cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Technical reasons to move to the new CGN3ACR

Datalink
Resident Expert
Resident Expert

Ok, now for a little technical info that might help.  

First and foremost the CGN3ACR has been accessed by using 192.168.100.1 when the modem is operating in Bridge mode.  So, it is possible in that case to access the DOCSIS WAN signal level and signal to noise ratio data, which is useful for troubleshooting problems.  The CGN3 no longer has that capability as of the firmware update issued in Dec 2014.  Hopefully it will return in a future firmware version.  

It is possible apparently, to mix and match the two modems between the previous Hybrid plans and the new plans.  The CGN3 will work and is accepted for use on the new plans.  The CGN3ACR will work on the Hybrid plans, and after reading through this post, some people may decide to go that route to solve some of the problems with the CGN3.  

The cost to rent the CGN3 under the Hybrid plan is $12.00.
The cost to rent the CGN3ACR under the Hybrid plan is apparently $14.00.

Looking at the Wifi Alliance site, there is a CGN3 and CGNV4 listed. Looking at the U.S. FCC site, there are a number of CGN modems listed, which I have not had time to review yet.  I suspect, given that there is only one CGNV4 shown at the Wifi Alliance site, that the FCC CGNXX submissions are all variations on a theme, so, for example for Rogers, the V4 modem is called the CNG3ACR (FCC ID ??), at Shaw, it appears that its titled the CGNM-2250 (FCC ID: CGNM ?).

The  Industry Canada database contains the following CGNxxx devices:

Model              Certification Number     Approval Date
CGN-RES       10778A-CGN                2013-04-18
CGN2              10778A-CGN2ROG     2013-01-16
CGN2-ROG    10778A-CGN2ROG      2013-09-25
CGN3             10778A-CGN31A          2013-07-17
CGNM            10778A-CGNM             2014-06-12
CGNM-2250   10778A-CGNM             2014-09-10  

So, looking at all of the available sources it would appear that the Rogers CGN3ACR is the most likely the CGNM as listed by Industry Canada, and the Shaw CGNM-2250 is most likely the CGNM-2250 as listed by Industry Canada.  

If anyone is interested in looking at the details, you can run a search at:

http://www.ic.gc.ca/app/sitt/reltel/srch/nwRdSrch.do?lang=eng

Enter Hitron Technologies in the Company name window and CGN in the Model window.

What all of this points to is that there is only one developed model of the CGNV4, and that the wifi alliance certification is most likely applicable to both Rogers and Shaw versions of the modem.

If that is the case, then it appears that there are a couple of very good reasons why some people might, or should be interested.  One is the appearance of 802.11ac on the modem, so for those individuals who might have 802.11ac devices and didn't want to go out and buy a router to support it, switching to this modem should yield higher data rates to those devices.

For anyone who absolutely depends on running a 2.4 Ghz wifi network, the CGNV4 has been tested and certified for 40 Mhz operation on 2.4 Ghz networks with "coexistence mechanisms".  What that means is that anyone who owns a mixed variety of devices, laptops, tablets, USB wifi dongles etc should now see the maximum data rates for all of those devices when they are all running simultaneously on the network.  The CGN3 is known to have problems with mixed device capabilities and it will restrict both, the number of data streams in use and the co-channel bonding required for 40 Mhz wide channel operation.  That restriction limits all device data rates to the rate of the slowest device on the network.  That can be easily seen if you use a USB Wifi dongle in a mixed network.  Low cost dongles can or will be single channel only with limited data rates, as opposed to dual antenna, dual data stream laptops, capable of running at much higher data rates.  This has yet to be proven explicitly with this modem as of yet, but, for anyone who recognizes that they are in this particular situation, exchanging the current CGN3 for the CGN3ACR would be a very interesting test.  If anyone does this, please post your results.

