05-31-2016 08:42 AM - last edited on 03-14-2018 04:23 PM by RogersRoland
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.
12-03-2016 04:41 PM
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.
12-03-2016 08:29 PM
My bad , not sure why I was sure it was Puma 5 chipset.. thank you for the clarification Dave.
12-04-2016 03:02 AM
@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
12-04-2016 04:25 PM
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?
12-04-2016 04:26 PM - last edited on 12-04-2016 04:35 PM by RogersMaude
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!
12-04-2016 09:41 PM
getting same stuff here...pathetic
12-05-2016 12:45 AM
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.
12-05-2016 09:54 AM - edited 12-05-2016 09:57 AM
@JohnBeaudin wrote:
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.
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 |
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 |
12-05-2016 09:59 AM
@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..
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
12-05-2016 10:06 AM
@Triple_Helix wrote:
@JohnBeaudin wrote:
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.
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 |
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 |
12-05-2016 10:16 AM
@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.
12-05-2016 07:04 PM
December 5th already.. I hope the new firmware will be released before 2017.
12-06-2016 02:50 AM
this here is pathetic! so much for gigabit connection right???
12-06-2016 07:14 AM - last edited on 12-06-2016 08:09 AM by RogersMoin
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 !
12-06-2016 09:46 AM
@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.
12-06-2016 10:43 AM - edited 12-06-2016 11:51 AM
@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.
12-06-2016 11:44 AM - edited 12-06-2016 11:50 AM
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.
12-06-2016 12:09 PM
I'm down to one Upload Channel since adding the 6db cable attenuator.
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 |
Port ID | Frequency (MHz) | Modulation | Signal strength (dBmV) | Channel ID | Bandwidth |
1 | 38596000 | ATDMA - 64QAM | 55.500 | 3 | 3200000 |
12-06-2016 12:24 PM - edited 12-06-2016 12:25 PM
And after removing the cable attenuator and a reboot of the Modem. Very odd numbers for me....!
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 |
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 |
12-06-2016 02:57 PM
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.
12-06-2016 04:16 PM