MaiShiranui74
join:2004-02-03
| [AZ] Not a good sign?
Status Comment
Acquire Downstream Channel 579000000 Hz Locked
Connectivity State Operational Operational
Boot State OK Operational
Security Enabled BPI+
Downstream Channel
Lock Status Operational
Modulation 256QAM
Channel ID 3
Provisioned Rate 17250 kbps
Symbol Rate 5360.537 Ksym/sec
Downstream Power 2.0 dBmV
SNR 38.9 dB
Upstream Channel
Lock Status Operational
Modulation 16QAM
Channel ID 3
Provisioned Rate 1725 kbps
Symbol Rate 2560 Ksym/sec
Upstream Power 49.3 dBmV
Isn't my downstream high?
Anyways on another note, pings are going up and down again.
Not the router or cable modem. Bypassed router same result I also got d/c when I was talking to the live chat on the cox site. |
|
cableguy619
join:2003-06-24
Chula Vista, CA | Signals ae perfect.
Rx +5 to -10
TX 39-49
SN 32-38
These are the parameters they shoot for. your levels are all within specs |
|
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| said by cableguy619  :Signals ae perfect. Rx +5 to -10 TX 39-49 SN 32-38 These are the parameters they shoot for. your levels are all within specs I believe cox prefers -7 - 7 for downstream power, 38 to 45 for upstream power and 35 or above for signal to noise.
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee |
|
cableguy619
join:2003-06-24
Chula Vista, CA
| said by dvd536 :said by cableguy619 :Signals ae perfect. Rx +5 to -10 TX 39-49 SN 32-38 These are the parameters they shoot for. your levels are all within specs I believe cox prefers -7 - 7 for downstream power, 38 to 45 for upstream power and 35 or above for signal to noise. actually sweet spot is rx 0
TX 42-48
sn 35 or greater
but What i posted is the acceptable parameters |
|
m8trix
join:2003-12-24
Phoenix, AZ
edit:
October 8th, @01:53AM
| these are the official levels they like to have you within.0 is best on the downstream
Equipment Level(s)
Tx 37-50
Rx-10- +10
SNR 30-50
|
|
AZwldcats
Ummm That's Right
join:2001-02-20
Tucson, AZ
clubs: | reply to MaiShiranui74
Your signals are fine, My modem has been transmitting at 51 forever with no problems... |
|
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| said by AZwldcats :Your signals are fine, My modem has been transmitting at 51 forever with no problems... Maybe but having it running hot like that can shorten its lifespan.
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee |
|
AZwldcats
Ummm That's Right
join:2001-02-20
Tucson, AZ
clubs:
| said by dvd536 :said by AZwldcats :Your signals are fine, My modem has been transmitting at 51 forever with no problems... Maybe but having it running hot like that can shorten its lifespan. Huh????? It's not like it mechanically has to perform harder..
It's in a well ventilated spot so it doesn't get hot... |
|
daveinpoway
join:2006-07-03
Poway, CA
| If the transmit circuitry has to work harder, that generates more heat and puts more stress on the amplifying transistors. Just like your stereo amplifier will run hotter if you are blasting out music at a party, versus just listening at a background level. Heat is an enemy of electronics. |
|
AZwldcats
Ummm That's Right
join:2001-02-20
Tucson, AZ
clubs:
| said by daveinpoway :If the transmit circuitry has to work harder, that generates more heat and puts more stress on the amplifying transistors. Just like your stereo amplifier will run hotter if you are blasting out music at a party, versus just listening at a background level. Heat is an enemy of electronics. But no heat is building up, and 51 is not nearly maxed out for these modems.... |
|
daveinpoway
join:2006-07-03
Poway, CA
| My Motorola SB5101 is transmitting at 43 dBmv, and I can feel warmth if I put my hand on the side (definitely not hot by any means, but you can tell that it's on). So, it is pretty much guaranteed that your modem is warm, as well.
True, 51 dBmv is not the maximum transmit power, but, in general, the less stress on the circuitry, the longer it will last. For the same reason, I have the transmit power level cranked down on my wireless router so that it is just enough to provide a full-signal indication on my laptop. This way, the router should live longer. |
|
AZwldcats
Ummm That's Right
join:2001-02-20
Tucson, AZ
clubs: | I;m not worried, It's in an actively cooled compartment...
Plus Moto makes a very robust modem, And if it dies, I'll get a Docsis 3.0 modem.... LOL |
|
MaiShiranui74
join:2004-02-03
edit:
October 9th, @08:15PM
| reply to MaiShiranui74
It seems like it's the time of day again.
I was fine earlier today but it starts to get really bad at 4PM - 2AM...
