dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
4887
share rss forum feed

freewill

join:2013-02-24

1 edit

TekSavvy - not answring valid concerns

So far, TSI has provided no answer to valid concerns that I along with many customers share. As a result I am turning to this forum, perhaps someone can shed light on this recurring issue, and offer a long term solution. Sure my service was cut off supposedly because my modem of choice SB6121 is not supported by Videotron network. Mind you the SB6120 is supported which is identical. So go figure.

Few points here I would like to clarify for other customers with similar grief who are tired of such nonsense. I will consider this as a volunteering efforts to educate those at TekSavvy / Videotron.

1) A DOCSIS 3.0 modem is DOCSIS 3.0 regardless of the brand. It is a STANDARD, i.e. before you mark your product as such you must undergo vigorous testing in order to certify your product before it hits the shelves!!

2) DOCSIS 3.0 as per the standard is BACKWARD compatible. i.e. It should work with those tiered services running on older DOCSIS 2.0 / 1.1 standards.

1.2.4 Statement of Compatibility
This specification defines the DOCSIS 3.0 interface. Prior generations of DOCSIS were commonly referred to as DOCSIS 1.0, 1.1, and 2.0. DOCSIS 3.0 is backward-compatible with equipment built to the previous specifications with the optional exception for handling DOCSIS 1.0 CMs. DOCSIS 3.0-compliant CMs interoperate seamlessly with DOCSIS 2.0, DOCSIS 1.1, and DOCSIS 1.0 CMTSs. DOCSIS 3.0-compliant CMTSs seamlessly support DOCSIS 2.0, DOCSIS 1.1, and may optionally support DOCSIS 1.0 CMs (refer to Annex G of [MULPI]).


What does this all mean and the implications for end cusomters...

So, if a customer wishes to sign up for Basic Cable 5 plan he/she is forced to use one of DOCSIS 2.0 modems on the approved list (more on this for part III). I'll use Motorola - SB5100 as an example

Now what happens if the customer decided to upgrade their service to Extreme Cable 20 / Ultimate Cable 30. The customer is now forced to purchase a new modem such as Motorola – SB6120.

Again, to prove additional technical incompetence, the existing DOCSIS 2.0 modem does support those speeds and customer should not have the need to upgrade their modems in the first place at 20Mbps/30Mbps !! In fact, a DOCSIS 2.0 modem is capable of achieving a maximum download/upload speed of 42 Mbps / 30Mbps.

But, of course, misinforming the customer provide a business opportunity to sell new hardware bought in bulk some 2-3 years ago in the guise it wouldn't support the new speeds.

Unless you start offering 150 Mbps which can be achieved by DOCSIS 3.0 modem utilizing 4 channels bonding, there is no need for such hardware for most people let alone affording such plans. In any case it is being pushed down people throats.

I find it very ironic that for a company that prides itself to putting customer first, which goes against its company values. The customer should be educated and advised of available options should they decide to upgrade in the future.

The consumer should be left with the freedom of choice as to upgrade their hardware if it is already capable of achieving highest speeds currently offered. This is borderline fraud similar to a previous post on a different issue but echoing similar case of misinforming the customer.

3) I find the so called "Approved List" of modem with specific firmware (FW) version is irrelevant in the sense that the firmware version MUST match that of the approved one. Again this is WRONG and misleading customers, again proving complete ignorance and incompetence.

When a customer goes out and buys a DOCSIS X.0 modem with a big label on the packaging, what it means is that, the modem has been already gone through vigorous testing by the manufacturer and achieved DOCSIS certification issued by CablesLab. Plugging into the a DOCSIS network should work right out of the box. In theory, no further testing is required again for re-certification.

The term "approved" means that modem in question has been tested by the ISP on their network infrastructure and was deemed "approved" for guaranteed quality of service, and performance. Choosing to go with a different DOCSIS certified modem should be of no issue. But now you are missing on the business opportunity to gouge customers!

First off, a free tech insight, the FW version is entirely controlled by the ISP as per DOCSIS standard. As a result, the end user is not able to update or flash their modem's FW.

As far as I know, TS does not handle FW upgrade, and the host network flat-out refuses to push FW upgrade to TS customers, but will do so for their OWN customers.

Suppose now a customer purchase their own DOCSIS 3.0 modem, be it on the "approved list" such as SB6120, from the manufacturer authorized dealer, i.e. Amazon, TigerDirect, etc... in 2012. It is not guaranteed that the loaded FW is the "approved" 1.0.6.1. As such the modem is now deemed "unapproved" and will not be provisioned. What nonsense!!

Even a better scenario, if a modem X is on the "approved list" and for what ever reason few months later that exact modem is no longer on the "approved List". the customer is now forced again to purchase a new modem! How can you explain this when the modem was previously approved and working!!

