O Canada! > Canadian > TekSavvy > [Cable] Motorola SB6141 Do You Want It ?

[Cable] Motorola SB6141 Do You Want It ?

Results (Bar Chart) Results (Bar Chart)

Results (Pie Chart) Results (Pie Chart)

I've heard good things about the Surfboard Cable Modem from friends in America so I don't see why not. It would give more variety and choice from the assortment of modems currently available.

reply to TwiztedZero
all i could find today was surfboard modems when trying to find an approved one.

reply to TwiztedZero
My vote is NO.

Not unless the modem is significantly than the DCM476...

It has to be at least one of the following:
- a lot cheaper say $20 below DCM476 (i.e. DCM 476 $80 - $87 for mail order)
- Right now DCM476 is the only one approved for 150 out of all approved DOCSIS 3.0, so unless it also get approved for that and beyond, it is going to be another waste of money like the 6120/6121
- much easier to find than the DCM476

There is safety in numbers by either having the same model as most of the IISP so that Rogers won't drop its support without getting a good fight by the IISPs and their users.

If not, it should at least have the same chipset as whatever Rogers is using so that compatibilities issues with their CMTS would at least cause the same issues on Rogers customers.

Given that we haven't read any hardware issues with the DCM47X outside of firmware, the DCM47X line seems to be doing fine. So any "preferences" do not any significant benefits. The $9K cost to do this for an ISP would be better spent for its user to stock a 50 units loaner pool for diagnostics.

I'd take the SB6141, I've had no problems with Motorola in the past. Looking at reviews, the SB6141 is rated much higher than the DCM476.

reply to random
And how were the SB6120 / SB6121 a waste of money?

You realize the SB6141 uses the same family of firmware that our current crop uses? The only difference being the Moto SB6141 8x4 modem is built around a TI/Intel chipset and it uses eight channels down and four up for channel bonding.
--
----|- From the mind located in the shadows of infinity -|----
Nine.Zero.Burp.Nine.Six
Twitter = Twizted Zero
Chat = irc.teksavvy.ca

reply to TwiztedZero
I'd take a cable modem / residential gateway combo over another modem right now. The only supported RG on the Teksavvy list, the SMCD3GN, is only 4x4 and my experience with it has not been pleasant over the past few years -- lockups, losing sync, resetting to factory defaults after firmware updates, etc.

reply to TwiztedZero
I don't see anything wrong with having it added on the approved modems. More choice, Motorola having damn reliable modems.

There is a catch though. We are all at the mercy of Rogers :P

reply to TwiztedZero
I'm all for introducing more choice, and I'm a big fan of Motorola.

That said, if we're going to lobby for adding another modem, would it not make sense to aim for something more future-proof? We already have an 8x4 option. Some quick surfing after seeing this post leads me to believe that 16x8 or 24x8 or even 32x8 modems are already in existence/just around the corner:

»www.lightreading.com/docsis/cabl···40141734

I currently have a 6120, and love it. I'm considering the 150/10 tier when it becomes available, and unfortunately, that means purchasing another modem... I'd certainly prefer to get something that will be current in a couple of years when the speeds continue to increase...

Of course, if that's not an option, I'd much prefer a Motorola over the 476...

reply to TwiztedZero
>And how were the SB6120 / SB6121 a waste of money?

See »Re: [Cable] ATPIA - Live in new areas - BETA March 22nd, 2013

- Approved modems for 25Mbps to 45Mbps packages:
o Motorola SB6120 - 1.0.6.1
o Motorola SB6121 - 1.0.6.1
o SMC D3GN-RES - 1.4.0.40-RES
o Thomson DCM 475 - STAC.02.16
o Technicolor DCM476 STAC.02.50 HW Ver 2.0
o Technicolor DCM476 STAC.02.50 HW Ver 2.1
:

- Approved modems for 150Mbps packages:
o Technicolor DCM476 STAC.02.50 HW Ver 2.0
o Technicolor DCM476 STAC.02.50 HW Ver 2.1

SB6120/6121 not qualified for faster speed, so BIG waste of money for those who bought into think of it as a "better" modem, "future proof" and wanting it for any faster speeds. (google posting here a couple of years back)

>You realize the SB6141 uses the same family of firmware
Your claim has a big assumption. Even different build of the same exact code branch *could* have a possible compatibility issue as the hardware under it is different - the SoC is not the same! The hardware could have different errata and could behave differently and might need different handling under exceptions.

To move outside a time tested combination of Rogers hardware and modem, there have to be some tangible reward for the people that shell out ~$100 for taking the risk rather the speculation of it being "better". Is it cheaper for the user? Is it more available?

Like I said, safety in numbers... You cannot deny that DCM475/6 is being used on multiple IISP on Rogers without issues outside of firmware revision which has been resolved. If there are any issues, there are multiple IISP that would push for solution.

So far there are almost no complains of the DCM476. mlord even say the layout is better.

reply to RogersLite

reply to TwiztedZero
The SB6141 can be had at the same price ($70) as the DCM476 and more readily available. All the best cablecos down south has them approved.
The argument where there's more support for the DCM476 is not true IMO. There are far more sb6141 in service worldwide than dcm476

the SB6141 IMO is "future-proof". I don't see 150megs being affortable for at least another few years at the $50 price point which most families are only willing to pay. 8x4 can easily support speeds up in the 200+ range.

The reality is that nothing is future-proof. Once these 24x8 modems arrive, there's DOCSIS 3.1.....then maybe FTTH.
There's already a sect of SB6141 users on the rogers network.

I agree that DCM476 is suitable and there's nothing "wrong" with these modems. But motorola has a better track record of modem quality. I support getting it approved because the customer has more choices and that's always a "win"

>All the best cablecos down south has them approved.
Rogers isn't down south nor it the best cableco. ;P If for whatever odd ball reasons their "gears" or sloppy setup isn't working, they are not going to be losing sleep for the small percentage of ATPIA/TPIA customers that uses your precious SB61XX modem. The DCM47X models are likely in the tens of thousands on their network.

Getting modems shipped across border can cause shipping problems, are subjected to additional fees for clearing the border and can be troublesome for warranty. Some of you might drive across the border, but not the case for the majority of the end users.

DOCSIS 3.1 time frame is 2016 and beyond. It would take a few year before all the cable channel shuffling and their nodes get upgraded. So you are looking at may be at least 5 years time frame for public consumption if not later. There would likely be a transition period when the 3.0 and 3.1 coexist on the same network. $100 modem for 5 years life is not bad.

I think somebody just hates Motorola.

reply to nitzguy
As I recall it was Rogers who messed up the firmware which they corrected with 1.0.6.1.

I think the bottom line here is that Rogers probably puts out tenders to Modem Companies to supply x number of 1,000 modems and the winner(s) make the approved list.

reply to nitzguy

reply to random

reply to random

reply to TwiztedZero
Now for reference purposes we have this: Third-party Internet access – Ca
ble modem second-level testing Telecom Order CRTC 2007-442

I imagine we're expecting an update to this sometime soon. Ressy, I think has details possibly?
--
----|- From the mind located in the shadows of infinity -|----
Nine.Zero.Burp.Nine.Six
Twitter = Twizted Zero
Chat = irc.teksavvy.ca