bwashPremium
join:2005-02-24
Diamond Bar, CA | How to lease SB6141? I was going to purchase a SB6141 however some here have mentioned that firmware will not be updated by TW, so if I wanted to lease a SB6141 from TW and my current modem SB5120 (6 or 7 years old) is working how do I get the SB6141?
--
RoadRunner - Motorola SB 5120
|
|
cramer
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:7 | Order a "wideband" service. A DOCSIS 3 6141 won't make any difference for a standard service customer.
(Even then, you'll get whatever they have. You don't get a choice.) |
|
bwashPremium
join:2005-02-24
Diamond Bar, CA | reply to bwash
I have roadrunner turbo. If I don't get a choice can I request ONLY a SB 6141 and not accept anything else until one is available.
--
RoadRunner - Motorola SB 5120
|
|
cramer
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:7 | Sure. You'll be going without service until you upgrade to a wideband package, or TWC stops deploying DOCSIS 2 hardware entirely.
If you call them for a new modem, they'll say no because the modem you have is working perfectly and you do not require a DOCSIS 3 modem. |
|
|
|
| said by cramer:Sure. You'll be going without service until you upgrade to a wideband package, or TWC stops deploying DOCSIS 2 hardware entirely.
Not really true. TWC requires Turbo and above to use Docsis 3 modem. If you were to rent the modem, you can request a Docsis 3 modem, however, the SB6141 might not be available in your Division but there's nothing wrong if you ask for it. |
|
cramer
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:7 | When did they change their mindpolicy on that?
The bottom line still stands... you get whatever they've got on the truck; you can ask for a 6141 but that doesn't mean you'll end up with one. (and they aren't going to send someone out to swap out a working, supported modem.) |
|
| said by cramer:When did they change their mindpolicy on that?
The bottom line still stands... you get whatever they've got on the truck; you can ask for a 6141 but that doesn't mean you'll end up with one. (and they aren't going to send someone out to swap out a working, supported modem.)
Since they start charging for rentals, they required turbo to use D3 modems. It makes sense to ask for a D3 modem if you are paying for rental. The OP can go to a TWC office and swap for a D3 modem.
»www.timewarnercable.com/en/resid···dem.html |
|
 jimkPremium
join:2006-04-15
Raleigh, NC
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·voip.ms
| reply to cramer
said by cramer:When did they change their mindpolicy on that?
The bottom line still stands... you get whatever they've got on the truck; you can ask for a 6141 but that doesn't mean you'll end up with one. (and they aren't going to send someone out to swap out a working, supported modem.)
I think they changed their policy when they bumped the download speed for Turbo up to 20 Mbps. |
|
bwashPremium
join:2005-02-24
Diamond Bar, CA | reply to bluepoint
Blueprint, thanks for suggesting that I go to the local office, I will check with to see if they even have any SB6141s availabe, if not I will stick with my old SB5120.
--
RoadRunner - Motorola SB 5120
|
|
 kba4
join:2001-10-23
Canton, OH
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to bwash
as mentioned, a local office is the best way to 'shop' and see what's available for your use. the FW issue may or may not be entirely true: basically if there's a security issue I'm pretty sure the FW will be updated but feature-sets, etc. are not going to be priority for non-TW modems.
as for a main pro and con concerning D3 vs D2 modems and the various tiers of service, keep the following in mind:
Powerboost, which allows additional neighborhood bandwidth (downstream only) for a various lengths of time when available, is not used on D3 devices. However, this feature is available to D2 devices, so 'standard HSD' (15x1) actually can become 25x1 on D2 modems in most areas. The pro here is obviously in a best-case scenario where there is hardly any congestion you will have 25x1 most of the time. The con is that in most areas there is at least mild congestion so actual speeds on a single D2 channel can vary from sub-15 to 25 on the DL. With D3 and its bonding of channels, however, there is no technical reason why 15x1 can't be available 100% of the time the modem has a connection to the CMTS: pulling bandwidth from 4-8 channels is much more efficient than a single D2 channel.
--
I see what you're saying, even though I'm really just listening... |
|
| said by kba4:the FW issue may or may not be entirely true: basically if there's a security issue I'm pretty sure the FW will be updated but feature-sets, etc. are not going to be priority for non-TW modems.