What it boils down to is pure dubious scheme to gouge unwary customers. Here is the recipe:

while () {
//simply buy JUNK modems in bulk at very discounted cost;
double junkModem = X
//sell to customers at huge mark up price;
double revenueModem = X * 10;
//reap profits from unwary customers;
double profitModem = revenueModem - junkModem;
}

Clearly, the focus has shifted from offering core services and seamless customer experience to making money off the hardware as it seems a renewable source of revenue. Modem/FW is outdated, customers is forced again to purchase a new modem, infinite loop!

What they don't understand is that countless man hours of customer support is cost and bleed revenues. Let alone having a bad reputation and now you start loosing customers.

I find it more outrageous that technical staff even direct customers to individuals where they can upgrade their modem firmware for a nominal fee $5~$10! I am sure they are great individual, but now you are risking the network for security exploits. Who is responsible for the liability in this case? The unwary customer, the nice individual who agreed to upgrade the FW or the incompetent cable provider who has the sole responsibility to issuing FW upgrades, yet refuses to do so :-s

Let be clear one more time, as per the DOCSIS standard it is the responsibility of the cable provider to push the modem's firmware. If such incompetent network staff bricks the customer's unit and maybe causes a network issue due to a simple FW "upgrade" process, I question why are you in the business in the first place and how on earth you obtained your license as a DOCSIS 3.0 cable provider.

I had believed for once that I have started a new chapter of quality service high speed internet when I discovered "TekSavvy". Alas, this is no longer the case, as such I am faced like many other customers to obtain so called "approved modem" and discard a better performing one. Not much logic in that, but of course only TekIncompetent believes so...

[att=1]

Sincerely,
concerned and aggravated customer


rogersmogers

@start.ca
It has nothing to do with Teksavvy it is Videotrons rules and if Teksavvy wants to use TPIA with Videotron they must follow the rules.

Go voice your beef in the videotron forum because TSI can't help ya.

RTfM2010

join:2010-07-07
"But but but he's a TekSavvy customer! "


hm

@videotron.ca
reply to freewill
said by freewill:

So far, TSI has provided no answer to valid concerns that I along with many customers share. As a result I am turning to this forum, perhaps someone can shed light on this recurring issue, and offer a long term solution. Sure my service was cut off supposedly because my modem of choice SB6121 is not supported by Videotron network. Mind you the SB6120 is supported which is identical. So go figure.

I didn't read the whole entire beef you have, but to put it simply:

Videotron charges something like $15,000 to verify and approve a modem.

If that modem is not on videotrons approval list, like your was, then feel free to give them around $15,000 to add it. Teksavvy wont.

However, there is a new CRTC consultation that has started concerning the modem certifications and fee's. You can find it here:
»crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2013/2013-80.htm

You should submit your beef as part of the public record.

You can add your comments and beef that you stated here in that consultation for the CRTC to see here:
»services.crtc.gc.ca/pub/instance···#2013-80

Hit the "submit" button found on that 2013-80 notice and follow the directions to submit your comments.

Nothing anyone here can do for you. Nothing Teksavvy can do for you, unless you want to give them ~$15,000 to get your modem certified.

I would suggest that maybe next time you should read teksavvy's site on what modems are approved before you rush out and buy anything you want. Which is what you did not do. Your own fault. All the wholesalers have a section showing which modems are approved. You didn't bother looking or asking. Did the teksavvy rep not say anything? Or did you brush it off because you bought your own approved modem from someone else and didn't care what anyone had to say?

Your Beef is with the CRTC and incumbents who approved all this. Submit it or do nothing and live with it.


mlerner
Premium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
kudos:5
reply to freewill
There are some valid reasons for Videotron managing the modems the way they do.

You are correct in that DOCSIS is a standard but sadly there are a variety of manufacturers that adopt the DOCSIS standards with different designs and it ends up working differently with the DOCSIS headends and the cable networks.

This is why modems usually have to be tested by the cable provider, even if the model is one number off. Also, firmware plays an impact so if you look at Rogers modems, they have had updates that affected the performance of the modem on the network. Usually it won't affect the performance of the headend but you never know.

Secondly, while D2 may support a theoretical speed, DOCSIS can also become easily congested with a limited number of channels. Essentially you end up fighting for time on the network because less channels mean less room for capacity. This is why the cable cos have moved to DOCSIS3 which provides many more channels and more capacity over the same network. I don't know about Videotron but Rogers customers have definitely benefited from D3 as many D2 customers are now facing speed and congestion issues.

IIRC You can only reliably get around 20 Mbps on a D2 cable network assuming a number of customers per node but this is definitely true in Rogers areas.

Third and last point, the Cable COs actually make and enforce these restrictions as the cable portion of the network belongs to them and providers like TekSavvy don't have a choice, all they do is lease the fibre interconnections which connect back to the DOCSIS network i.e. the last mile.


elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in
kudos:2
Reviews:
·VMedia
said by mlerner:

IIRC You can only reliably get around 20 Mbps on a D2 cable network assuming a number of customers per node but this is definitely true in Rogers areas.

