Topic 'Re: Quantum Gateway Router' in forum 'Verizon FiOS' - dslreports.com

Re: Quantum Gateway Router

Mon, 11 Apr 2016 14:27:55 EDT

dsl_sutra posted : I get that - but how secure is the guest wi-fi, assuming wpa-2 security? In other words, if I can't trust the "guest" 100% how much of a potential security vulnerability is it to allow them to access internet via the guest network? I want to keep my private LAN private.

Re: Quantum Gateway Router

Mon, 11 Apr 2016 14:16:47 EDT

Branch posted : It prevents them from seeing anything on your main network
--
-Branch
:)

Re: Quantum Gateway Router

Mon, 11 Apr 2016 13:54:01 EDT

dsl_sutra posted : How secure is the QGR guest network? I'll be giving access to some people that I can't trust 100%, with frequent password changes. Security set to WPA-2 and I don't want them to have access to my private LAN, or be able to hack into it.

I'll likely be getting a hardware firewall with two subnets set up - but curious how secure the guest wi-fi is.

Re: Quantum Gateway Router

Tue, 05 Jan 2016 22:49:39 EDT

dsl_sutra posted : Not an answer to your question but use WPA-2 security for both bands. Avoid the mixed WPA / WPA-2 mode if at all possible. I don't think you need to change the defaults - but I'm not sure which defaults you're referring to.

Re: Quantum Gateway Router

Tue, 05 Jan 2016 18:28:29 EDT

anon posted : I just received the Quantum router. Do I have to change the default settings in order for my wifi to take advantage of the new band and speeds?

Re: Quantum Gateway Router

Tue, 29 Dec 2015 13:52:48 EDT

dsl_sutra posted : Thanks, that makes sense.

Re: Quantum Gateway Router

Tue, 29 Dec 2015 13:35:14 EDT

More Fiber posted : Nope. You can save the config file, but it is encrypted and keyed to a specific router.

Re: Quantum Gateway Router

Tue, 29 Dec 2015 13:27:52 EDT

dsl_sutra posted : Is there a way to export and import settings from the old Actiontec to QGR? Thanks!

Re: Quantum Gateway Router

Mon, 28 Dec 2015 19:39:29 EDT

Branch posted : Yes, keep the Quantum Gateway. WAY better.
--
-Branch
:)

Re: Quantum Gateway Router

Mon, 28 Dec 2015 18:55:23 EDT

gs0b posted : Another vote for the Quantum router.

Even if you don't use the 5Ghz band, it's 802.11n is faster than the Actiontec.

For me, 2.4GHz range is about the same as the Actiontec, but having 802.11ac speeds, a 5Ghz band, guest WiFi, better parental controls and the ability to control it from an app made it a worthwhile upgrade. 5GHz range is, of course, much less than 2.4GHz range. But it's faster. :-)

Note that you are in a great position as you have both units in your home. You can swap them at will to see which you like better. Just remember to release the WAN DHCP lease before swamping, and you can go back and forth as often as you want.

Good Luck!

Re: Quantum Gateway Router

Mon, 28 Dec 2015 16:24:01 EDT

webcobbler posted : dsl_sutra,

I concur with PJL. Keep the Greenwave Router.

Re: Quantum Gateway Router

Mon, 28 Dec 2015 12:31:21 EDT

PJL posted :

said by dsl_sutra:

I just "upgraded" from 25/15 to 25/25 and reduced the monthly cost from $68 to $45 (with 2 year contract). It wasn't mentioned when I spoke with Verizon, but they sent me a Quantum Gateway Router for no charge. I called Verizon to confirm and likely an error. My current Actiontec (a newer revision, about a year old) is working fine, no problems. They will want one of the routers returned and don't care which one.

Do you recommend that I box up the QGR and send it back to Verizon? The only feature that I could use is the guest network, but am concerned about other issues and problems with the QGR mentioned in this thread and on the Amazon reviews for QGR.

My experience is that the QGR is superior to prior FiOS routers, and having the 5 GHz band is a real plus.

Re: Quantum Gateway Router

Mon, 28 Dec 2015 11:55:42 EDT

dsl_sutra posted : I just "upgraded" from 25/15 to 25/25 and reduced the monthly cost from $68 to $45 (with 2 year contract). It wasn't mentioned when I spoke with Verizon, but they sent me a Quantum Gateway Router for no charge. I called Verizon to confirm and likely an error. My current Actiontec (a newer revision, about a year old) is working fine, no problems. They will want one of the routers returned and don't care which one.