Now that you mentioned FW updates, if you know the answer, how is a subscriber owned modem distinguished from a TWC modem if the make and model is the same? |
|
bn1221
join:2009-04-29
Cortland, NY | HFC MAC address |
|
| So TWC is releasing their firmware base on the modem's MAC? If they do so, why do they even allow us to buy our own modems? Are we being trapped in, I told you so? |
|
cramer
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:7
1 edit | reply to bluepoint
how is a subscriber owned modem distinguished from a TWC modem
The issue with upgrading customer owned devices is the possibility of damaging it -- upgrade fails, or new firmware doesn't work correctly. They were burned very badly a few years ago when they upgraded every SB6120(?) in the network and bricked more than a few of them, and made a whole bunch of them very unstable (read: the new firmware was CRAP.) Customers who owned their modem were SOL -- TWC refused to replace what they'd broken or downgrade those that would work long enough to do so. Thus their wise, "we ain't touching it" policy towards customer owned hardware. (which is unfortunate as that's the ONLY way the firmware can be upgraded -- DOCSIS security requires firmware come from the HFC interface only) |
|
 pizzFiber pleasePremium
join:2000-10-27
Astoria, NY
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to bwash
i would personally goto my local office and ask for them for a docsis 3.0 modem. yes you're gonna pay for a monthly fee, but that fee covers your modem, if you have a problem with it, return it, without any hassle issue etc..
never get a docsis 2.0 modem, that tech is long gone.
--
It's ok to say, 'I don't know'. It's even better when someone takes the time to explain what you, 'don't know'. |
|
| reply to cramer
said by cramer:how is a subscriber owned modem distinguished from a TWC modem The issue with upgrading customer owned devices is the possibility of damaging it -- upgrade fails, or new firmware doesn't work correctly. I understand they have the risk of bricking some, however, being a huge company like TWC, they would not recommend certain brand and model if they have not tested them and provide ways to update the firmwares. I think once they posted the modem brands/model in their official site its their responsibility to maintain them. |
|
cramer
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:7 | The logical extension of this... they tested a specific firmware version. So, if you show up with any other version, they don't let your modem on the network. They're still NOT going to upgrade customer owned modems. They've been down this bumpy road and have no desire to try it again. It sucks, but I agree with their reasons.
Ideally, they should have a portal to allow *you* to request an update. But such a system would have a boatload of security implications. |
|
| said by cramer:The logical extension of this... they tested a specific firmware version. So, if you show up with any other version, they don't let your modem on the network. Why not, they recommended it, they provisioned it? Why not let it in the network?
They're still NOT going to upgrade customer owned modems. They've been down this bumpy road and have no desire to try it again. It sucks, but I agree with their reasons.
Implications of letting subscriber's buy their own modem is huge but just to think they did not think of consequences is bad on their part. My position is, TWC told us to use certain brand and model which is understandably reasonable decision on their part so they can manage them. If their position is, "they don't care", they would have just let us get any DOCSIS 3 model. No matter how you think there will still be support generated if there is a problem. Would you imagine the phone support calls it will generate if the recommended modems are not compatible with their system? If firmware updates are needed, I think they're better off pushing it to their subscribers instead of truck rolls and truck rolls to determine the problem.
Ideally, they should have a portal to allow *you* to request an update. But such a system would have a boatload of security implications.
|
|
cramer
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:7 | Do you have a link or evidence that what your saying is TWC's position?
To the letter of the law, any DOCSIS 3 certified modem *should* work. However, we have ample evidence showing that testing an certification is almost useless... in the real world, any random modem on any random network could (and usually does) run into some sort of compatibility issues. ISPs test hundreds of modems -- different brands, models, and yes firmwares -- before putting them in customer hands. This is why you see many more modems in the "leased" box vs. the "allowed to be owned". Leased modems are much more closely controlled -- no matter how they come from the factory, they'll get the tested and approved for the local system firmware. They have no control over what version is on the retail modem at Frys.
Ordinarily, it wouldn't be an issue to reflash the customer owned modems. HOWEVER, there was a huge mess some years ago when they upgrade *all* the (buggy as hell to begin with) SB6120's. They bricked a lot of them -- their own, too. And generally just made the bugginess worse. Customers started *watching* the version on their modem and bitched when the ISP "upgraded" them. So now, we have TWC's apparent hands off policy. (there are plenty of posts right here of people getting the same "no" to upgrades. I don't understand why it's so hard for you to accept.)
The issue of allowing customer firmware upgrades was carved in stone MANY years ago. (in the original DOCSIS 1.0 specs?) Firmware updates MUST come from the HFC interface (as per the DOCSIS config file.) You are obviously too young to remember the era of uncapped cable modems... there were two ways of getting there... feed it a config file from the LAN side, or hack the f'ing firmware. And thus the rule was born.
(I'm not saying that rule is still relevant. Any modem that disobeys it's QoS rules should be quickly detectable by the headend.) |
|
| said by cramer:Do you have a link or evidence that what your saying is TWC's position? No, I do not have any TWC internal memos. I can only go on the word of many people across the internet who have dealt with TWC w.r.t. their own owned modem. Your conviction seems to be strong on the basis of what you see in the internet. 
Leased modems are much more closely controlled -- no matter how they come from the factory, they'll get the tested and approved for the local system firmware. They have no control over what version is on the retail modem at Frys.
Ordinarily, it wouldn't be an issue to reflash the customer owned modems. HOWEVER, there was a huge mess some years ago when they upgrade *all* the (buggy as hell to begin with) SB6120's. They bricked a lot of them -- their own, too.
|
|