I push the full 28 with no problems on my old SB5100, on Rogers
--
No, I didn't. Honest... I ran out of gas. I... I had a flat tire. I didn't have enough money for cab fare. My tux didn't come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from out of town. Someone stole my car. There was an earthquake.......


squircle

join:2009-06-23
Oakville, ON

1 edit
reply to freewill
This is going to be fun!

said by freewill:

So far, TSI has provided no answer to valid concerns that I along with many customers share. As a result I am turning to this forum, perhaps someone can shed light on this recurring issue, and offer a long term solution. Sure my service was cut off supposedly because my modem of choice SB6121 is not supported by Videotron network. Mind you the SB6120 is supported which is identical. So go figure.

Without even considering the rest of your post, let me say that your service being cut off is 100% your fault for not using an approved modem and you must handle the repercussions.

said by freewill:

Few points here I would like to clarify for other customers with similar grief who are tired of such nonsense. I will consider this as a volunteering efforts to educate those at TekSavvy / Videotron.

1) A DOCSIS 3.0 modem is DOCSIS 3.0 regardless of the brand. It is a STANDARD, i.e. before you mark your product as such you must undergo vigorous testing in order to certify your product before it hits the shelves!!

2) DOCSIS 3.0 as per the standard is BACKWARD compatible. i.e. It should work with those tiered services running on older DOCSIS 2.0 / 1.1 standards.

1.2.4 Statement of Compatibility
This specification defines the DOCSIS 3.0 interface. Prior generations of DOCSIS were commonly referred to as DOCSIS 1.0, 1.1, and 2.0. DOCSIS 3.0 is backward-compatible with equipment built to the previous specifications with the optional exception for handling DOCSIS 1.0 CMs. DOCSIS 3.0-compliant CMs interoperate seamlessly with DOCSIS 2.0, DOCSIS 1.1, and DOCSIS 1.0 CMTSs. DOCSIS 3.0-compliant CMTSs seamlessly support DOCSIS 2.0, DOCSIS 1.1, and may optionally support DOCSIS 1.0 CMs (refer to Annex G of [MULPI]).

Can't argue with any of that on a purely technical level.

said by freewill:

What does this all mean and the implications for end cusomters...

So, if a customer wishes to sign up for Basic Cable 5 plan he/she is forced to use one of DOCSIS 2.0 modems on the approved list (more on this for part III). I'll use Motorola - SB5100 as an example

Now what happens if the customer decided to upgrade their service to Extreme Cable 20 / Ultimate Cable 30. The customer is now forced to purchase a new modem such as Motorola – SB6120.

Again, to prove additional technical incompetence, the existing DOCSIS 2.0 modem does support those speeds and customer should not have the need to upgrade their modems in the first place at 20Mbps/30Mbps !! In fact, a DOCSIS 2.0 modem is capable of achieving a maximum download/upload speed of 42 Mbps / 30Mbps.

This is an item of contention. The trouble that exists in many HFC networks is frequency congestion. There's only a finite amount of data you can push through any given frequency on a HFC node. On networks where cable companies have either neglected upgrades or seen explosive growth, these frequencies can become overloaded and congested (now I'm thinking back to the Frank & Gordon Bell commercials from the last decade). I can totally see why providers would require the use of DOCSIS 3 modems on higher speed tiers: they want customers to have a positive experience, and not experience slow speeds, high latency and poor performance.

said by freewill:

But, of course, misinforming the customer provide a business opportunity to sell new hardware bought in bulk some 2-3 years ago in the guise it wouldn't support the new speeds.

Unless you start offering 150 Mbps which can be achieved by DOCSIS 3.0 modem utilizing 4 channels bonding, there is no need for such hardware for most people let alone affording such plans. In any case it is being pushed down people throats.

Err, no. They're not misinforming the customer. Videotron requires them to use certain tiers of modems on difference services and they're complying with this. And while you may be technically correct (i.e. under ideal conditions when you're the only one on the HFC node you'd never need a DOCSIS 3 modem), it doesn't always work that way in the real world. The requirements are the requirements, if you don't agree with them, find a different TPIA provider.

said by freewill:

I find it very ironic that for a company that prides itself to putting customer first, which goes against its company values. The customer should be educated and advised of available options should they decide to upgrade in the future.

The consumer should be left with the freedom of choice as to upgrade their hardware if it is already capable of achieving highest speeds currently offered. This is borderline fraud similar to a previous post on a different issue but echoing similar case of misinforming the customer.

3) I find the so called "Approved List" of modem with specific firmware (FW) version is irrelevant in the sense that the firmware version MUST match that of the approved one. Again this is WRONG and misleading customers, again proving complete ignorance and incompetence.

When a customer goes out and buys a DOCSIS X.0 modem with a big label on the packaging, what it means is that, the modem has been already gone through vigorous testing by the manufacturer and achieved DOCSIS certification issued by CablesLab. Plugging into the a DOCSIS network should work right out of the box. In theory, no further testing is required again for re-certification.

