Got something else to discuss that is not covered by the previous forums? Post it here!
#59650 by cjw7
Sat Jul 10, 2010 7:17 am
now why didn't I think of that?

System Event Log
Index Date/Time ID Level Text
1 07/04/10 20:53:07 T04.0 critical SYNC Timing Synchronization failure - Failed to receive MAC SYNC frame within time-out period
2 07/04/10 20:53:07 T01.0 critical SYNC Timing Synchronization failure - Failed to acquire QAM/QPSK symbol timing
3 07/04/10 20:53:13 T04.0 critical SYNC Timing Synchronization failure - Failed to receive MAC SYNC frame within time-out period
4 07/04/10 20:53:13 T01.0 critical SYNC Timing Synchronization failure - Failed to acquire QAM/QPSK symbol timing
5 07/04/10 20:53:17 T04.0 critical SYNC Timing Synchronization failure - Failed to receive MAC SYNC frame within time-out period
6 07/04/10 20:53:17 T01.0 critical SYNC Timing Synchronization failure - Failed to acquire QAM/QPSK symbol timing
7 07/04/10 20:53:20 T04.0 critical SYNC Timing Synchronization failure - Failed to receive MAC SYNC frame within time-out period
8 07/04/10 20:53:21 T01.0 critical SYNC Timing Synchronization failure - Failed to acquire QAM/QPSK symbol timing
9 07/04/10 20:53:41 T04.0 critical SYNC Timing Synchronization failure - Failed to receive MAC SYNC frame within time-out period
10 07/04/10 20:53:42 T01.0 critical SYNC Timing Synchronization failure - Failed to acquire QAM/QPSK symbol timing
11 07/04/10 20:53:48 T04.0 critical SYNC Timing Synchronization failure - Failed to receive MAC SYNC frame within time-out period
12 07/04/10 20:53:48 T01.0 critical SYNC Timing Synchronization failure - Failed to acquire QAM/QPSK symbol timing
13 07/04/10 20:53:50 T04.0 critical SYNC Timing Synchronization failure - Failed to receive MAC SYNC frame within time-out period
14 07/04/10 20:53:50 T01.0 critical SYNC Timing Synchronization failure - Failed to acquire QAM/QPSK symbol timing
15 07/04/10 20:53:56 T04.0 critical SYNC Timing Synchronization failure - Failed to receive MAC SYNC frame within time-out period
16 07/04/10 20:53:56 T01.0 critical SYNC Timing Synchronization failure - Failed to acquire QAM/QPSK symbol timing
17 07/04/10 20:54:20 T04.0 critical SYNC Timing Synchronization failure - Failed to receive MAC SYNC frame within time-out period
18 07/04/10 20:54:21 T01.0 critical SYNC Timing Synchronization failure - Failed to acquire QAM/QPSK symbol timing
19 07/04/10 20:54:22 T04.0 critical SYNC Timing Synchronization failure - Failed to receive MAC SYNC frame within time-out period
20 07/10/10 07:32:12 R02.0 critical No Ranging Response received - T3 time-out
#59651 by cjw7
Sat Jul 10, 2010 7:22 am
Downstream Signal
Default Downstream Frequency: Hz
Frequency: 729000000 Hz
QAM Mode: 256 QAM
Channel Power: 1.6 dBmV
SNR: 33.497 dB


Upstream Signal
Channel Id: 1
Frequency: 21000000 Hz
Channel Width: 6400000 Hz
Channel Power: 32.0 dBmV


DOCSIS1.1 Quality of Service Parameters
Direction Upstream Downstream
SFID 0xdeb40 0xdeb41
SID 0xc7b N/A
Traffic Priority 1 1
Max Sustained Traffic Rate (bps) 2200000 17600000
Max Transmit Burst (bytes) 10000000 20000000
Min Reserved Traffic Rate (bps) 0 0
Service Flow Scheduling Type Best Effort N/A
#59653 by Groundhound
Sat Jul 10, 2010 7:49 am
Your downstream SNR and upstream power levels are in the lower end of normal range. With Signal to Noise Ratio, the higher the better (mine are usually in the 37-38 range. For upstream power, generally lower is better - up to a point. If you look at the feedback notes for the signal level FAQ at Broadband Reports, http://www.dslreports.com/faq/cabletech/5._Cable_Modems#3412, you'll see that some of the cable experts think that power levels in a QAM 256 system should be higher than yours (I think you have to be a member to see the feedback notes - it's free). Getting Comcast to do anything about it may be an issue though. You could ask them if anything can be done about your SNR levels and get them to send a tech to look at it. They probably won't see anything wrong with your upstream power levels but sometimes when one connection problem gets fixed so do others.
#59654 by murphy
Sat Jul 10, 2010 8:16 am
The thing that jumps out at me is "DOCSIS 1.1 Quality of Service Parameters".
You have a DOCSIS 2.0 modem but Comcast has apparently configured it to run in 1.1 mode.
Comcast is currently phasing out DOCSIS 1.0 modems because their network is being upgraded to DOCSIS 3.0.

It's worth a try asking them why your 2.0 modem is configured to run in 1.1 mode.
#59655 by cjw7
Sat Jul 10, 2010 8:16 am
well that sucks. I guess if comcast doesn't want to or can't do anything, I'm stuck with the bad connections and slow pages. I wish I would have known this before buying the ooma.
#59693 by oom101
Sun Jul 11, 2010 1:05 am
The guy earlier meant set down AND UP QOS to 0. Based on your response, I got the impression that you missed what he was saying. Ooma limits your speed based on the QOS settings if Oooma is between the PC and modem. It reserves speed for itself based on what you say the connection speed is. Surely your up speed does not need limiting. I had that problem. I am running 0 and 0. I like it.
#59700 by cjw7
Sun Jul 11, 2010 7:52 am
it is set at 0 and 0.

I spoke to comcast, and the tech said it may help to update the firmware for the dlink DCM-202 modem. I have been trying to do that and ran into a download problem. It has to be downloaded from the hyperterminal, and I'm following the instructions exactly, but keep getting an error when trying to download.

If anyone is familiar with this and can let me know what the problem may be, please help!
#59701 by murphy
Sun Jul 11, 2010 8:05 am
Cable modems that I am familiar with (Scientific Atlanta and Motorola) can only be updated by the cable company. There is no provision for the user, even if he owns it, to update the firmware. YMMV
#59704 by cjw7
Sun Jul 11, 2010 9:05 am
I used the following link to download the firmware upgrade. I get stuck at the part where it trys to download. It gives me an error.
Also, since the comcast rep suggested I check for firmware upgrades, wouldn't he have told me that only they can do it if that were the case?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests