FEEDBACK - Rogers Rocket Wi-Fi Modem Firmware Trial

[RogersMargaret]

Hello Community,

We are currently offering our users an exclusive opportunity to participate in an upcoming trial of the new firmware for our Rocket Wi-Fi Modem (CGN3ACR, CGN3AMR and CGN3ACSMR) and Rocket Gigabit Wi-Fi Modem (CGN3552 and CODA-4582). For details of this program, please see this thread.

This thread will be used for feedback regarding the firmware.  We've invited @RogersSergio, @RogersSyd & @RogersBob from our Networking team to participate in this thread.  Your feedback is very valuable and will be used to enhance the firmware before it is released publicly.

Thank you for your continued feedback and support.

[Double_K]

Thanks for sharing @Datalink - that's a great article for a Rogers employee to take to their management to convince them to go with a Broadcom BCM3390-based D3.1 modem in the near future.  From a business case perspective, it would 1) Save tremendous support costs for the HelpDesk & the technical team in having to support Intel's failure, and 2) reduce customer churn from gaming/VoIP customers who move to another provider due to the latency, jitter, and packet loss.  Both of which are key measurements for the CEO & investors.

[JohnBeaudin]

My bad , not sure why I was sure it was Puma 5 chipset.. thank you for the clarification Dave.

[BS]

@Datalink Great article you posted here.  It nails down just exactly what people have been experiencing and how sometimes, companies will hide the experience in an attempt to solve it before it becomes widely known, but that can be a very risky process to take.

It is so great to see that team of beta testers, and the support of yourself and others, and direct engineering and communication support from @RogersDave and his contacts with the internal teams and frequent updates, and direct contact with each of the beta testers has been an absolutely great model of how to work through tough issues with the users.

It is interesting to see that this is a world wide issue, and that it looks like Intel may have been caught like so many other companies in this fast paced technology world have been, that have missed a very critical performance factor with their new models.  I am glad to see that they with the ISP's are working closely to find a solution to this as fast as possible.  I have watched this issue with interest, and although I have little need for the speed and latency that this group needs, I have contemplated toing to higher speeds and caps to support my multiple media usages in my home, but have held back on my 60 package until this is all cleaned up.

Great work everybody.  As a now retired specialist in many of these areas, I enjoy watching great troubleshooting being done.  Unfortunately, very few forms of new technology roll out easily in the early days.  That is why the Internet standards have dates reaching out so far for implementation, they know it takes time and will change.

Bruce

[dlubieni]

Hi, 

Since getting the new firmware in August, my chromecast has been working again, which is great.

Lately though, my modem has been experiencing major connectivity problems where multiple devices lost connectivity to the modem frequently.  I know that the problem is not the devices themselves because they do not lose connectivity to other routers.

Is this a known problem?

[jalalinator]

Hey DataLink / Rogers Dave, please explain these pathetic speeds / latency on the new google speedtest, peered to a Toronto Data Center..... it's amazing how speedtest.net / dslreports are sooooo skewed in the tests, could it be that rogers is filtering / prioritizing / SHAPING traffic to skew the results? Because that is exactly what it looks like. This is on a supposed gigabit connection, how can this company spew so much misinformation and bs and flat out LIE about the services they offer?? at this point this is basically false advertisement, I have had 15+ tech visits this year, the office of the president involved, a senior tech assigned to me personally and this is as good as it gets, even when they say UPTO 1 gbps cannot explain these numbers!

[asharahmed]

getting same stuff here...pathetic 

[usamaa]

May I suggest using http://speed.googlefiber.net/ or http://speedtest.googlefiber.net/ they will give you a more accurate result. The google builtin test is just too small a dataset to give accurate results.

[Triple_Helix]

---

@JohnBeaudin wrote:

@Triple_Helix

Signal strenght are up the roof.. you can call and have tech supports run a signal check.. might need some new wires.

