|
What gateways/modems is Shaw using for its 250 Mbps service?Here in Toronto Rogers has recently introduced this service. They are using the Hitron 3GN gateway and tons of people are having problems with the device.
I see that Shaw how has a 250 Mbps service. So what hardware is Shaw using for their 250Mbps service? This seems to require a 24x8 DOCSIS 3.0 gateway/modem and there aren't too many of those available yet. |
|
|
|
They use either a Cisco DPC3825 or an SMC D3GN2 |
|
|
corbin
Member
2014-Jan-21 7:36 pm
said by bearcobra:They use either a Cisco DPC3825 or an SMC D3GN2 The DPC3825 |
|
|
Ok, thanks. And they work properly, in bridge mode as well as in gateway mode (assuming that they are gateways rather than routers).
And they give you at least 250 Mbps in download speed? Rogers is forcing customers to the Hitron for the highest speeds although I believe they also use those Cisco and SMC devices for slower tiers. |
|
kevinds Premium Member join:2003-05-01 Calgary, AB |
kevinds
Premium Member
2014-Jan-21 10:09 pm
I found the features/quality/performance in gateway mode lacking, but great in bridge mode.
The SMC doesn't work at speeds faster than 100, so it will be the Cisco |
|
TypeS join:2012-12-17 London, ON |
to bearcobra
It's technologically impossible for the SMC to be used on 250Mbps since its theoretical maximum is around 170Mbps. This Cisco is certainly capable of it but Shaw's looking at around 70% utilization on 8 channels for just a single 250Mbps customer. Doable but hopefully Shaw has planned around that to avoid congestion. said by wayner92:And they give you at least 250 Mbps in download speed? Rogers is forcing customers to the Hitron for the highest speeds although I believe they also use those Cisco and SMC devices for slower tiers. Rogers likes to keep channel utilization at specific levels, hence why they don't want 8x4 modems on the new Ultimate tier. People like to have a fast speed but they also want available when they want to use it. |
|
|
65194623 (banned)
Member
2014-Jan-23 10:08 pm
said by TypeS:Rogers likes to keep channel utilization at specific levels, hence why they don't want 8x4 modems on the new Ultimate tier. People like to have a fast speed but they also want available when they want to use it. What a concept.. selling a service and actually making an attempt to deliver the service. |
|
kevinds Premium Member join:2003-05-01 Calgary, AB |
kevinds
Premium Member
2014-Jan-23 10:40 pm
More along the lines of they don't want the nodes under-utilized, keeping them busy all the time |
|
|
65194623 (banned)
Member
2014-Jan-23 10:46 pm
said by kevinds:More along the lines of they don't want the nodes under-utilized, keeping them busy all the time When he said "Rogers likes to keep channel utilization at specific levels" that means having enough capacity for peak hours, not doing so guarantees congestion and customers complaining about not receiving the service they have been sold.. which as it is is already seen enough. |
|
kevinds Premium Member join:2003-05-01 Calgary, AB |
kevinds
Premium Member
2014-Jan-24 3:16 am
Goes both ways though, keeping all channels at a certain utilization, prevents idle nodes, and hopefully prevents congestion...
But Rogers has congestion issues too, I would much rather deal with Shaw then Rogers though. Remember Rogers' packet shaping last year |
|
|
to TypeS
said by TypeS:It's technologically impossible for the SMC to be used on 250Mbps since its theoretical maximum is around 170Mbps. The D3GN2 theoretical max is 320Mbps. My buddy who works for them said their internal documents says that's listed as compatible, but I can only find mention of the D3GN on Shaw's site. Hopefully that means an upgrades coming |
|
kevinds Premium Member join:2003-05-01 Calgary, AB |
kevinds
Premium Member
2014-Jan-24 5:11 am
Tech sheet I had on SMC's modem was 4x4 bonding, 320mbps would be 8x bondng... Wonder if that is what the 2 at the end is for, but Shaw doesn't use that model (SMC D3GN)
Shaw is testing another modem now though, not sure of any of the details, suspect it will be one of the new 24x8 modems though |
|
|
to kevinds
said by kevinds:But Rogers has congestion issues too, I would much rather deal with Shaw then Rogers though. Remember Rogers' packet shaping last year But you don't have much choice unless you move halfway across the country. Rogers claims that they don't do throttling anymore. I rarely run Bittorrent on my local PCs but when I do (for Linux distros, of course) I can get speeds in the several Mbps range. Back in the throttling days you didn't get more than a few kbps. |
|
|
jtl999
Member
2014-Jan-24 1:29 pm
Doesn't Rogers do DPI to interfere with your web browsing? |
|
|
I am confused by your TLA since DPI normally means Dots Per Inch, but I don't think that is what you mean? |
|
(Software) pfSense MikroTik CRS125-24G-1S-RM Ubiquiti UniFi AP-LR
|
jtl999
Member
2014-Jan-24 1:40 pm
Deep Packet Inspection. Rogers does it to insert notices into your web pages. Read about it here. » en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ro ··· _content» www.michaelgeist.ca/cont ··· 083/125/ |
|
|
They defintely inject these usage warnings as I have seen those recently. |
|
|
jtl999
Member
2014-Jan-24 1:52 pm
That's yucky. I think if you switch to Start/Teksavvy you won't get them. My friend had a problem with them interfering with his online gaming. |
|
yyzlhr join:2012-09-03 Scarborough, ON |
yyzlhr
Member
2014-Jan-24 1:56 pm
You can disable them permanently. |
|
|
THey haven't been a problem for me in the past and are less likely now since my limit is supposed to be 1 TB but when I look into my usage on their web page it says that I am unlimited. |
|
|
to yyzlhr
Does the disable work by your modem or cookies? Like does the JavaScript still get injected? |
|
yyzlhr join:2012-09-03 Scarborough, ON |
yyzlhr
Member
2014-Jan-24 3:35 pm
No clue. I haven't tried it. I just see a link that says something along the lines of "click here to disable permanently", but I'm one of the few who actually appreciate the warning so I haven't done it. |
|
|
to kevinds
said by kevinds:Goes both ways though, keeping all channels at a certain utilization, prevents idle nodes, and hopefully prevents congestion... Only in your mind, that doesn't even make sense. Keeping channel utilization too high guarantees congestion. said by kevinds:But Rogers has congestion issues too, I would much rather deal with Shaw then Rogers though. Remember Rogers' packet shaping last year Which I already said. I wouldn't. Shaw is just as bad. It was not last year. |
|
kevinds Premium Member join:2003-05-01 Calgary, AB |
kevinds
Premium Member
2014-Jan-25 12:06 am
said by 65194623:Keeping channel utilization too high guarantees congestion. Agreed |
|
|
65194623 (banned)
Member
2014-Jan-25 12:08 am
said by kevinds:said by 65194623:Keeping channel utilization too high guarantees congestion. Agreed Your previous posts you tried to claim otherwise. |
|
TypeS join:2012-12-17 London, ON |
TypeS
Member
2014-Jan-25 3:20 am
I think what kevinds is trying to point out is that Shaw is trying to strike a higher level of efficiency so that equipment is being used a much as possible.
Though congestion on Rogers is not apparent as he implied either. I don't think there's been a confirmed congested node for some time now on Rogers. Speed issues are typically customer CPE (or Rogers CPE depending) or bad RF signal, or PEBCAK. |
|
|
to wayner92
I have Shaw's 250mbit service in Alberta.
Uptime is great, speed...not as much.
I've never seen my connection break 190Mbit.
I should probably just downgrade to 100mbit...But it only works out to $30 a month for 90mbit more....
The modem/router is great, mind you I use bridge mode (flawlessly). |
|