Do you recommend that I box up the QGR and send it back to Verizon? The only feature that I could use is the guest network, but am concerned about other issues and problems with the QGR mentioned in this thread and on the Amazon reviews for QGR.

Re: Quantum Gateway Router

Thu, 01 Oct 2015 16:33:58 EDT

HBgtNJ4FOS posted :

said by fcfc2:

Hi,
I am not using the G1100 right now, but memory tells me it was very similar to the Actiontec's.
»Verizon FiOS FAQ »How do I release my DHCP lease? Why would I need to?

Ah, thanks. Didn't snake it all the way through!

Re: Quantum Gateway Router

Thu, 01 Oct 2015 16:11:31 EDT

fcfc2 posted : Hi,
I am not using the G1100 right now, but memory tells me it was very similar to the Actiontec's.
»Verizon FiOS FAQ »How do I release my DHCP lease? Why would I need to?

Re: Quantum Gateway Router

Thu, 01 Oct 2015 14:10:30 EDT

HBgtNJ4FOS posted :

said by fcfc2:

Just go in and release the ip on the G1100 and immediately shut it down.

How do you do this on the G1100? I can't see how from the GUI Web interface?

Re: Quantum Gateway Router

Sun, 30 Aug 2015 17:48:30 EDT

fcfc2 posted : Hi again, MoCa doesn't matter for you right now.
Trial and error is your best answer for the G speed. Just go in and release the ip on the G1100 and immediately shut it down. Connect your Rev D and power it up. Do some testing, if you are satisfied with the results you have your answer. A value purchase and step up for you would be one of those $50 Rev I's, and it will give you gigabit ethernet. A step up in wifi and wired potential. If you can get ethernet to the ONT, you can use any router you want, you don't need to use Verizon's router at all, unless you have their Tv package.

Re: Quantum Gateway Router

Sun, 30 Aug 2015 14:52:08 EDT

guraaf posted : Thanks fcfc2. Very useful. Since, I don't have other MoCA devices, 2.0 vs. 1.0 doesn't matter to me, correct?

Also, is G-speed enough for WiFi or do I need (would benefit?) from Dual-band n-wireless? I can't tell that. As far as I see this is the only possible benefit of paying $10 per month and I can't decide whethern "ac" speeds are worth it.

Re: Quantum Gateway Router

Sun, 30 Aug 2015 14:13:04 EDT

fcfc2 posted : Hi,
On the G1100 vs your Rev D, you get dual band n-AC wireless. The rev D is only G speed on wifi. It is also only MoCA 1.0 and the G1100 is MoCA 2.0. I have not confirmed this, but supposedly MoCA 2.0 is not compatible with MoCA 1.0 devices. The G1100 also has gigabit ethernet vs 10/100 on the older routers. A cheaper option is the Rev I which on Ebay goes for about $50. The Rev I is a single band N rated device with gigabit ethernet ports. They also sell the Rev I new in the Fios Equipment and Accessory Store for $75 plus shipping and tax.
The Rev I is MoCA 1.1 which is compatible with all older Actiontec's Rev E and before.
PS if you are going to use ethernet to bridge your units, the MoCA is of no import....

Re: Quantum Gateway Router

Sun, 30 Aug 2015 13:01:48 EDT

guraaf posted : Hello all,

I got Verizon FiOS 25/25 service in Dallas area yesterday. The technician installed the FiOS G-1100 router for me and I will be paying $10 per month rental for it. I already have an older Actiontec MI424WR Rev-D router with me that is owned (bought off ebay a few years back when I lived elsewhere). Question is - should I keep the G1100 and pay the $10 monthly or return that and use my Actiontec?

The Actiontec is a good 6 years old so I am wondering what do I gain with the new router? I have a few devices like 2 laptops, iPad, two smartphones etc. that will use the WiFi. We do not have any STB or video service with Verizon though. Only Internet. Our house is reasonably large and if I don't get WiFi around the house then I am thinking I can perhaps make a Ethernet-WiFi bridge using another older Westell router lying around. I do have Ethernet CAT-5 internal wiring and jacks around the house so can perhaps place this bridge in the room with poor reception.

Any thoughts or tips greatly appreciated.