In theory, yes. Everything always works in theory. I should be able to push 54Mb/s over an 802.11g network in theory, but I can't. Why? Not everything that works in theory works in the real world. I agree that a modem is a modem, and it either works or it doesn't (and that most should, right out of the box). The problem here again is Videotron's requirements for CPE on their network. Think about it this way: if you were running a huge cable network like Videotron does, would you want every possible brand, firmware and model of modem on your network? Would you be willing to accept the risk of incompatibility and network issues? I know you're probably going to say "since DOCSIS is a standard, there won't be any incompatibility" but that, again, is only in theory. Don't forget that it's up to the manufacturers of different network components to implement specifications as they see fit; there are rarely 100% perfect implementations of any specification. Videotron requires a specific firmware version because they have tested it to work well on their network and don't want to accept the risk of allowing other versions of modems online. Simple as that. Nothing you can do.

said by freewill:

The term "approved" means that modem in question has been tested by the ISP on their network infrastructure and was deemed "approved" for guaranteed quality of service, and performance. Choosing to go with a different DOCSIS certified modem should be of no issue. But now you are missing on the business opportunity to gouge customers!

First off, a free tech insight, the FW version is entirely controlled by the ISP as per DOCSIS standard. As a result, the end user is not able to update or flash their modem's FW.

As far as I know, TS does not handle FW upgrade, and the host network flat-out refuses to push FW upgrade to TS customers, but will do so for their OWN customers.

See, here you are again, exemplifying the typical signs of a customer with an axe to grind. You don't want this resolved, you want to slag Teksavvy because you feel you were wronged and you're pissed. You think Teksavvy is willingly, purposefully gouging customers. You couldn't be farther from the truth. I have had people at Teksavvy jump through hoops to reverse DMC charges from Bell and correct the numbers on my bill, and I'm proud to support an ISP that cares about their customers.

Now Videotron on the other hand, they don't give a fsck about you.

said by freewill:

Suppose now a customer purchase their own DOCSIS 3.0 modem, be it on the "approved list" such as SB6120, from the manufacturer authorized dealer, i.e. Amazon, TigerDirect, etc... in 2012. It is not guaranteed that the loaded FW is the "approved" 1.0.6.1. As such the modem is now deemed "unapproved" and will not be provisioned. What nonsense!!

Even a better scenario, if a modem X is on the "approved list" and for what ever reason few months later that exact modem is no longer on the "approved List". the customer is now forced again to purchase a new modem! How can you explain this when the modem was previously approved and working!!

What it boils down to is pure dubious scheme to gouge unwary customers. Here is the recipe:

while () {
//simply buy JUNK modems in bulk at very discounted cost;
double junkModem = X
//sell to customers at huge mark up price;
double revenueModem = X * 10;
//reap profits from unwary customers;
double profitModem = revenueModem - junkModem;
}

Clearly, the focus has shifted from offering core services and seamless customer experience to making money off the hardware as it seems a renewable source of revenue. Modem/FW is outdated, customers is forced again to purchase a new modem, infinite loop!

More of the same. The modem won't be provisioned because it hasn't undergone the rigorous testing that the cable provider requires. It sucks, but Teksavvy and everybody else has to deal with it.

said by freewill:

What they don't understand is that countless man hours of customer support is cost and bleed revenues. Let alone having a bad reputation and now you start loosing customers.

Look around the forum, I think you'll find most people's issues are resolved post-haste, and Teksavvy does a damn good job to keep their good reputation and keep their customers happy. While I appreciate that you value the time they have to put into support and their revenues, you're not a shareholder. I, and I'm sure everybody at Teksavvy is sorry that they don't have a perfect reputation in your mind, but you can't apply that to every single other happy customer that loves Teksavvy.

Also you spelt "losing" wrong.

said by freewill:

I find it more outrageous that technical staff even direct customers to individuals where they can upgrade their modem firmware for a nominal fee $5~$10! I am sure they are great individual, but now you are risking the network for security exploits. Who is responsible for the liability in this case? The unwary customer, the nice individual who agreed to upgrade the FW or the incompetent cable provider who has the sole responsibility to issuing FW upgrades, yet refuses to do so :-s

Videotron doesn't care enough to push the proper firmware out to modems to screw the incumbents (or whatever their motives may be). How is this Teksavvy's fault? They fight hard enough to even exist as an ISP!

What I see from DSLr are honest, kind people who are willing to help others that need the firmware on their modems changed. Are you opening yourself up to risk? Sure. You have to trust the people who are re-flashing your modem.

Ultimately, the liability is yours for not obtaining the proper equipment to work with the incumbent's network in the first place.

said by freewill:

Let be clear one more time, as per the DOCSIS standard it is the responsibility of the cable provider to push the modem's firmware. If such incompetent network staff bricks the customer's unit and maybe causes a network issue due to a simple FW "upgrade" process, I question why are you in the business in the first place and how on earth you obtained your license as a DOCSIS 3.0 cable provider.