---

Well I did call tech support and on there end they said everything looks good during there tests with a 9.4 score but I find them high. Advice @RogersDave please! Als I have a -6db cable attenuator but when I install it I have only 2 upload channels.

Downstream Overview

Port ID	Frequency (MHz)	Modulation	Signal strength (dBmV)	Channel ID	Signal noise ratio (dB)
1	633000000	256QAM	9.200	37	38.983
2	609000000	256QAM	9.100	34	38.983
3	615000000	256QAM	9.500	35	40.366
4	621000000	256QAM	9.600	36	38.983
5	603000000	256QAM	8.600	33	38.983
6	639000000	256QAM	8.200	38	38.605
7	645000000	256QAM	7.500	39	38.983
8	651000000	256QAM	7.300	40	38.605
9	657000000	256QAM	7.700	41	38.983
10	663000000	256QAM	8.700	42	38.605
11	669000000	256QAM	9.400	43	38.983
12	675000000	256QAM	9.800	44	37.636
13	681000000	256QAM	10.300	45	37.636
14	687000000	256QAM	10.300	46	37.356
15	693000000	256QAM	10.400	47	37.356
16	699000000	256QAM	9.500	48	37.356
17	705000000	256QAM	9.900	49	37.356
18	711000000	256QAM	10.100	50	36.610
19	717000000	256QAM	10.300	51	36.387
20	723000000	256QAM	10.600	52	36.610
21	825000000	256QAM	9.400	53	37.636
22	831000000	256QAM	10.400	54	38.605
23	837000000	256QAM	10.400	55	38.605
24	843000000	256QAM	9.700	56	37.636

Upstream Overview

Port ID	Frequency (MHz)	Modulation	Signal strength (dBmV)	Channel ID	Bandwidth
1	23700000	ATDMA - 64QAM	47.000	2	6400000
2	38596000	ATDMA - 64QAM	47.000	3	3200000
3	30596000	ATDMA - 64QAM	47.000	1	6400000

[RogersDave]

---

@Denholm wrote:

I was told it is 4.5.8.22 and at the moment it is in bridge mode so wont a reset put it back to .21?

---

---

@azar1 wrote:

@RogersDave So I just came back from a 2 week vacation...decided to check my router page and on the corner of my eye, I realized my modem was downgraded?

I was on .27 and now its back to .22 

How come this happened? I wasn't informed about this roll back..

---

 @azar1, @Denholm,

Both of your modems are CGNM-3552 and are running version 4.5.8.22T3 which is the standard test version for this modem.

If you wish to test 4.5.8.27, send me a private message and I'll upgrade your modems. Keep in mind however that there are issues affecting uplink speed with a CGNM-3552 modem and firmware 4.5.8.27.

Dave

[Triple_Helix]

---

@Triple_Helix wrote:

---

@JohnBeaudin wrote:

@Triple_Helix

Signal strenght are up the roof.. you can call and have tech supports run a signal check.. might need some new wires.

---

Well I did call tech support and on there end they said everything looks good during there tests with a 9.4 score but I find them high. Advice @RogersDave please! Als I have a -6db cable attenuator but when I install it I have only 2 upload channels.

Downstream Overview

Port ID	Frequency (MHz)	Modulation	Signal strength (dBmV)	Channel ID	Signal noise ratio (dB)
1	633000000	256QAM	9.200	37	38.983
2	609000000	256QAM	9.100	34	38.983
3	615000000	256QAM	9.500	35	40.366
4	621000000	256QAM	9.600	36	38.983
5	603000000	256QAM	8.600	33	38.983
6	639000000	256QAM	8.200	38	38.605
7	645000000	256QAM	7.500	39	38.983
8	651000000	256QAM	7.300	40	38.605
9	657000000	256QAM	7.700	41	38.983
10	663000000	256QAM	8.700	42	38.605
11	669000000	256QAM	9.400	43	38.983
12	675000000	256QAM	9.800	44	37.636
13	681000000	256QAM	10.300	45	37.636
14	687000000	256QAM	10.300	46	37.356
15	693000000	256QAM	10.400	47	37.356
16	699000000	256QAM	9.500	48	37.356
17	705000000	256QAM	9.900	49	37.356
18	711000000	256QAM	10.100	50	36.610
19	717000000	256QAM	10.300	51	36.387
20	723000000	256QAM	10.600	52	36.610
21	825000000	256QAM	9.400	53	37.636
22	831000000	256QAM	10.400	54	38.605
23	837000000	256QAM	10.400	55	38.605
24	843000000	256QAM	9.700	56	37.636