Re: Quantum Gateway Router

Sat, 22 Aug 2015 14:51:44 EDT

RolteC posted : The firmware I just received is 0.17.52
The wireless, specifically 2.4Ghz, has been dropping to sub 3Mbit/sec every few days. Signal levels perfect and nothing changed to cause interference. AC is fine.

Changing channels works but again 2 days later, the same happened with the next channel. This was not the same until I switched to the G1100.

Is the issue firmware? What firmware are they up to? I also have the G1100 connected via a LAN port with DHCP endisabled as to keep the Acriontec primary in its secluded place. Any ideas please? How do I get the firmware graded is that could be the issue?

Re: Quantum Gateway Router G1100 unknown mysterious Ethernet hosts

Sun, 02 Aug 2015 18:17:46 EDT

birdfeedr posted : The addresses in the .100 range are STBs of some sort. It is common enough from what I've seen in the past that an STB will go dormant or glitch out then wake up and pull another address. During the STB/router connection negotiation, some mechanism establishes port forwards for Caller ID and Remote DVR access. I saw a post elsewhere from 2010 that said to boot the DVR first before the router, but that was a long time ago in firmware revisions.

I still recommend booting the router first, connecting the coax with all STBs powered off with cords removed from power outlet. Go one at a time. DVR (or quantum gateway) first. When all is settled down, power up a STB (or IPC). When that is settled down, power up the last one.

I think your port forward screen shot shows glitched out connections. Actiontec always had a very persistent connection list whether active or not. G1100 is probably no different.

Re: Quantum Gateway Router G1100 unknown mysterious Ethernet hosts

Sun, 02 Aug 2015 17:35:26 EDT

birdfeedr posted : Did you boot system up like I suggested with a clean system start? STBs off, coax connected?
Describe your network devices, i.e. ONT (coax) G1100 router. Anything else like MoCA extenders?
Describe your STBs and other devices connected to coax. I'm thinking model numbers might be helpful. How about the MAC IDs you see on your network. Ok, so the first three octets. Are all of them like the one you posted 00-00-01?
Give it some time between connecting coax and STBs. It's possible the router establishes a connection for purposes of firmware upgrade.

I can't answer your questions directly, but gave you an approach for self-troubleshooting. I don't use a VZ router or have STBs

Re: Quantum Gateway Router G1100 unknown mysterious Ethernet hosts

Sun, 02 Aug 2015 17:26:07 EDT

MisterSoBig1 posted :

said by birdfeedr:

1. They pop up with addresses in the .100 series, in spite of your starting address of .2

**** Agreed and noticed that as well. Clearly, Verizon's hardware is grabbing their own range, regardless of defined DHCP Pool.

said by birdfeedr:

2. They are labeled static lease, also known as DHCP reservation.

**** Understood that .. but, as mentioned, the Static IPs on the questionable Ethernet entries are NOT the same as the IPs assigned to the STBs in the screenshot.

said by birdfeedr:

3. Potential for multiple MAC addresses for a single device. Can't tell for certain since you've obscured MAC.

***** I believe that I left the last portion of the MAC visible. Other than that value, the prior portion IS indeed the same. The MAC, while changing the last portion, retained the same IP, as shown in the screenshot as well.

said by birdfeedr:

4. They only show up when you connect the coax.

**** Correct.

Re: Quantum Gateway Router G1100 unknown mysterious Ethernet hosts

Sun, 02 Aug 2015 16:41:15 EDT

MisterSoBig1 posted :

said by birdfeedr:

Those mysterious device addresses are your STBs. You don't identify what you have, but I've seen elsewhere that Cisco boxes pull two addresses per box. Also, once a device is listed, it may become inactive before it drops from the list.
....
Again, they are your STBs connected to the coax MoCA LAN.

My 3 Coax STBs are shown in the screenshots above - here's the link again:
»/speak ··· J0PTYzMA

As you can see, the Ethernet addresses I am questioning end in .100 and .101 .. while the STBs are .102-.104. Hence, my question still remains.

Re: Quantum Gateway Router G1100 unknown mysterious Ethernet hosts

Sun, 02 Aug 2015 09:53:27 EDT

gs0b posted :

said by birdfeedr:

Those mysterious device addresses are your STBs. You don't identify what you have, but I've seen elsewhere that Cisco boxes pull two addresses per box.