I had believed for once that I have started a new chapter of quality service high speed internet when I discovered "TekSavvy". Alas, this is no longer the case, as such I am faced like many other customers to obtain so called "approved modem" and discard a better performing one. Not much logic in that, but of course only TekIncompetent believes so...

[att=1]

Sincerely,
concerned and aggravated customer

Teksavvy isn't licensed by CableLabs because they don't have to be; they don't operate the cable network. This only exemplifies your ignorance of business and technical practise. I'd also disagree with your statement about responsibility. It's the responsibility of Teksavvy, Videotron and every other TPIA provider to provide equipment that works with the cable network. They gave you that option. Teksavvy sells modems with the proper firmware version, and other retailers do too. You knew when you signed up for the service that it's your responsibility to somehow obtain a proper modem from Teksavvy or another retailer, and that Teksavvy can't guarantee that modems other than the ones listed on their website will be functional with the service.

I mean, if you have $10k lying around, you can get whatever modem you want approved on Videotron's network. Go ahead, I'm sure others would thank you.

TL;DR: it was your responsibility to obtain a working modem, but you didn't. Your choice put you in the situation you're in.

And for the record, I'm not some Teksavvy apologist; I just subscribe to the "do what you've gotta do" mentality. Well, and 50% of the way to being an electrical engineer.


mlerner
Premium
join:2000-11-25
Nepean, ON
kudos:5
reply to elwoodblues
said by elwoodblues:

said by mlerner:

IIRC You can only reliably get around 20 Mbps on a D2 cable network assuming a number of customers per node but this is definitely true in Rogers areas.

I push the full 28 with no problems on my old SB5100, on Rogers

That could be true in your case, I wouldn't argue that but many nodes have seen a lot of increased usage with the higher tiers to the point where some customers can barely use a D2 modem.

JMJimmy

join:2008-07-23
reply to freewill
Also, call the Competition Bureau's fair dealings dept. File a complaint there (they're already investigating, but the more voices the more likely they are to do something about it)

graniterock
Premium
join:2003-03-14
London, ON
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·TekSavvy Cable
reply to freewill
On the rogers system, new users aren't allowed to use the higher speeds without a D3. Those who have less are allowed to keep the modems grandfathered in. There is anecdotal evidence on this forum that D3 modems do perform better in congested areas than the D2 modems.

TSI has said they wish they could expand the approved modem lists but it is expensive to get the approval from the incumbent.

(Does anyone recall this being an issue that has been put forward to the CRTC. I seem to recall someone pointing towards a submission and hoping towards a decision but I could be wrong.)


rogersmogers

@start.ca
reply to JMJimmy
said by JMJimmy:

Also, call the Competition Bureau's fair dealings dept. File a complaint there (they're already investigating

No they not.
Expand your moderator at work

freewill

join:2013-02-24
reply to freewill

Re: TekSavvy - not answring valid concerns

Didn't realize the delay in posting

I have deleted the duplicate reply. see above

freewill

join:2013-02-24
reply to hm
thanks for the links. I will certainly share my experience there as well

freewill

join:2013-02-24

1 edit
reply to freewill
First thanks for all who have replied. In all fairness, I am not here intending to bash or otherwise a good a service claimed by others including myself since day 1 up until my service was cut off. Sure, I went a head and got non approved SB6121 modem rather than SB6120. I would like anyone to point me to SB6120 modem with exact Fw of 1.0.6.1 required. Not even TSI provide these modems anymore. I bought mine off Motorola not some "other guy" as mentioned by someone. I did my research, and was fully aware of the approved list. But given that both SB6120/1 are identical with exact firmwre I didn't believe that was an a valid issue that warrants a service cutoff.

I agree with the concept that ISP has to re-test an already DOCSIS modem. No problem there. The underlying issue is that TekSavvy merely adopt approved list of modem from the ISP. What am against is this endless loop of misinformation. here is why.

I would have thought, TSI would submit their own DOCSIS modems of choice for certification purpose at a cost of $9800 and some change as confirmed with TSI over the phone.

Yet, in a post by TSI Marc it appears that TSI only take that list from Rogers or whoever and advertise on their site.

No testing is done by TSI as mentioned here

here are evidence that leads me to assert the above comment. the following is a response to a post regarding Cogeco DOCSIS 2.0 requirement. Lets examine.

said by TSI-Martin :
Although Docsis 3 modem are backwards compatible, the statement Keith gave is true.

The SB6120/6121 will work on any plan as long as it's on the Rogers footprint.
Unfortunately, folks on the Cogeco footprint don't get to enjoy the joys of a Docsis 3 modem.Martin
1) While it maybe true that Cogeco have not migrated their network infrastructure to be DOCSIS 3.0 compatible, a DOCSIS 3.0 modem will still function and in theory should be supported by the network.

