Alright, I've exchanged for a modem with the black dot. It says the hardware version is 1A and the firmware is 184.108.40.206T2. So it should automatically update the firmware to 220.127.116.11 soon and the issue with the Guest network will be resolved?
@David161 I think you understood me wrong. Unfortunately 18.104.22.168 does not fix the issue with the guest network however version 22.214.171.124 will most likely fix that issue. 126.96.36.199 Should be releasing within the next 2-3 weeks.
However, it is good that you exchanged your modem with the black dot to ensure that you have shielding against interference.
Ah darn, I guess it was wishful thinking. I actually did think the current firmware fixed the issue on the black dot modems as it was originally reported as resolved until I said I still had the problem. I guess getting a shielded modem is good, even though I didn't have issues which I could attribute to shielding.
I've been reading this thread, and I'd like to understand the mentality of fighting this battle with the CODA-4582. Why are you doing this. Is Rogers forcing you to use the CODA? It provides virtually no benefits over the Rocket modem. If Rogers is providing something that is defective from the get-go, and making excuses about different dotted versions, different cabling, shielding, etc, then this product is not as advertised and there should be a lawsuit. Class-action. Or at least provide a free rocket modem, take this off the market, and stop using the customers as a huge beta test like was done with Navigatr (as you recall, it took 18 months from launch to get the Navigatr to a point where it was somewhat acceptable). Explain to me why it's so important to you to have this "Docsis 3.1" and CODA. Two threads with hundreds of pages of questions. Why isn't the media reporting on this?
Not trolling here, just a serious question.
I obviously don't speak for anyone except myself, but I see your point and absolutely agree.
My "adventure" started with an email from Rogers which said I was REQUIRED to upgrade my modem. This was not optional and it specifically said I needed to exchange my old modem for the new one.
Soon, I discovered browsing files from a WIFI connection was not working. As I have computers which only connect via WIFI, this was a crucial problem that I could not go without. Since I didn't experience the problem with my old modem, I posted in the forum describing the issue. That's when I found out it is a known problem and the beta firmware fixed it; thus I had no option but to accept their beta firmware agreement. As you've probably read, fixing some issues also brought on regression problems where the Guest network stopped working. I don't know all the different problems being worked on, but, for certain this is just one of many even though the modem is released to the public.
I personally believe some sort of compensation is in order since being their beta tester was not fully voluntary. I hope Rogers realizes the frustration they forced upon us and would do the right thing.
@David161 thank you for the clarification. I had no idea that people were forced to accept this modem. I have never received such an email and feel fortunate for that. I regularly watch these forums (did so similarly for Navigatr for 16 months, until I decided it was time to upgrade my old TV box running SARA to a Navigatr experience). I will watch with interest to see whether this so-called new gateway that is being worked on will be released.
@Datalink Turns out it was just an error on my end. For some reason my router switched to SLAAC instead of DHCPv6, and was looking for a static IP. Anyway, I seem to have a 19/20 result from ipv6-test.com which I'm pretty happy with.
This begs just one more question, has Rogers not assigned any IPV6 hostnames yet? Because I don't seem to be getting one, hence the 19/20 result. I'm pretty sure it's not a big deal but I was just curious about that.