I have Cisco boxes and can confirm they pull two IP addresses per box. They start at 192.168.1.100 and go up from there. They show up as "dynamic" in the "DHCP Connections" table on my Quantum router. I just ignore them.

Enjoy.

Re: Quantum Gateway Router G1100 unknown mysterious Ethernet hosts

Sun, 02 Aug 2015 05:05:34 EDT

birdfeedr posted : Some clues:
1. They pop up with addresses in the .100 series, in spite of your starting address of .2
2. They are labeled static lease, also known as DHCP reservation.
3. Potential for multiple MAC addresses for a single device. Can't tell for certain since you've obscured MAC.
4. They only show up when you connect the coax.

Those mysterious device addresses are your STBs. You don't identify what you have, but I've seen elsewhere that Cisco boxes pull two addresses per box. Also, once a device is listed, it may become inactive before it drops from the list.

If you want to see what's really on your network in this scenario, i.e. PC plus coax connected, unplug power from all STBs. That is the only way they really get shut down. Hard reset router to clear all old connection references. Start up router like you've done before, connect PC, configure wireless and etc. Then when you connect coax with the STBs powered down, nothing will show up additional. Then power up the STBs one at a time. Give each one time to boot and establish the addresses and port forwards/triggers. This is how the TV system works.

Again, they are your STBs connected to the coax MoCA LAN.

Re: Quantum Gateway Router

Sat, 01 Aug 2015 23:15:14 EDT

overhear7 posted : I just ordered FIOS internet-only service and am having trouble bringing myself to spend $199 on the Quantum Gateway. There's a $159 offer on Amazon, but only with standard shipping and I'd like the modem in time for my installation date (Aug. 6). Does anyone have thoughts on buying one off ebay? Prices range from $129+$10 shipping and the sellers have decent ratings.

I'm also curious: Where do these cut-rate Amazon and Ebay sellers get the routers? Are the routers counterfeit or stolen?

Re: Quantum Gateway Router G1100 unknown mysterious Ethernet hosts

Sat, 01 Aug 2015 22:15:00 EDT

MisterSoBig1 posted :

said by dfwguy:

What are the full MAC addresses?

------------------------------------

Great question .. and I already looked up the OUI.

The first six characters are 00:00:01 - Xerox Corp?!
»aruljohn.com/mac/000001

Re: Quantum Gateway Router G1100 unknown mysterious Ethernet hosts

Sat, 01 Aug 2015 20:20:45 EDT

dfwguy posted : What are the full MAC addresses?

Re: Quantum Gateway Router G1100 unknown mysterious Ethernet hosts

Sat, 01 Aug 2015 19:52:36 EDT

PJL posted : I think GreenWave is part of Verizon's monitoring/management. They list Verizon as a partner.

re: Quantum Gateway Router G1100 unknown mysterious Ethernet hosts

Sat, 01 Aug 2015 19:25:52 EDT

anon posted : Thanks for the feedback, however, that does not answer my core concern. What are the Ethernet static connections, as shown on the My Network page and elsewhere in the router UI? There are NO hard-wired connections to the router. These bizarre connections only showed up after I connected Coax. In other words, I purposefully configured my wireless devices *prior to* connecting Coax, while monitoring the router with each and every step.

Regarding TR69, I had previously read about it on Wikipedia: »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TR-069

I also contacted GreenWave via their website, to ask this question which stumped Verizon as well. »www.greenwavesystems.com

Re: re: Quantum Gateway Router G1100 unknown Ethernet hosts connected

Sat, 01 Aug 2015 05:47:32 EDT

birdfeedr posted : TR-069 is VZ management system. When you call FSC and they diagnose your router, they are able to look under the hood through TR69 protocol. As you've discovered, not everyone knows what they're looking at.

When you connect coax, and the STBs show up, they are connecting through the coax. You'll hear that referred to as MoCA, a ethernet protocol developed by Multimedia over Coax Alliance.

So here's my question: did the new router solve your wireless disconnects? If that's the case, then the old one was not adequate. Now you just have to figure if you want to buy outright or pay monthly.

Monthly -- they fix forever. Outright -- 1 year warranty. VZ is really pushing those routers. Quantum is their way of saying "pay more".