Upstream Overview

Port ID	Frequency (MHz)	Modulation	Signal strength (dBmV)	Channel ID	Bandwidth
1	23700000	ATDMA - 64QAM	47.000	2	6400000
2	38596000	ATDMA - 64QAM	47.000	3	3200000
3	30596000	ATDMA - 64QAM	47.000	1	6400000

---

And with the -6db cable attenuator installed.

Downstream Overview

Port ID	Frequency (MHz)	Modulation	Signal strength (dBmV)	Channel ID	Signal noise ratio (dB)
1	633000000	256QAM	2.900	37	40.366
2	609000000	256QAM	2.600	34	38.983
3	615000000	256QAM	3.200	35	38.983
4	621000000	256QAM	3.300	36	38.983
5	603000000	256QAM	2.100	33	38.983
6	639000000	256QAM	1.800	38	38.605
7	645000000	256QAM	1.000	39	38.605
8	651000000	256QAM	0.800	40	38.983
9	657000000	256QAM	1.200	41	38.605
10	663000000	256QAM	2.100	42	38.983
11	669000000	256QAM	2.900	43	38.983
12	675000000	256QAM	3.500	44	37.636
13	681000000	256QAM	4.100	45	38.605
14	687000000	256QAM	4.100	46	37.356
15	693000000	256QAM	4.200	47	37.636
16	699000000	256QAM	3.300	48	37.356
17	705000000	256QAM	3.700	49	37.636
18	711000000	256QAM	3.800	50	36.610
19	717000000	256QAM	3.900	51	36.610
20	723000000	256QAM	4.100	52	36.610
21	825000000	256QAM	3.000	53	37.356
22	831000000	256QAM	4.100	54	38.605
23	837000000	256QAM	4.200	55	38.983
24	843000000	256QAM	3.400	56	37.636

Upstream Overview

Port ID	Frequency (MHz)	Modulation	Signal strength (dBmV)	Channel ID	Bandwidth
1	23700000	ATDMA - 64QAM	53.500	2	6400000
2	30596000	ATDMA - 64QAM	53.500	1	6400000

[Triple_Helix]

---

@Triple_Helix wrote:

And with the -6db cable attenuator installed.

Downstream Overview

Port ID	Frequency (MHz)	Modulation	Signal strength (dBmV)	Channel ID	Signal noise ratio (dB)
1	633000000	256QAM	2.900	37	40.366
2	609000000	256QAM	2.600	34	38.983
3	615000000	256QAM	3.200	35	38.983
4	621000000	256QAM	3.300	36	38.983
5	603000000	256QAM	2.100	33	38.983
6	639000000	256QAM	1.800	38	38.605
7	645000000	256QAM	1.000	39	38.605
8	651000000	256QAM	0.800	40	38.983
9	657000000	256QAM	1.200	41	38.605
10	663000000	256QAM	2.100	42	38.983
11	669000000	256QAM	2.900	43	38.983
12	675000000	256QAM	3.500	44	37.636
13	681000000	256QAM	4.100	45	38.605
14	687000000	256QAM	4.100	46	37.356
15	693000000	256QAM	4.200	47	37.636
16	699000000	256QAM	3.300	48	37.356
17	705000000	256QAM	3.700	49	37.636
18	711000000	256QAM	3.800	50	36.610
19	717000000	256QAM	3.900	51	36.610
20	723000000	256QAM	4.100	52	36.610
21	825000000	256QAM	3.000	53	37.356
22	831000000	256QAM	4.100	54	38.605
23	837000000	256QAM	4.200	55	38.983
24	843000000	256QAM	3.400	56	37.636

