dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1442
share rss forum feed


dalastone

@cox.net

New modem (C1000A), connects at lower speed now

I just got a new CL modem C1000A and got it hooked up with no problem. However, I have a 6mg plan, but it only syncs at 3900-4200. downstream speeds are only 3.2. I was wondering if there is a setting I should check in the modem? My old sprint branded zyxel 660 sync'd at 5800 and usually got 4.7m. the modem stats are almost the same for the 2 modems. any ideas of what I could check on my end? thanks for any tips.


TAZ

@qwest.net
What's your SNR like on both of them?


calearne

join:2013-06-25
reply to dalastone
I think the C1000A uses a broadcom while the 660 uses a trendchip.

That might explain the speed difference.


dalastone

@cox.net
reply to TAZ
right now, the C1000A is sync'd at 3781/570. speedtest shows 3.2 down/460 up.
The snr downstream is 8db, attenuation 53dB, power 0dBm.
upstream snr 22dB, attenuation 30.5dB, power 12.8dBm.

the 660 shows similar values except a higher downstream attenutation at 55dBm.
I'm not experiencing any disconnects(with either modem). just the lower speed/speedtest results with this new modem.
I have the modem hooked up with a short cable, plugged into the wall jack nearest to where the line enters the house, and no other devices are plugged in.


TAZ

@qwest.net
Are Embarq DSLAMs really configured for 8 dB minimum (that seems a bit high)? I'm only familiar with Qwest territory, and over here they're configured for 6 dB.

In any case I agree with calearne See Profile, the 660's chip evidently works better on your circuit. It's not just line condition, some chips perform better than others on certain types of DSLAMs. Was there any reason you switched from the 660?

FWIW I've also found a 2 dB variance in reported downstream attenuation when comparing Actiontec (M1000) and ZyXEL (Q100) stats. I tend to believe the ZyXEL more as my trained rate is more in line with what I'd expect for that attenuation.


dalastone

@cox.net
Thanks for you input guys! much appreciated.
the only reason I replaced the sprint 660 was, other than being almost 10yrs old, I had a separate router. figured I give the newer modem/router combo unit a try.
Does my issue sound like I should call CL to investigate? or just go back to the old setup?
thanks again for you input.

ArizonaSteve

join:2004-01-31
Apache Junction, AZ
reply to dalastone
I picked up a C1000A at Goodwill to experiment with but it didn't have the power supply with it and the voltage it needs is not marked on the unit. Can someone with a C1000A look at their power supply and tell me what it's putting out? Thanks.

brugar

join:2002-09-16
Las Vegas, NV
kudos:2
12VDC 1.5A positive center


TAZ

@qwest.net
reply to dalastone
The router part of CL's modem/router units is junk anyway. It's always better to put the modem in bridge mode and use your own router.

No need to call CL, they aren't going to be able to do anything. Just go back to the old setup since that's giving you better results. (I like those older modems, like the good old Cisco 678!)

ArizonaSteve

join:2004-01-31
Apache Junction, AZ
reply to brugar
Oddly it will work on just 5 volts! I tried that first since I didn't want to fry it. The input voltage goes straight into 3 switching regulator chips that generate 3 and 5 volts and it seems like they can handle just about any input voltage.

ArizonaSteve

join:2004-01-31
Apache Junction, AZ
reply to dalastone
My C1000A connects at the same speed as my Q1000, 24/5Mb. Your problem is that your SNR is too low and attenuation is WAY too high!


TAZ

@qwest.net
How are his numbers a problem? So he's not very close to the DSLAM... so what? DSL can work over longer distances, maybe not very fast but it will still work.

8 dB itself isn't really that low, it's not ideal but if other conditions permit you can get by with it. Hell, I've been at 6 dB for years (line only qualifies for 12M but got on 20M, can only train at 17-18M) and with interleaving it's perfectly stable.

His issue is that the C1000A doesn't perform very well on his particular circuit (a combination of the line conditions plus the type of DSLAM). Evidently whatever chip the 660 is using works better, which is probably why Sprint used those modems in the first place (because they performed well on whatever DSLAMs Sprint was using at the time).