Re: Quantum Gateway Router

Fri, 31 Jul 2015 20:55:44 EDT

anon posted : July 2015 - Verizon was unable to troubleshoot my MI242 router and sent me a replacement. A refurb G1100 shows up at my door and, so, I plug it in and start using it. A week later, my monthly Verizon FiOS bill arrives and the cost has risen. Inspecting my bill, I find a $9.99 line item for the Gateway Quantum Router. I was neither informed of this financial change to my FiOS plan nor did I consent to it. I called Verizon Customer Service who informed me that (1) the new router incurs a $9.99 per month charge ... or I could simply buy it outright for $199 immediately. After explaining that I did not consent to the charges, I asked what the G1100 router would provide me over my prior MI424, since I already had 25/25 connectivity. The rep said, "umm, I guess no advantage". The rep further explained that I did NOT have "Quantum" service, or that would have incurred an *additional* $9.99 on top of the router surcharge! I wonder how many other customers are being duped by Verizon in this manner? I was told this G1100 router was a replacement, due to the troublesome issues experienced by by MI424 such as randomly dropping all wiresless devices, all the time - especially when an inbound call was received (no, the phones are not wireless).

re: Quantum Gateway Router G1100 unknown Ethernet hosts connected

Fri, 31 Jul 2015 20:49:15 EDT

anon posted : 2015-July: I had an older (non-Gateway) router which started dropping wireless endpoints throughout the day. I contacted Verizon FiOS support who, after performing 30 minutes of "troubleshooting" (factory reset, yada yada), decided to replace it. They said I would receive a new Gateway router. However, they conveniently didn't say it would incur a monthly fee of 9.99 .. but that is a different story.

The replacement router arrived in 2 business days. I initially plugged in the power but purposefully left the Coax disconnected. Upon my DHCP laptop connecting wirelessly, I opened the router's UI and all looked well. I configured the 2.4GHz and 5GHz ESSIDs, with unique suffixes, and noted that the Guest Wi-Fi feature was not yet available .. presumably due to the Coax being unplugged.

Upon connecting the Coax, the strangest thing occurred a few minutes afterwards .. and despite having NO hard-wired connections into the router: I suddenly had 2 Ethernet hosts with Static IPs who also had Port Forwarding engaged as "TR69_0" and "TR69_1".

When I called Verizon Technical Support, they were 100% clueless. They transferred me to 4 different people, including "Premium Support" who wanted to CHARGE ME to troubleshoot their own lack of technical savvy. Of course, I declined and got transferred again. After a barrage of nonsensical suggestions, such as "clear my browser cookies" (really, Verizon?!), as well as another Factory Reset, they concluded that the router was bad and offered to send me a new one. This time, the replacement router arrived after 5 business days .. and the shipping box was marked "R" in a circle - meaning REFURBISHED.

After plugging in the router's power, and followed the exact same scenario as with the initial router, all seemed well. That is, until I connected the Coax .. then all of the Ethernet activity started again.

I will attach a few screenshots here. Aside from contacting the manufacturer, who is NOT Actiontec, can anyone offer some insight into this bizarre happenstance? I am thinking that the router's software is not appropriately discerning the connection information for whatever activity is occurring. As the screenshots show, I have 3 STBs on Coax and one PC at the time the screen captures were collected. NO Ethernet cables whatsoever in the router .. so why the Ethernet activity? Regarding the TFTP Port Triggering, I believe this is leveraged by Verizon, to push Router and STB firmware changes, etc. Yet, this still does not explain the Ethernet connections.

Ethernet Ghosts
Ethernet Host
Ethernet Ports Empty
STBs Set-top Boxes
Static NATs
Port Triggering TFTP
Port Forwarding
GreenWaveReality SSL

Re: Quantum Gateway Router

Fri, 15 May 2015 18:01:23 EDT

anon posted : (Sorry I posted in another thread earlier. You guys seem more on topic.)

Has anybody tried using an Actiontec Rev I as the primary router and a Quantum router as an Ethernet bridge? The FAQ for setting up a coax to Ethernet bridge is great in detail.

The problem is that the Actiontec loses connectivity to the Internet once the Quantum is powered on. Once the Quantum is powered off, connectivity is normal.

Is there an extra step that needs to be done somewhere?

Or is setting up this kind of bridge requires the Quantum as primary because of some MOCA v1.1 vs. v2.0 issue?

I don't have Quantum DVRs or STBs.