I will give you analogy, suppose you have a USB 2.0 device but plugged into a USB 1.0 port, the device will surely work but not at the full speed capability of 480 Mbps USB 2.0 offers. It will scale back to a maximum of 12 Mbps that USB 1.0 can support.

said by TSI-Martin :
Modems do need to get certified by the incumbents.
The Docsis 3 modems haven't been certified for TekSavvy as we are not using speeds that are impacted and have the need of a Doscis 3 modem.
Martin
2) The choice of modems for DOCSIS 3.0 certification is a choice of TekSavvy and should not be limited by the host network infrastructure. You would hope that future network planning is in the back of the network engineer's mind.

"The Commission confirmed that all cable modems used for TPIA must be certified in accordance with the Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification (DOCSIS) by Cable Television Laboratories Inc. (CableLabs). In addition, the Commission determined the conditions under which TPIA cable modem second-level testing would be required and that the testing should be carried out by the Cable Carriers"

Ok here is some donated common sense for TSI.

second-level testing of DOCSIS 3.0 on a DOCSIS 2.0 should not warrant a fail as DOCSIS 3.0 is backward compatible by the standard, in a sense that it will scale itself back to a "DOCSIS 2.0" modem.

The main part is obtaining DOCSIS 3.0 certification from CableLabs, as such TSI would pay for the testing for individual modems to be certified.

Now, the big question for you, a DOCSIS 2.0 or 3.0 modem must undergo testing, so why spend the money on an outdated modem certification when you can put that towards the certification of a modern DOCSIS 3.0 modem instead. Not only you save money, but your You will be ahead of the curve and enjoy improved service offering should Cogeco decides to migrate to DOCSIS 3.0.

You see the issue here is going forward. Not the reason why other wise perfectly working modem stops working, not because it is not compatible really, only because someone in their infinite wisdom decided so without apply common sense or logic to the undermining problem.

I have no problem, getting an approved modem but only when there are other choices aside from the Thomson DCM 475 and all reported issue with that specific modem.

Should a customer choose to go with a different pre-certified DOCSIS modem should not warrant loss of service. Let alone getting an approved modem but with a different FW version, the modem will NOT be honored and again, it is left to the customer to scramble for a mean to flash their newly bought hardware.


TypeS

join:2012-12-17
London, ON
kudos:1
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
While you have raised some valid concerns, I am with mlerner as well on this. The only only points you raised that have any merit are ones concerning incumbent networks and their policies.

I don't see any reason why TekSavvy should have to added more costs to already exorbitant costs Rogers/Cogeco/Videotron are already shoving down their throats. As discussed thoroughly in this thread. Most of TPIAs aren't generating profits on some of cable tiers, and all use the same approved list of cable modems that the incumbents provide.

Fact is, TekSavvy does not operate coax or copper wire networks, why should get involved and incur further costs? None of us want increased rates on top of probable upcoming hikes to keep high and/or unlimited bandwidth caps.

I am not sure what you mean by the Thompson/Techicolor DCM476 having "reported issues". Many users have bought and have had no problems what so ever. It's perfectly good modem and is the recommended one to buy right now for new subscribers or people upgrading to DOCSIS 3.

And as much as I love to find fault with Rogers, I will not with how they restrict CPE devices allowed on their network. It's their work network that they build and maintain. DOCSIS may be a standard, but that does not mean all Cable Modems are designed and built equally. If they were, MSOs would have no problem allowing any and all CPE devices on their networks. You brought up USB, another standard which is not applied equally. Look at USB sticks, there are ones widely varying performance, reliability and durance. Standards don't guarantee a manufacturer builds something that functions well, or lasts.

Just take a look at state of Windows PCs, the motherboard has standards, CPUs do, GPUS, memory,, etc, and yet you get wide chasm of variety in terms of compatibility, performance, use, quality and endurance. Its why Apple chooses the closed ecosytem and why it has worked so well for them, especially for the iOS ecosystem.

My recommendation would be to package up the SB6121 as neat as possible, hopefully in the original packaging and sell it on Kijiji or eBay to an Ontario customer and purchase an approved modem.

Viper359
Premium
join:2006-09-17
Scarborough, ON
Reviews:
·voip.ms
reply to freewill
Instead of finding so many ways to blame everyone but yourself for not buying the proper modem, why don't you just suck it up, accept it, and buy what you are supposed to buy.

When you run a large network like "video/rogers/bell" you can decide what you will allow, and what you wont. You screwed up, accept it, and move on.

Ask any large IT guy why he cannot stand people who bring their own devices for work purposes. It can mess up their networks. (simplified response)

Stop blaming everyone else for your screw up.

Do you honestly expect TSI or their provider to support every possible D3 certified modem out there? All it takes is buggy firmware, and you can be rest assured, they would all be calling TSI, demanding support, for a product TSI never provided, and never authorised.


Teddy Boom
k kudos Received
Premium
join:2007-01-29
Toronto, ON
kudos:21
reply to freewill
I know that as recently as a few months ago, Videotron was insisting on Docsis 2 modems for the slower speed tiers. To the best of my knowledge that was a misunderstanding and it is now corrected. Unfortunately I can't find a reference, all I can find is this which says it still isn't corrected:
»Videotron disallow Docsis 3 modem on low tiers?