Finally the CGNV4 is shown as supporting concurrent operation of both 2.4 and 5 Ghz networks whereas the CGN3 certificate does not show that.  So, if you use both networks simultaneously and you have had trouble with the modem, perhaps this AC version modem will solve those problems.  Again, if anyone does trade in for this purpose, please post your results.  

Here are the Hitron certification results from the Wifi Alliance web site for anyone interested.  If you read through these, and then read through the certification for an Asus or Netgear router for example, you would see how very simple these modems are in comparison.  There is more data on the certificates, but I've listed the main parts from the certificates.


https://www.wi-fi.org/product-finder-results?keywords=hitron&op=Search&form_build_id=form-HtKnxrPbEd...


CGNV4

Date of Last Certification January 27, 2014

Wi-Fi CERTIFIED™ n
2.4 GHz, 5 GHz - Concurrent
Tx 3 tested Spatial Streams 2.4 GHz
Rx 3 tested Spatial Streams 2.4 GHz
Tx 3 tested Spatial Streams 5 GHz
Rx 3 tested Spatial Streams 5 GHz
Short Guard Interval
TX A-MPDU
40 MHz operation in 2.4 GHz, with coexistence mechanisms
40 MHz operation in 5 GHz
RIFS Test

Wi-Fi CERTIFIED™ ac
Tx 3 tested Spatial Streams 5 GHz
Rx 3 tested Spatial Streams 5 GHz



CGN3-ROG

Date of Last Certification September 05, 2013

Frequency Bands: 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz - Switchable

2.4 GHz, 5 GHz - Switchable
Tx 3 tested Spatial Streams 2.4 GHz
Rx 3 tested Spatial Streams 2.4 GHz
Tx 3 tested Spatial Streams 5 GHz
Rx 3 tested Spatial Streams 5 GHz

 



For anyone interested, here is the U.S. FCC search page that can be used to locate reports for the Hitron Technologies devices.  To run a search, type in Hitron Technologies into the Applicant Name entry window and hit the enter key.

https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/GenericSearch.cfm?calledFromFrame=N


So, that's the background info that the specs don't detail.  Small details, but the concurrent network and co-existence mechanisms for 2.4 Ghz networks are important.  If anyone is having issues with wifi networks run by the CGN3, consider what I have presented above as food for thought in exchanging your modem or moving to the newer plans along with the CGN3ACR.

 

 

***Edited Labels***



1 ACCEPTED SOLUTION

Accepted Solutions

Re: Technical reasons to move to the new CGN3ACR

I haven't come across a Rogers vesion of a user manual, but looking at the online instructions there has been a change to the 2.4 and 5 Ghz wifi control interface.  It would appear in both cases that Multiple SSIDs are now allowed, which should mean that guest accounts would be easy to set up and remove.  The 5 Ghz control interface also includes changes to allow 802.11ac networks and 80 Mhz wide channels for those networks.

 

 

Set Up Wireless Network for Hitron CGN3ACR

 

http://www.rogers.com/web/support/internet/home-networking/377?setLanguage=en



View solution in original post

34 REPLIES 34

Re: Technical reasons to move to the new CGN3ACR

DrMike
I'm a Trusted Contributor

@Datalink wrote:

Ok, now for a little technical info that might help.  
 etc, etc......

_______________________________________________________________

 

I never ceased to be amazed at the expertise and generosity of people in this community. Thank you Datalink for an incredibly thorough and useful analysis.

Re: Technical reasons to move to the new CGN3ACR

wayner92
I'm a Reliable Contributor

Any major differences in the web UI between the ACR and the older model?  Not that it matters too much to me as I doubt I would ever want to use a Rogers gateway in anything other than bridge mode.

Re: Technical reasons to move to the new CGN3ACR

I haven't come across a Rogers vesion of a user manual, but looking at the online instructions there has been a change to the 2.4 and 5 Ghz wifi control interface.  It would appear in both cases that Multiple SSIDs are now allowed, which should mean that guest accounts would be easy to set up and remove.  The 5 Ghz control interface also includes changes to allow 802.11ac networks and 80 Mhz wide channels for those networks.