The reason that I would like the Actiontec to remain as the primary router is that its setup is complicated and would be easier to remain in place instead of being migrated over to the Quantum. Plus the Quantum has all these problems, maybe when the firmware is stable enough I will make it the primary router.

Thanks.

Re: Quantum Gateway Router

Sun, 10 May 2015 22:22:56 EDT

softprac posted : Is anyone else experiencing wifi problems recently? Internet sites would become unresponsive and I cant access the router page. But its fine through a wired connection. It would correct itself after 10 minutes or so but its annoying.

I am thinking of just setting up this router as pure bridge mode if it keeps acting up.

Re: sick to death of "wifi"

Sun, 10 May 2015 11:48:57 EDT

dennismurphy posted :

said by swwang:

No effect that I can tell, the user interface is changed. The primary was automatically updated and the other two G1000 extenders were not and the system ran fine. I noticed the update on the primary and decided to update the other two.. I shouldn't have...

This was a push, not a pull, so I didn't have a choice in the matter.

If it stops my random-lockup problem, that's progress.

If it fixes the DNS server such that it serves up the ".home" DNS zone, even better. That functionality still seems busted... worked fine on the Actiontec.

Re: sick to death of "wifi"

Sun, 10 May 2015 11:38:37 EDT

swwang posted : No effect that I can tell, the user interface is changed. The primary was automatically updated and the other two G1000 extenders were not and the system ran fine. I noticed the update on the primary and decided to update the other two.. I shouldn't have...

Scott

Re: sick to death of "wifi"

Sun, 10 May 2015 10:27:30 EDT

Branch posted : I have not noticed slower speeds on the actual router. If anything, it's faster.
--
-BranchS
:)

Re: sick to death of "wifi"

Sun, 10 May 2015 10:08:34 EDT

fcfc2 posted :

said by swwang:

Hi fcfc2 and others who may be using multiple G1000 as MoCA 2.0 network extenders. Don't upgrade to the ew firmware version 0.26.42; UI version v1.0.149 on your G1000 MoCA extenders. I found out the WiFi upload speed problem has returned to this version!! This was my original problem in a different post a while back.
Wired ports are working fine, it's just WiFi upload speed went down to 1Mbps on a 150/150 set up.

Be forewarned.

Scott

Thanks Scott, does this have any effect on your primary as BranchS has suggested?

Re: sick to death of "wifi"

Sun, 10 May 2015 09:39:39 EDT

Branch posted :

said by dennismurphy:

New firmware version 0.26.42; UI version v1.0.149.

I see this as well on my gateway.
--
-BranchS
:)

Re: sick to death of "wifi"

Sun, 10 May 2015 09:36:36 EDT

swwang posted : Hi fcfc2 and others who may be using multiple G1000 as MoCA 2.0 network extenders. Don't upgrade to the ew firmware version 0.26.42; UI version v1.0.149 on your G1000 MoCA extenders. I found out the WiFi upload speed problem has returned to this version!! This was my original problem in a different post a while back.
Wired ports are working fine, it's just WiFi upload speed went down to 1Mbps on a 150/150 set up.

Be forewarned.

Scott

Re: sick to death of "wifi"

Sun, 10 May 2015 08:49:38 EDT

fcfc2 posted :

said by Joe Beets :

Most people think that putting different access points on different channels is a good idea. Quite the opposite is true because of the radios used in most wifi chips. If two access points are within RF range of each other, they should be on the SAME channel because the "zero-IF" radios used in most wifi parts don't have sufficient selectivity to avoid the "noisy neighbor problem" (adjacent channel interference). If they are on the same channel, then the wifi MAC algorithms have a much better chance of stabilizing the common channel than if they are on different channels.

Hi,
I have read numerous recommendations regarding setting up AP's with a primary router and this is the first time I have ever read a suggestion that using the same channel on both as the prefered setup. The usual reasoning is that by doing so actually causes interference with each other resulting in reduced throughput. Could you point me to any resourses that support this line of thinking? Please and thank you.

Re: Quantum Gateway Router

Sun, 10 May 2015 06:53:31 EDT

Branch posted : Can anyone vz contact (vzkid, nycdave, etc.) confirm what's included with this update?
--
-BranchS
:)

Re: Quantum Gateway Router

Sun, 10 May 2015 00:04:30 EDT

dennismurphy posted : Maybe it's just me, but looks like I'm in the middle of a firmware push on the G1100.