Upstream Overview

Port ID	Frequency (MHz)	Modulation	Signal strength (dBmV)	Channel ID	Bandwidth
1	23700000	ATDMA - 64QAM	53.500	2	6400000
2	30596000	ATDMA - 64QAM	53.500	1	6400000

---

Speed tests with the cable attenuator installed.

[JohnBeaudin]

December 5th already..  I hope the new firmware will be released before 2017.

[jalalinator]

this here is pathetic! so much for gigabit connection right???

[lethalsniper]

Still no fix for the low speeds and high pings/latency , Rogers when are you getting this fixed ?and Still no date on a fix or update this is getting pathetic just take are money but not for long !

[Hybrid_Noodle]

@lethalsniperThe issue for the pings/latency is something that is happening due to an issue seen on Intel Puma 6 based modems in which these issues are being seen. While people have been working on this for a while here  ( @RogersDave, @Datalink) it is only recently that this has gained any traction from outside media sources causing people to realize that it is not only a Rogers thing but a larger issue causing issues for multiple vendors and multiple ISP's around the world.

While we would all like this to be a quick fix these things take time to implement correctly as there are multiple sections of code to modify along the way and I would assume that Intel and the modem vendors are doing a bit more due dilligance before publishing a final release in which these items will be fixed.

[Datalink]

@lethalsniper as @Hybrid_Noodle indicated this issue had gained worldwide attention over the last three to four weeks.  If you have any doubts take a read thru the following threads and articles:

This first thread kicked off the recent attention grabbing headlines:

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r31079834-ALL-SB6190-is-a-terrible-modem-Intel-Puma-6-MaxLinear-mist...

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/The-Arris-SB6190-Modem-Puma-6-Chipset-Have-Some-Major-Issues-1384...

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Arris-Tells-us-Its-Working-With-Intel-on-SB6190-Puma6-Problems-13...

http://www.fiercecable.com/cable/arris-and-intel-partner-firmware-fix-for-puma-6-equipped-cable-mode...

http://www.multichannel.com/news/distribution/intel-arris-working-firmware-fix-sb6190-modem/409379

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/12/03/intel_puma_chipset_firmware_fix/

https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=Why+your+gigabit+broadba...

Netdog, who is an Arris engineer has moved the discussion to the following thread:

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r31122204-SB6190-TCP-UDP-Network-Latency-Issue-Discussion

So, where are we now?  Arris appears to have arrived at the same point that Rogers arrived at in Oct with our  latest trial version which corrects IPV4 ICMP.  So, despite your obvious impatience, Rogers has been ahead of the rest of the world for several weeks now.  Full kudos to @RogersDave and staff.  At the present point Arris and Intel have the lead on this but there is still much work to be done.  As I indicated to forum members some time ago, this is going to be a step by step process, as painful as that might be.  Intel has to change the processing of the data packets instead of maintaining the status quo which was determined approx 6 years ago.  There isn't much more to say regarding that.  It has to be done.  You and tens of thousands of other users across the world are equally frustrated by the current state of affairs, however, sounding off at the ISPs isn't going to change this.  This goes well beyond the ISP, any ISP that you care to mention.  So, this is moving forward as fast as possible and will hopefully be completed fairly soon given all of the attention that its getting on a daily basis. 

Fwiw, my apologies to other forum users seeking assistance, I've been a little busy with this recently.

[JohnBeaudin]

@Datalink

It's finally getting the attention it deserves, thanks for all the links.

I hope all this spotlight, will encourage Intel to be more careful when they release future chipsets.