 

 

Set Up Wireless Network for Hitron CGN3ACR

 

http://www.rogers.com/web/support/internet/home-networking/377?setLanguage=en



Re: Technical reasons to move to the new CGN3ACR

Gdkitty
Resident Expert
Resident Expert

 


@Datalink wrote:


For anyone who absolutely depends on running a 2.4 Ghz wifi network, the CGNV4 has been tested and certified for 40 Mhz operation on 2.4 Ghz networks with "coexistence mechanisms".  What that means is that anyone who owns a mixed variety of devices, laptops, tablets, USB wifi dongles etc should now see the maximum data rates for all of those devices when they are all running simultaneously on the network.  The CGN3 is known to have problems with mixed device capabilities and it will restrict both, the number of data streams in use and the co-channel bonding required for 40 Mhz wide channel operation.  That restriction limits all device data rates to the rate of the slowest device on the network.  That can be easily seen if you use a USB Wifi dongle in a mixed network.  Low cost dongles can or will be single channel only with limited data rates, as opposed to dual antenna, dual data stream laptops, capable of running at much higher data rates.  This has yet to be proven explicitly with this modem as of yet, but, for anyone who recognizes that they are in this particular situation, exchanging the current CGN3 for the CGN3ACR would be a very interesting test.  If anyone does this, please post your results.

 

There was quite a... discussion?... going on about this in particual a while back, correct?

Its good to know that this unit, hopefully then has fixed that particular problem. 🙂

Re: Technical reasons to move to the new CGN3ACR

Wow, great post! Thanks for all the info @Datalink

Re: Technical reasons to move to the new CGN3ACR

Gdkitty, you correct about the long discussion.  This should solve that particular problem but I won't be satisfied until someone can post a test result using known single and dual data stream and single and dual channel devices, and the test indicates that all devices operate at their max data rates when they are running simultaneously.  That will be the ultimate proof that this has been solved.



Re: Technical reasons to move to the new CGN3ACR

wayner92
I'm a Reliable Contributor

By the way, if anyone has a large house and wants to set up a prosumer Wifi network to leverage off of your Rogers internet service I would highly recommend the Ubiquity Unifi line of WAPs.  These cost about $100 each and look rather like smoke detectors and are meant to be ceiling mounted.  They are powered by PoE and they come with PoE injectors if you don't have that in a switch.

 

They come with good software that allows you to manage your network, see who is connected, set up Guest accounts, etc.

 

I have three of these in my house - the only downside to this model is that it doesn't do AC, just B,G,N.

Re: Technical reasons to move to the new CGN3ACR

Hwaiting
I Plan to Stick Around

Can these (CGN3 or CGN3ACR) compete with stand alone routers for range and the like or is the best option still bridge mode + separate router?

Re: Technical reasons to move to the new CGN3ACR

wayner92
I'm a Reliable Contributor

@Hwaiting wrote:

Can these (CGN3 or CGN3ACR) compete with stand alone routers for range and the like or is the best option still bridge mode + separate router?


My personal opinion is no, they can't compete (I am assuming that the CGN3ACR is the same as the CGN3 except for the addition of 802.11ac).

 

Issues with the CGN3 (I could be wrong on some of these):

Often doesn't work with VOIP lines unless you do additional configuration - this was the case for my Vonage phone line.

Port forwarding is limited to a set number of ports and some ports can't be forwarded.

No VPN functionality.

Lack of QoS functionality.

No Guest SSID (this may have been added to the ACR).

No traffic monitoring.

Inability to add routing rules.

No parental controls to set time limits for internet usage by client.

No DNS filtering to prevent access to non-child content.

Inability to install third party firmware.

 

 

Re: Technical reasons to move to the new CGN3ACR

JohhnyRockets
I'm a Trusted Contributor

Thank you for the summary. Does Rogers have any clue at all that these problems exist? Or do they just assume that the majority of their customers are computer illiterate and do not realize how bad their modems are when it comes to wifi? Do they even realize that Hitron has a 24-channel Cable Modem?