Granted the firmware situation is a serious problem. Teksavvy should have a formal system for firmware upgrades. However, until something better exists, referring people to third parties (like myself) is actually a feature. At least Teksavvy is willing to give customers as much information as possible. Many companies would not be willing to take the risk of doing so.

Finally, as mentioned here, I'm willing to do trade inns until I'm out of SB6180.
»Re: Is this cable modem compatible with Teksavvy?

--
electronicsguru.ca

freewill

join:2013-02-24
reply to Viper359
@ Viper359

Where exactly do you see me "blaming" others. I have already stated that I am aware of such approved list. The modem was perfectly working.

By no means I am expecting to have my modem working magically again. I am simply sharing my experience for a food for thoughts and have a dialogue going forward. You comment makes no sense, your attitude is synonymous with that of stone age mentality. I bet you would be the first to cry should this happen to you.

Just for the record, in a sense, I have created my own problem. I should have stayed under the radar. The reason for all this mess, is that I have called TSI the very first day my service was activated because I am unable to access my modem's control panel. Turns out videotron blocks access. TSI finally admitted to the practice by videotron but only after wasting my time for hours over the phone and days of follow up.

Had I not called, or was told flat out "no access is provided by videotron" everything would have been fine, and the supposedly not approved modem is performing great. So please do a simple search before you throw some nonsense comment and suppress consumer right.

Cheers to you.

Viper359
Premium
join:2006-09-17
Scarborough, ON
Reviews:
·voip.ms

2 edits
Your entire post comes off as nothing more than a rant, which conveys the feeling that you're upset because you didn't get what you wanted.

Your rant doesn't come out and directly point fingers at TSI, or the backend provider, but its clearly read there. At no point in your rant did I read someone sharing their experience for a food for thought dialogue, or a YMMV, but heads up guys, type of conversation.

No, I wouldn't be the first to cry. In fact, I doubt I would cry at all. I am not that stupid. I would accept that its not my network, and I don't get to control what happens with it. I would accept that my modem of choice was caught, and shutdown, and I would go get one I should have had since day one.

As for supressing consumer right, what a joke that is. Take your modem, and go to someone who allows it. Or, build your own multi billion dollar network, and do whatever you want. That is your right as a consumer, to take your business elsewhere.

Just because your modem worked, doesn't mean there couldn't be issues. This is what you don't grasp. Just because something is certified to a standard, doesn't mean it will work well with others. Say your modem stopped working, because of an issue with firmware, guess what, now all the sudden, the ISP is forced to pay for support costs, to troubleshoot a modem that was never approved to begin with, because when someone's internetz stops working, who do they call? The modem manufacture? Nope, they call their ISP.

What might shock you, I agree with you in certain aspects, on the entire modem thing. However, because each ISP does things different, I realize what a PITA it would be for most ISPs to allow any modem. I also totally get the argument they provide on the tech support side of things. I am one of those consumers that got royally screwed years back, when Rogers pushed a firmware update that bricked my modem. I had it replaced, to have another firmware push that caused nothing but problems, until they got rid of the modem completely.

FYI: I am not against consumer rights, when a consumer is being forced to buy something that is not needed to deliver a service, and no real technical, or business case can be given to why its needed. Like Bell FORCING you to buy their internet to subscribe to their tv service. Which, by the way, I am currently fighting them with via the competition bureau.

Samgee

join:2010-08-02
canada
kudos:2
reply to freewill
Just buy a new modem and move on. Life is too short.

freewill

join:2013-02-24
reply to TypeS
@ TypeS

I appreciate your comment. However, I didn't speak of DCM 476. You can easily search this very forum and find examples of DCM 475 modem sporadic self reset and other performance issues

I'll provide one link:
»[Cable] Thompson DCM475 & Rogers

Again, USB 2.0 device will function on USB 1.0 port and likewise a USB 1.0 device will function on USB 2.0 port. It is the reason of such standard exist.

Now to the issue of performance, I agree with you 100% standard is there but it does not guarantee performance. Hence the choice of hardware as a consumer. or perhaps I am missing something

Please note at no time I was discussing poor performance due to the use of unapproved modem. It was simply cut off. It happens all the time, even manufacturers mix chips in their system against IC vendor recommendation. It is a matter of performance, cost and reliability trade offs. Applying same logic, this means that all non compliant product with vendor recommendation should be piled in a scrap yard.

I am not expecting anything from TSI or videotron for that matter. It has proved useless bouncing off different people over the phone. Only to hear different answers. The least, however, is to provide consistent and accurate information not some mumbo jumbo non sense.

I am only sharing a concern. HM has provided those links, and I will take my complain to the CRTC.


mazhurg
Premium
join:2004-05-02
Brighton, ON
Reviews:
·MTS
reply to mlerner
said by mlerner:

said by elwoodblues:

said by mlerner:

IIRC You can only reliably get around 20 Mbps on a D2 cable network assuming a number of customers per node but this is definitely true in Rogers areas.