[Triple_Helix]

I'm down to one Upload Channel since adding the 6db cable attenuator.

Downstream Overview

Port ID	Frequency (MHz)	Modulation	Signal strength (dBmV)	Channel ID	Signal noise ratio (dB)
1	597000000	256QAM	1.700	32	40.366
2	363000000	256QAM	-1.400	10	40.366
3	369000000	256QAM	-1.000	11	40.366
4	375000000	256QAM	-0.900	12	38.983
5	381000000	256QAM	-1.500	13	38.983
6	387000000	256QAM	-1.500	14	38.983
7	393000000	256QAM	-1.200	15	40.366
8	399000000	256QAM	-0.400	16	40.366
9	405000000	256QAM	-0.100	17	40.946
10	411000000	256QAM	0.100	18	40.366
11	417000000	256QAM	0.200	19	40.366
12	423000000	256QAM	0.500	20	40.366
13	429000000	256QAM	0.300	21	40.366
14	435000000	256QAM	0.100	22	40.366
15	441000000	256QAM	-0.400	23	38.983
16	447000000	256QAM	-0.400	24	38.983
17	555000000	256QAM	1.800	25	40.366
18	561000000	256QAM	2.100	26	40.946
19	567000000	256QAM	2.300	27	40.946
20	573000000	256QAM	2.400	28	40.366
21	579000000	256QAM	2.300	29	40.366
22	585000000	256QAM	2.300	30	40.366
23	591000000	256QAM	1.700	31	38.983
24	357000000	256QAM	-1.300	9	40.946

Upstream Overview

Port ID	Frequency (MHz)	Modulation	Signal strength (dBmV)	Channel ID	Bandwidth
1	38596000	ATDMA - 64QAM	55.500	3	3200000

[Triple_Helix]

And after removing the cable attenuator and a reboot of the Modem. Very odd numbers for me....!

Downstream Overview

Port ID	Frequency (MHz)	Modulation	Signal strength (dBmV)	Channel ID	Signal noise ratio (dB)
1	597000000	256QAM	8.100	32	40.366
2	363000000	256QAM	5.200	10	40.946
3	369000000	256QAM	5.400	11	40.366
4	375000000	256QAM	5.400	12	38.983
5	381000000	256QAM	4.900	13	38.983
6	387000000	256QAM	5.100	14	40.366
7	393000000	256QAM	5.300	15	40.366
8	399000000	256QAM	6.000	16	40.366
9	405000000	256QAM	6.200	17	40.366
10	411000000	256QAM	6.600	18	40.366
11	417000000	256QAM	6.800	19	40.366
12	423000000	256QAM	7.000	20	40.946
13	429000000	256QAM	6.600	21	40.366
14	435000000	256QAM	6.600	22	40.366
15	441000000	256QAM	6.100	23	40.366
16	447000000	256QAM	6.100	24	40.366
17	555000000	256QAM	8.300	25	40.366
18	561000000	256QAM	8.400	26	40.946
19	567000000	256QAM	8.600	27	40.366
20	573000000	256QAM	8.700	28	40.946
21	579000000	256QAM	8.700	29	40.366
22	585000000	256QAM	8.700	30	40.366
23	591000000	256QAM	8.000	31	40.366
24	357000000	256QAM	5.200	9	40.366

Upstream Overview

Port ID	Frequency (MHz)	Modulation	Signal strength (dBmV)	Channel ID	Bandwidth
1	38596000	ATDMA - 64QAM	47.250	3	3200000
2	30596000	ATDMA - 64QAM	47.250	1	6400000
3	23700000	ATDMA - 64QAM	47.250	2	6400000

[JohnBeaudin]

@Datalink

Just finished read all the posts on dslreports forum ( that's a lot of read!)

They are moving pretty fast so I expect them to give us interesting news within the next week.

[Mythen]

@Datalink

Good reading for sure. They still seem to be in denial. Lol

Mythen