Re: Technical reasons to move to the new CGN3ACR

Some of those things, are features as well that are only available on some of the higher end 3rd party ones.. about 2/3 of the routers on the market.. DONT have alot of filtering options, cant put custom firmware, etc, either.
They are not necessarily all PROBLEMS (other than say the heavier NAT, etc), more just lacking features.

 

I dont think its a hoping that their customers are illeterate.... i think its that probably 1/2 of their customers, are just not that technically advanced... and dont NEED it.  That they only use internet just barely.. basic web browsing, email, etc.
They dont NEED anything much more.  They dont NEED the extra features.

 

I am not saying the unit is an all in one solution.. FAR from it.  I dont use it that way.

 

Its designed for joe blow average user.

 

All that being said.. it would be nice for them TO provide something different/better, for the users that DO want more.
There really isnt any good gateways PERIOD.. its pretty much record worldwide, no one has a great one.

That they would provide a modem only option for the users that DO want more.
(assuming, that there would be that much of a cost savings difference between them)

Re: Technical reasons to move to the new CGN3ACR

JohhnyRockets
I'm a Trusted Contributor

All I am saying is that there is a big deal being made of the fact that Hitron seems to be the only provider of a 24-channel modem. Since Hitron also offers a 24-channel Cable Modem, this should be made available as an alternative for those who desire it! Period!

 

But let's face it Gdkitty. Rogers assumes that the majority of their customers want a supposedly simple plug and play device and they hope it works reasonable well for most. 

Re: Technical reasons to move to the new CGN3ACR


@JohhnyRockets wrote:

All I am saying is that there is a big deal being made of the fact that Hitron seems to be the only provider of a 24-channel modem. Since Hitron also offers a 24-channel Cable Modem, this should be made available as an alternative for those who desire it! Period!

 

But let's face it Gdkitty. Rogers assumes that the majority of their customers want a supposedly simple plug and play device and they hope it works reasonable well for most. 


But what's the advantage of the Hitron modem-only device vs the CGN3 in bridge mode? It's probably the same software with the same bugs running on both. So why should Rogers bother with the logistics of stocking two different models of devices?

 

And fundamentally, the way I see it, when Bell advertises standard 'free' wi-fi, Rogers feels it has to do the same. If they offered a straight modem, especially at lower cost, people who switched from Bell and found themselves with no wi-fi would feel they were being nickel-and-dimed if tech support told them 'oh, you don't want to use your own router? the gateway is $4/month more'. This is why, in my view, a straight modem cannot be offered at a lower cost... unfortunately. From Rogers' perspective, the status quo means that the non-technical customers with very basic needs get the gateway/networking they expect, and the technical customers can click a button and turn on bridge mode. (Note that I don't think Bell offers a bridge mode...)

Re: Technical reasons to move to the new CGN3ACR

Thats why i brought up the cost on the bottom of my last post.

IF there was a substantial cost difference.. sure i could see a benifit in having both..

But otherwise.. Yes, what vivienM said comes into play.
From a maintenance, logistics, training, support... if you can have ONE that does BOTH.. its alot easier.
As a MODEM, the CGN3.. WORKS WELL.

 

Bell's modems CAN be bridged.. kind of.
They do allow it.. but its a BIG pain..last time i tried on the 2wire ones.
Plus a fair bit more work.. as you have to do a PPoE connection, etc with the router, etc.

Re: Technical reasons to move to the new CGN3ACR

dfsdffgdf
I've Been Here Awhile

does anyone know what the usb storage path is? I attached my external hard drive but cant access it through smb://192.168.0.1

It was working with cgn3.