I push the full 28 with no problems on my old SB5100, on Rogers

That could be true in your case, I wouldn't argue that but many nodes have seen a lot of increased usage with the higher tiers to the point where some customers can barely use a D2 modem.

Actually it's because he lives in the boonies and has no neighbours (or has threatened mischief if they dared get on the net at the same time)...


BrianON

join:2011-09-30
Ottawa, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
reply to freewill
Cable internet is a shared connection in a way that DSL is not. Both downstream and upstream channels are shared by others assigned the same channels on the same node. This means the equipment that is attached needs to be controlled more as unlike DSL where an incompatible modem only effects that user on cable it can impact all other users using the same channels on the node.


Tx
bronx cheers from cheap seats
Premium
join:2008-11-19
Mississauga, ON
kudos:12
Reviews:
·TekSavvy DSL
·FreePhoneLine
·Rogers Hi-Speed
reply to freewill
I just helped a family member get an install date setup with Distributel today and this very topic i about providers using product as another source of revenue is most definately a curious one.

Distributel told my uncle there was absolutely no option but to buy or rent their modem for DSL. It makes zero sense. I was giving him my old tp-link that can easily work.

To me i find it a sham to try and profit extra off of product sales. I sure hope TSI is at least selling these at cost if it's not about profit. At cost but shipping is up to the customer is what i call fair to a point.

I don't know how TSI is these days with your own DSL modems but i know i was able to use my own on TSI and still do with no isses, so for the topic of profit which is pretty shady practice to force a customer to buy something from you i have to say is a good question.

I don't believe TSI does it like DT does considering i'm using my own adsl modem at home but the ones that TSI does sell, are they profiting from it since certain cable modems are a requirement? If they're sold at cost then there really is no argument here.


TypeS

join:2012-12-17
London, ON
kudos:1
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
I agree no ISP should force a customer to rent or purchase a modem, but they should still be a sold at mark up from the unit price of the hardware supplier. Gotta pay for the shipping, storage and staff handling the hardware. If selling at costs includes those, sure.

Hardware profit margins are always very miniscule when it comes to anything computer related, the marks up usually make a retailer/seller break even on the shipping, overhead and labour costs.


GOTEKKY_JP

join:2005-12-12
Saint-Laurent, QC
reply to freewill

Why not go with the Motorola SB6180 ? That's what I'm using on Videotron without any problem. Got mine from an ebay seller (pm me if you want his details).

freewill

join:2013-02-24
reply to TypeS
said by TypeS:

I agree no ISP should force a customer to rent or purchase a modem, but they should still be a sold at mark up from the unit price of the hardware supplier. Gotta pay for the shipping, storage and staff handling the hardware. If selling at costs includes those, sure.

Consumer are more aware than ever, why should you purchase the same hardware from Company X when you get it for 40% less all other things being equal, i.e. model and fw.

said by TypeS:

Hardware profit margins are always very miniscule when it comes to anything computer related, the marks up usually make a retailer/seller break even on the shipping, overhead and labour costs.

Not when you are in infinite while loop! it can easily add up.

If retailer are only breaking even, there wouldn't be a business case in the first place.

A simple fact, in the consumer market, everything boils down to VOLUME. MRSP already includes mark up costs for retailers, usually a 50% PROFIT. This is pure economics. Now take that and bump it 30% or more and sell it to your customers. The customer is already paying for shipping costs.


QuantumPimp

join:2012-02-19
Reviews:
·voip.ms
reply to GOTEKKY_JP
said by GOTEKKY_JP:

Why not go with the Motorola SB6180 ? That's what I'm using on Videotron without any problem. Got mine from an ebay seller (pm me if you want his details).

You're offering helpful, practical advice. The OP was really using this post as a platform to "educate those at TekSavvy / Videotron" all about DOCSIS. A lot of thought went into his arguments but still, I can't help but feel that it came across like a boyscout pretending to be an astronaut.


TypeS

join:2012-12-17
London, ON
kudos:1
Reviews:
·TekSavvy Cable
reply to freewill
No MRSP does not always include mark-up costs, especially when it comes to computer hardware. It's why online stores like NewEgg and Amazon have devestated traditional brick and mortar stores, even behemoths like Best Buy. The margins were always slim to begin with, price matching online stores working out of warehouses has made them razor thin.

I worked at a computer store for a long time, my friends once asked why I didnt give them deep discounts on parts. Aside from not wanting to lose my job, I the profit margins on most stuff is 10-15% from unit cost of the supplier. Hard drives are typically 5%. Brand name network equipment was in the same range as 10-15%.

The only brand of networking gear that I saw with high marks up (and was really surprised to learn this) is TP-Link gear. The mark up on that stuff is anywhere from 50-100% at retailers like Canada Computers. For example the TD-8816, was $6-10 from many suppliers, sells for around $20 at most stores.

Btw when I said shipping costs, I did not mean shipping to war the customer. I meant shipping from supplier warehouses to the retailer or seller.