New firmware version 0.26.42; UI version v1.0.149.

No idea what's new, but given that I was in the middle of configuration a cloud server, this was a REALLY bad time to drop my connection... grrrr... :)

Re: sick to death of "wifi"

Sat, 09 May 2015 20:31:55 EDT

anon posted : ya need to be more specific. there is a huge dynamic range of performance in the various forms of "wifi" these days. and to confuse matters further, there is an equally large variance in the RF performance of various wifi chipsets that have nothing to do with the wifi air interface. Then there's the problem of engineering wifi networks. Most people think that putting different access points on different channels is a good idea. Quite the opposite is true because of the radios used in most wifi chips. If two access points are within RF range of each other, they should be on the SAME channel because the "zero-IF" radios used in most wifi parts don't have sufficient selectivity to avoid the "noisy neighbor problem" (adjacent channel interference). If they are on the same channel, then the wifi MAC algorithms have a much better chance of stabilizing the common channel than if they are on different channels.

Re: Quantum Gateway Router

Fri, 08 May 2015 21:19:06 EDT

dennismurphy posted : The craptastic router locked up again. While I was on the other side of the country. Preventing me from VPNing to my NAS.

Going to work on Option 8 tonight.

Re: Quantum Gateway Router

Fri, 08 May 2015 17:16:19 EDT

tmc8080 posted : figured as much.. the cost savings will probably go to a router & a cablemodem -- no biggie
owning the equipment is a sign of the times: greed by cableco and telco alike if that's not collusion I dont' know what is... as if the profit margins aren't big enough

Topic 'Re: Quantum Gateway Router' in forum 'Verizon FiOS' - dslreports.com

Re: Quantum Gateway Router

Re: Quantum Gateway Router

Re: Quantum Gateway Router

Re: Quantum Gateway Router

Re: Quantum Gateway Router

Re: Quantum Gateway Router

Re: Quantum Gateway Router

Re: Quantum Gateway Router

Re: Quantum Gateway Router

Re: Quantum Gateway Router

Re: Quantum Gateway Router

Re: Quantum Gateway Router

Re: Quantum Gateway Router

Re: Quantum Gateway Router

Re: Quantum Gateway Router

Re: Quantum Gateway Router

Re: Quantum Gateway Router

Re: Quantum Gateway Router

Re: Quantum Gateway Router

Re: Quantum Gateway Router

Re: Quantum Gateway Router

Re: Quantum Gateway Router G1100 unknown mysterious Ethernet hosts

Re: Quantum Gateway Router G1100 unknown mysterious Ethernet hosts

Re: Quantum Gateway Router G1100 unknown mysterious Ethernet hosts

Re: Quantum Gateway Router G1100 unknown mysterious Ethernet hosts

Re: Quantum Gateway Router G1100 unknown mysterious Ethernet hosts

Re: Quantum Gateway Router G1100 unknown mysterious Ethernet hosts

Re: Quantum Gateway Router

Re: Quantum Gateway Router G1100 unknown mysterious Ethernet hosts

Re: Quantum Gateway Router G1100 unknown mysterious Ethernet hosts

Re: Quantum Gateway Router G1100 unknown mysterious Ethernet hosts

re: Quantum Gateway Router G1100 unknown mysterious Ethernet hosts

Re: re: Quantum Gateway Router G1100 unknown Ethernet hosts connected

Re: Quantum Gateway Router

re: Quantum Gateway Router G1100 unknown Ethernet hosts connected

Re: Quantum Gateway Router

Re: Quantum Gateway Router

Re: sick to death of &quot;wifi&quot;

Re: sick to death of &quot;wifi&quot;

Re: sick to death of &quot;wifi&quot;

Re: sick to death of &quot;wifi&quot;

Re: sick to death of &quot;wifi&quot;

Re: sick to death of &quot;wifi&quot;

Re: sick to death of &quot;wifi&quot;

Re: Quantum Gateway Router

Re: Quantum Gateway Router

Re: sick to death of &quot;wifi&quot;

Re: Quantum Gateway Router

Re: Quantum Gateway Router

Re: sick to death of "wifi"

Re: sick to death of "wifi"

Re: sick to death of "wifi"

Re: sick to death of "wifi"

Re: sick to death of "wifi"

Re: sick to death of "wifi"

Re: sick to death of "wifi"

Re: sick to death of "wifi"