Re: Technical reasons to move to the new CGN3ACR

Its interesting that you were able to get those to work on the CGN3. I haven't found any instructions at all for the CGN3ACR, most likely due to the fact that they are very similar. But, here are a couple of items from the CGN3 manual:

 

The CGN3 provides two USB 2.0 host ports on the rear,allowing you to plug in USB flash disks for mounting and sharing through the LAN interfaces via the Samba protocol (network neighborhood). The CGN3 supports the following Windows file systems:

 

FAT16
FAT32
NTFS

 

   ....the USB LED lights up once a connected device on either USB port is detected.

 

Possibly the Samba protocol has been turned off as a default setting and simply requires tech support to turn it back on. I'd call tech support to see what the CSR can do in that regard. Does the front USB LED illuminate when the USB device is connected? If it doesn't that might be related to the Samba setting.  There is no user access to the Samba enable / disable in the CGN3.  Has that changed for the CGN3ACR, or is it still hidden?

 

My thinking is that step one is to ensure that Samba is enabled, step two: ensure that the modem recognizes the USB stick, presumably by lighting up the USB LED, and then three: access the stick as you have in the past.



Re: Technical reasons to move to the new CGN3ACR

DrMike
I'm a Trusted Contributor

@JohhnyRockets wrote:

 

But let's face it Gdkitty. Rogers assumes that the majority of their customers want a supposedly simple plug and play device and they hope it works reasonable well for most. 


I am no Rogers apologist by any means, but I do think that (a) that is exactly what Rogers assumes and (b) they are right to assume that. 

 

I'm with GDkitty when he says that Rogers should make something available to satisfy its more demanding/savvy customers, but in the absence of that, the lower common denominator of one-size fits all is most assuredly the correct business decision for them. I am willing to bet that the number of people who show up on these boards and who have enough expertise to even be able to debate these issues as we do, are a TINY minority of users.

 

Unless we have direct experience running a tech business where you have to support tens of thousands of users, I'm sure we have no clue about the challenges of supporting a spectrum of users from 0 to 100 on the knowledge scale, hence you are darn right that you go for the plug an play approach. Support costs and business costs would probably skyrocket if they did not, and then we would all be complaining about even higher prices, or worse service, or both.

 

 

Re: Technical reasons to move to the new CGN3ACR


@DrMike wrote:

I'm with GDkitty when he says that Rogers should make something available to satisfy its more demanding/savvy customers, but in the absence of that, the lower common denominator of one-size fits all is most assuredly the correct business decision for them

 

 


And they do make something available for the more demanding/savvy customers - it's called bridge mode, which is well-documented and which their tech support reps are trained about. (Many US ISPs, including Google Fiber, do not provide a bridge mode)

 

The way I see it, if you had, say:

- straight modem for $8

- WiFi gateway for $12

... you'd have a support nightmare because the less technical users would go for the cheaper thing and would then feel screwed when it's way less capable than the competitor's 'free' hardware.

 

So then, how about this?

- WiFi gateway for $12

- straight modem for $15

... which solves the problem of the less technical users picking the wrong option and blaming Rogers. But would any tech-savvy user pay $3 more for a straight modem over bridging the cheaper gateway?

 

The only argument in favour of a straight modem over bridging the gateways, I think, is a cost one: why are people paying for functionality they turn off? But if the straight modem cannot be cheaper than the gateways without creating a massive support nightmare... then I conclude the status quo makes sense.

Re: Technical reasons to move to the new CGN3ACR

dfsdffgdf
I've Been Here Awhile

I do not see any activity on the modem after plugging in the hard drive. i see these listed in the usb storage page in admin:

 
  Action 1 file://192.168.0.1/C814240F1423FED6  
 
2 file://192.168.0.1/diska1  
 
it doesnt change even if i take out the drive. Please let me know if its worthwhile to talk with rogers tech about this.

Re: Technical reasons to move to the new CGN3ACR

I would give tech support a quick call and ask if Samba is turned off, and if so, can the CSR enable it?



Topic Stats
  • 34 replies
  • 20493 views
  • 10 Likes
  • 14 in conversation