Pinging cox.net [68.1.17.9] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=214ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=71ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=94ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=142ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=106ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=128ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=62ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=105ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=90ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=189ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=86ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=125ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=70ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=94ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=65ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=86ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=58ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=59ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=146ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=56ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=155ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=76ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=86ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=91ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=78ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=64ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=67ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=59ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=124ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=78ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=79ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=101ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=106ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=79ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=67ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=59ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=106ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=72ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=78ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=92ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=79ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=74ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=78ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=133ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=96ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=141ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=101ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=69ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=109ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=100ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=76ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=62ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=53ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=74ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=141ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=107ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=80ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=93ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=95ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=143ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=63ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=61ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=72ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=158ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=98ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=74ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=53ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=112ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=69ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=133ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=99ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=114ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=78ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=90ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=234ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=123ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=76ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=111ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=98ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=79ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=87ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=76ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=117ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=82ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=105ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=65ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=129ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=250ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=78ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=72ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=67ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=80ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=62ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=64ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=150ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=79ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=128ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=56ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=81ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=355ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=301ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=165ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=107ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=119ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=124ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=74ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=275ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=417ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=61ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=143ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=82ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=72ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=83ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=161ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=112ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=268ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=350ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=80ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=242ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=72ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=198ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=74ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=119ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=124ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=97ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=65ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=79ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=107ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=56ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=102ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=68ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=76ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=72ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=64ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=64ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=135ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=66ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=81ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=124ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=94ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=157ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=75ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=93ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=138ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=77ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=199ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=76ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=185ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=72ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=65ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=123ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=91ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=85ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=84ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=160ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=90ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=210ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=69ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=75ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=60ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=121ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=76ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=81ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=82ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=76ms TTL=120
Reply from 68.1.17.9: bytes=32 time=66ms TTL=120
Ping statistics for 68.1.17.9:
Packets: Sent = 175, Received = 175, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 53ms, Maximum = 417ms, Average = 104ms
Control-C
^C
That was taken at 5PM... to me it still doesn't make sense why people would want to overload a node. |
|
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| said by MaiShiranui74 :That was taken at 5PM... to me it still doesn't make sense why people would want to overload a node. This is a cox problem not how many users a node has problem. nodes can be split but its not cheap and cox doesn't want to pony up the cash to do so(at least not in non-fios areas)
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee |
|
MaiShiranui74
join:2004-02-03 | Well it's still a problem and I don't know what to do besides sit here and be clueless and not being able to do anything fluent. |
|
cableguy619
join:2003-06-24
Chula Vista, CA | reply to MaiShiranui74
has a Cox rep got in touch with you? If not PM them or call cox... You can only go so far with us throwing suggestions at you. |
|
MaiShiranui74
join:2004-02-03
| reply to MaiShiranui74
Pinging yahoo.com [68.180.206.184] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 68.180.206.184: bytes=32 time=170ms TTL=55
Reply from 68.180.206.184: bytes=32 time=233ms TTL=55
Reply from 68.180.206.184: bytes=32 time=297ms TTL=55
Reply from 68.180.206.184: bytes=32 time=220ms TTL=55
Reply from 68.180.206.184: bytes=32 time=252ms TTL=55
Request timed out.
Reply from 68.180.206.184: bytes=32 time=176ms TTL=55
Reply from 68.180.206.184: bytes=32 time=237ms TTL=55
Request timed out.
Reply from 68.180.206.184: bytes=32 time=57ms TTL=55
Reply from 68.180.206.184: bytes=32 time=259ms TTL=55
Reply from 68.180.206.184: bytes=32 time=260ms TTL=55
Reply from 68.180.206.184: bytes=32 time=332ms TTL=55
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Reply from 68.180.206.184: bytes=32 time=277ms TTL=55
Reply from 68.180.206.184: bytes=32 time=281ms TTL=55
Reply from 68.180.206.184: bytes=32 time=236ms TTL=55
Reply from 68.180.206.184: bytes=32 time=224ms TTL=55
Reply from 68.180.206.184: bytes=32 time=355ms TTL=55
Reply from 68.180.206.184: bytes=32 time=200ms TTL=55
Reply from 68.180.206.184: bytes=32 time=355ms TTL=55
Reply from 68.180.206.184: bytes=32 time=314ms TTL=55
Reply from 68.180.206.184: bytes=32 time=265ms TTL=55
Reply from 68.180.206.184: bytes=32 time=293ms TTL=55
Reply from 68.180.206.184: bytes=32 time=216ms TTL=55
Ping statistics for 68.180.206.184:
Packets: Sent = 26, Received = 22, Lost = 4 (15% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 57ms, Maximum = 355ms, Average = 250ms
Control-C
^C
This is what I get at 9PM |
|
CoxTech1
VIP
join:2002-04-25
Chesapeake, VA | Right now I don't see your cable modem synchronized. Do you have it unplugged? |
|
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| reply to MaiShiranui74
said by MaiShiranui74 :Well it's still a problem and I don't know what to do besides sit here and be clueless and not being able to do anything fluent. Capacity issues are nothing you or the techs can address until cox decides to spend the money to split your node IF it is indeed a capacity issue.
--
When I gez aju zavateh na nalechoo more new yonooz tonigh molinigh - Ken Lee |
|
MaiShiranui74
join:2004-02-03
edit:
October 14th, @01:15PM
| reply to MaiShiranui74
Well, here is the line test
»/linequality/nil/2442338
This is basically what I have.
Goes up and down whenever it feels like.
It's not smooth it's staggering all over the place.
Tracing route to cox.net [68.1.17.9]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 192.168.1.1
2 45 ms 113 ms 19 ms 10.128.0.1
3 20 ms 25 ms 164 ms ip68-2-7-21.ph.ph.cox.net [68.2.7.21]
4 68 ms 21 ms 44 ms 70.169.73.37
5 93 ms 72 ms 61 ms 68.1.1.121
6 102 ms 81 ms 68 ms 68.1.16.70
7 63 ms 68 ms 75 ms www.cox.net [68.1.17.9]
Trace complete. |
|