I'm willing to bet another one of the older ADSL modems, e.g. 678, would perform just as well.


dalastone

@embarqhsd.net
Thanks again for your input guys! very much appreciated!
I guess I will be reverting back to the 'ol sprint 660. I was initially concerned about the attenuation too. but so far it hasn't caused any disconnect issues that I've read about. I just thought the "newer" equipment would work better....lessoned learned, "if it ain't broke...."
that sprint modem must be almost 10 years old:)
Guess I will keep the Actiontec in case CL ever upgrades my area for those high speeds.
thanks again

ArizonaSteve

join:2004-01-31
Apache Junction, AZ
reply to TAZ
Well attenuation of 53dB seems like a lot since my reading is only 12db. He must be about 2 miles from the CO or has a bad line.


TAZ

@qwest.net
said by dalastone :

Thanks again for your input guys! very much appreciated!
I guess I will be reverting back to the 'ol sprint 660. I was initially concerned about the attenuation too. but so far it hasn't caused any disconnect issues that I've read about. I just thought the "newer" equipment would work better....lessoned learned, "if it ain't broke...."
that sprint modem must be almost 10 years old:)
Guess I will keep the Actiontec in case CL ever upgrades my area for those high speeds.
thanks again

There's nothing to be concerned about with your attenuation. You're still well within the range to get stable DSL service, just not very fast.

The older ADSL modems IMO are better than any of the newer junk. The only reason anyone should use the newer ones is for compatibility with the newer/faster standards. But on ADSL - yeah, go with that 10 year old 660, or 678 or whatever.

You're probably around 12-13 kft. away currently (assuming 26 AWG cable), so you're probably CO-served. If they ever get around to installing a remote, that'll probably get you down to half that, at worst, and likely closer. (The remote would be installed at the cross box, if you know where that is in your area.) Whether they'll actually do it I have no idea though; if it's a real rural area, there's probably not much money to be made in it.

said by ArizonaSteve:

Well attenuation of 53dB seems like a lot since my reading is only 12db. He must be about 2 miles from the CO or has a bad line.

Your attenuation has nothing to do with his. It's a function of distance. You're close to the DSLAM, he isn't. It doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the line, it just means he wasn't lucky enough to be located close to it.

ArizonaSteve

join:2004-01-31
Apache Junction, AZ
Reviews:
·voip.ms
·CenturyLink

1 edit
53db still seems like a lot but my C1000A doesn't return a value like the Q1000 does, it just shows zero so his reading of 53 might not even be correct! There are some other strange things about it too, I can't change any of the settings using Chrome, had to use either I.E. or Firefox. That seems odd since they just used the same configuration utility as the Q1000, the welcome screen actually says Q1000, and the Q1000 would configure in Chrome just fine. Also I sometimes get a 400 error when trying to open different screens for configuration and I can't find a way to change the DNS to anything besides Qwest. The wi-fi doesn't work properly either, my Galaxy S-2 will connect but can't open any websites although an Android Mini PC seems to work OK. I think the C1000A needs some more firmware updates to make it work properly. The Q1000 still looks like a better choice for now.

CenturyLink
VIP
join:2009-03-09
Boise, ID
kudos:7
reply to dalastone
Hey there,
We can help you figure out what's going on with the modem connection and performance. Send us your information here »bit.ly/IArNlt and we'll look into it.
Thanks,
AshleyKay


TAZ

@qwest.net
With respect, I think that's already been figured out, by multiple posters.


dalastone

@cox.net
reply to CenturyLink
Thank you! will submit the info. it's still only sync'ing at 4000.


dalastone

@cox.net
reply to TAZ
I am back on the 660 and syncing at 5900. not like the 4000 of the c1000a.
curious to see what CL comes up with.


TAZ

@qwest.net
yeah, that's what I mean... the 660 is able to do it but the C1000A can't. I don't think that's anything CL is going to be able to fix, but who knows, maybe there happens to be another DSLAM they can switch you to (that may work better with the C1000A, or better yet may be a remote if you're CO-served now).

brad152

join:2006-07-27
Phoenix, AZ
Reviews:
·CenturyLink
reply to dalastone
the C1000A is garbage in my opinion. To the OP, see if you can find a C1000Z, i use one of those on my old Sprint/Embarq account in Ohio and it's rock solid. I will never use anything Actiontec as they always seem to have sync issues in my experience when line conditions are less than ideal.