I am using a Motorola SB 5100 that was purchased from Rogers about 6 years ago. I don't know what their current policy regarding DOCSIS 2 units. If the current line is that the 5100 is not approved, then why is mine (and probably thousands of others) still working? They are currently supplying a Scientific Atlanta unit as a standalone modem.
The whole Rogers policy about approved modems is pretty sketchy and meaningful answers from Rogers are not forthcoming.
Click on the thumbs up image to like a post or a fellow member of the community.
And don't forget to click Accept as Solution in the Options drop-down menu once you've received the answer you were looking for -- it'll help our community grow stronger!
My SB5100 (also about 6 years old) is working great with Express. However, the modem does not offer DOCSIS 3.0. Rogers says that will not connect a non-DOCSIS 3.0 modem to Extreme or 'higher' packages.
If that is the full list of DOCSIS 3.0 supported modems, then why was told by Rogers Support last night that I could attached a Motorola SB6120 and that it would be supported by Rogers?
This conflicting information makes it very difficult to know what we can (or should) do.
Thanks for the complete listing of supported modems.
It seems to me if my memory serves, that there have been posts in the past from people who could not get Rogers to add a SB 5100 modem that they already owned. Why would that be a problem?
With regard to your reference to removing posts " Going forward, any posts regarding other non-Rogers authorized modems may be removed as they are off-topic since they are not supported.", please do not do that.
This subject is front and centre in these forums and important to many of the forum users. If Rogers starts to censor these posts, that would imply that you just want the subject to go away without actually having to deal with it and resolve it.
You will in effect stifle meaningful discussion on a subject that appears to be the primary interest of users on here. Rogers slow progress in dealing with this issue is the only reason it has become such a hot button issue and the reason posts keep coming on the subject. When Rogers finally offers a new option for customers who have been asking for it, the posts will stop without any censorship required.
It is not right to remove (censor) posts at any time, as long as they are not offensive or obscene, and reasonably on topic. To date, I have not found any that could be classified as any of the above. If you begin censorship of this forum to avoid discussions of outstanding issue, Rogers credibility will drop yet another notch or two.
I was thinking about upgrading my service, started looking into the various DOCSIS 3.0 compatible device options and I'm happy I fell upon this thread.
A few comments and questions:
In regards to the to comment made earlier about "These are the ONLY DOCSIS 2.0 or 3.0 devices that are currently supported"
This comment is interesting as I am currently using an unlisted 2.0 device, and have been for years, without issue. When contacting rogers to authorize this device, both at my past and current residence, this was a non issue, and there was no mention that it "should not work."
Short of some actual technical issue with the device, I was always happy to know that my ISP would authorize any device technically capable of enabling me to use the service.
I enjoy and benefit from the freedom Rogers is providing me with my 2.0 grade service. Should the flexibility of being able to choose what hardware I use for the 3.0 grade service be removed, this will negatively impact my decision on whether or not to upgrade my service.
Although not explicitly stated, the comments made by RogersReggies gives the impression that any non sanctioned 3.0 hardware will not be authorized. Clarification on this point is needed, and would be greatly appreciated.
I have read thru the thread you are refering to on DSLReports. There are indeed a few people who say they have been successful in getting Rogers to add their "non standard" modems and make the addition stick.
Problem is that there are a lot more on there who have experienced nothing but frustrations in their attempts. There seems to be no way in this world to get hold of a specific person at Rogers tech support, namely the person who will add it for you and not rhyme off the company mantra that "it's an unsupported modem".
I think that getting a modem added "through the back door" so to speak, is akin to trying to tie a hair ribbon onto a bolt of lightening. You have two chances.... slim and none.
Here's hoping the info Reggie passed along is accurate and Rogers is actually considering this issue seriously and will add a RELIABLE stand alone DOCSIS 3 unit to the lineup soon.
Last month I upgraded my modem from sb5100 to Rogers SMCD3GN, and upgraded my package from extreme to extreme plus. From day one, I had problem with this modem, I never got the download speed that I had under Extreme, after 8 technical calls, three live chat with tech, 3 techs visiting my home, modem replaced by 3 new one,(no change). Rogers, technicals, cant find the problem with my slow speed. They come here in my house, they by-pass my equip, they use their own tech tablet to go on line direct connection to the docsis 3, same problem, they just cant find the problem. I have sent a registered letter to the office of the president, 2 faxes, and I am still waiting for a reply by sommeone. Now, I am thinking of going back to my old sb5100 and downgrade my package to Extreme or Express, I never got higher than 15-16Mbps. At night it slows down to 5-6Mbps, That is using ROGERS SPEEDTEST SITE, If I use a third party test site , i get better speed. Why is that. Even, ROGERS, techs when they visit my home they always use a third party test site, instead of their own, you guessed it, it is faster than Rogers test site. Why, do the techs dont trust the Rogers speedtest site, they prefer another site, and then they can tell you, your speed is not too bad., but we cant locate the problem. Anyone has the same problem??
New! Introducing a new feature: groups. Read more.