dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
2956
share rss forum feed

bwash
Premium
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
Premium
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:8

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.)


bwash
Premium
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
Premium
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:8

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.



bluepoint

join:2001-03-24

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
Premium
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:8

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.)



bluepoint

join:2001-03-24

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


jimk
Premium
join:2006-04-15
Raleigh, NC
Reviews:
·Time Warner 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.

bwash
Premium
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
Reviews:
·Time Warner 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...



bluepoint

join:2001-03-24

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



bluepoint

join:2001-03-24

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
Premium
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:8

1 edit
reply to bluepoint

how is a subscriber owned modem distinguished from a TWC modem

TWC flags your modem in their database as "customer owned". They identify individual modems by MAC -- that's how they know which modems to let on the network, and which network to put them in. (i.e. RR, Earthlink, AOL, etc.)

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)


pizz
bye bye twc. hello Comcast.
Premium
join:2000-10-27
Astoria, NY
Reviews:
·Time Warner 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'.



bluepoint

join:2001-03-24
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
Premium
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:8

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.



bluepoint

join:2001-03-24

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.

Do you have a link or evidence that what your saying is TWC's position?
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.

If they don't want to do anything with subs owned modem, allowing subs install the firmware on their own would not be a bad idea provided they provide a secure server that people can get the file and that they have tested the firmware. Either way they will be involved.

cramer
Premium
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:8

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.

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.)


bluepoint

join:2001-03-24

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.

They are all the same hardware from the same manufacturer, no difference in my opinion.

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.

SB6120 isn't an old model that I will not see people complain TWC bricked their modem. You are making it look like TWC bricked many of this modem but I have not seen them here. Do you have a link? Maybe I missed them. I've seen people complain about being locked out of the modem but nothing else?

cramer
Premium
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:8

No, I didn't bookmark them. (3-4years ago?) You seem to be unable to accept what anyone else says anyway, so what's it matter.



swintec
Premium,VIP
join:2003-12-19
Alfred, ME
kudos:5
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·VoicePulse
·Sprint Mobile Br..
·RapidVPS

said by cramer:

No, I didn't bookmark them. (3-4years ago?) You seem to be unable to accept what anyone else says anyway, so what's it matter.

I seem to remember this being a charter problem, not TW...actually made DSL Reports front page.
--
Usenet Block Accounts | Unlimited Accounts

cramer
Premium
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC
kudos:8

I found a single reference about a SB6120 and some Dlink with a few seconds of googling. Not that he'd believe anything off the internet.



bluepoint

join:2001-03-24
reply to cramer

said by cramer:

No, I didn't bookmark them. (3-4years ago?) You seem to be unable to accept what anyone else says anyway, so what's it matter.

What matters is truthfulness. What you read without basis to show for will always not be accepted as fact.

Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
kudos:5
reply to cramer

He IS on Wideband. 20/2 (Turbo) is wideband and requires a DOCSIS 3 modem. It sounds like you think he has Standard at either 10/1 ( in Hawaii that is all islands except Oahu) or 15/1 (standard for Oahu.
--
When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson


Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
kudos:5
reply to bluepoint

I don't recall TWC bricking any 6120 modems but we have not used that one in Hawaii so I suppose it is possible I missed this happening...unlikely though as I read this forum regularly and have since before I joined this site back in 2001.

You guys don't seem to realize that it is RARE for TWC to upgrade the firmware on any of their modems. In the almost 12 years I have had Road Runner, I have seen TWC upgrade the firmware on Surfboards TWO times only. The first time, I was responsible for forcing them to either upgrade the firmware on the SB 4100 due to a security problem or face lawsuits. Since every other cable ISP of reasonable size world wide had, a year or more earlier, upgraded the firmware to fix the security hole EXCEPT TWC which was still on the original factory issued firmware version, TWC didn't have much choice when I challenged them on it. They agreed to push a firmware upgrade across all divisions (not just Hawaii where my complaint started out) and agreed to start keeping timely firmware updates as Comcast and others were already doing.

They pushed the firmware update shortly afterwards. Their excuse for ignoring the security update for so long when other cable companies pushed it as soon as Motorola released it was that they had bricked some modems once with a firmware update...but that was many years ago...*long before the 6120) and a rather feeble excuse since other cable companies had updated the SB 4100 firmware multiple times with no ill effects. The other firmware update pushed by TWC between 2001-2013 was to make my SB 5100 DOCSIS 2 capable.

I got the SB6141 from Oceanic TWC when I upgraded to 20/2 recently. It was a brand new one still shrink wrapped and had notes with it in its factory box. It has the firmware from 2011 that you guys are griping about TWC not updating your personal bought ones that have that firmware. Why would TWC update yours when they have not updated their own? They won't push a firmware update unless absolutely necessary. TWC is notorious for this bad practice and they have not kept up that part of the agreement we reached many years ago.
--
When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. Thomas Jefferson


Fleeced

join:2012-10-06
kudos:2
reply to bwash

20/2 is not "wideband" and does not require a docsis 3 modem. You can theoretically put extreme on a D2 modem if you really wanted to (Though it's not recommended). Accounting for overhead, channel bonding (The Docsis 3 feature) isn't a requirement until you start getting over 30 down.

Having a D3 modem will offer a lot of advantages on the turbo (20/2 speed) but again, is not a requirement in any sort of fashion.



kba4

join:2001-10-23
Canton, OH
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
reply to Mele20

that may be true in your market but in the Midwest Region Turbo is allowed on D2+ modems, I see it all the time. there's plenty of bandwidth for 2Mb/s up on a D2 channel, but of course multiple channels being bonded ensures a more consistent connection, and since there's no powerboost on Turbo (just standard now) there's little reason not to get a D3 modem anyway.
--
I see what you're saying, even though I'm really just listening...



DrDrew
That others may surf
Premium
join:2009-01-28
SoCal
kudos:15

4 edits

1 recommendation

reply to cramer

Click for full size
It wasn't a modem firmware update that caused the problem. It was a CMTS software update to meet updated DOCSIS 3 specs that wasn't compatible with older 6120 firmware, specifically version 1.0.1.8.

The bigger problem was Motorola was still distributing version 1.0.1.8 in it's retail modems several months after the problem came to light (1.0.1.8 was over a year old at that point, the new firmware release on retail after Moto acknowledged the problem was 1.0.3.3). The 1.0.1.8 modems wouldn't sync on CMTSs with the newer software, but the modems weren't bricked. TWC or the other cable companies couldn't update them normally since they wouldn't sync. TWC had updated the 6120 modems on their network before the CMTS update. I'd guess this is why TWC doesn't officially support new customer owned 6120s on their network, since there are still ones with 1.0.1.8 new in the box wandering around. 6121s had newer firmware from the start.

This hit all the MSOs: Charter, Comcast, Cox, BrightHouse, Optimum, and TWC all had threads about the issue here on DSLR:
»[Connectivity] Motorola SB6120 doesn't work with CC-Resolved
»[AZ] SB6120 Provisioning
Many mistakenly thought it was a ISP modem firmware update failure since Motorola never said anything about it publicly. ISPs just had to deal with the fallout and old stock of 6120s ever since. Even Karl misreported it: »Firmware Update Cripples Some Motorola SB6120 DOC 3 Modems

If anything, TWC learned to update customer owned modem firmware more often. As far as I know TWC does update customer modem firmware, when they update other modems of the same make and model. It's can't be requested from customer support, they can't do it, most don't even know how it's done so you get a bunch of odd and wrong answers about it. Modem firmware updates are pushed by an automated process initiated/scheduled by TWCs Engineers.

BTW, the majority of 6120 modems I've seen in my area on TWC are running firmware 1.0.6.3. Retail modems never shipped with that. It was released Aug 2011 by Moto and mid last year by TWC. Motorola has averaged a new firmware for the 6120 every 2-3 months for almost 4 years now, most ISPs are 3-6 months behind at best and none I've seen push every release. The latest I've seen is 1.0.6.10 released Dec 2012.
--
Two is one, one is none. If it's important, back it up... twice. Even 99.999% availability isn't enough sometimes.


bluepoint

join:2001-03-24

1 edit

Good info DrDrew See Profile, thanks.

If anything, TWC learned to update customer owned modem firmware more often. As far as I know TWC does update customer modem firmware, when they update other modems of the same make and model.