at the CMTS (less likely).

Possibly also (3) the upstream modulation used for the upstream bonded channels. I have 16QAM up, but others have 64QAM up. 64QAM is a bit more work and a different code path on the modem.