Re: Docsis 3.1 modem

Paul wrote:
> Robert Baer wrote:
>> danny burstein wrote:
>>> In <[email protected]> Robert Baer 
>>> <[email protected]> writes:
>>>
>>>>   I now have a Technicolor 8305C cable modem, Docsis 3.0 that supports
>>>> Ethernet connection to the computer, 2 telephones, and WiFi.
>>>
>>>>   Had it for maybe 8 years, still works great.
>>>
>>>>   Was told to upgrade to take advantage of higher internet speed, so
>>>> need a Docsis 3.1 modem.
>>>
>>>>   I have so far wasted 2 hours trying to find such a beast; That search
>>>> term in Amazon gets me a bunch of cable modems, half Docsis 3.0 and few
>>>> modems with WiFi.
>>>>   Are there NO Docsis 3.1 modems with WiFi?
>>>
>>> https://www.amazon.com/docsis-3-1-modem-wireless-router/s?k=docsis+3.1+modem+and+wireless+router 
>>>
>>>
>>> gets me a bunch, including (just as one example):
>>>
>>> https://www.amazon.com/ARRIS-Surfboard-Gigabit-Certified-Xfinity/dp/B07M9J3XW2 
>>>
>> * NO voice (telephone)
>>
>> * NO voice even with the outrageously EXPENSVE NETGEAR Nighthawk Cable 
>> Modem WiFi Router Combo (C7800) - Compatible with Cable Providers 
>> Including Xfinity by Comcast, Cox, Spectrum | Cable Plans Up to 2 
>> Gigabits | AC3200 WiFi Speed | DOCSIS 3.1
>>
>> * NO voice NETGEAR Nighthawk Cable Modem WiFi Router Combo (C7800) - 
>> Compatible with Cable Providers Including Xfinity by Comcast, Cox, 
>> Spectrum | Cable Plans Up to 2 Gigabits | AC3200 WiFi Speed | DOCSIS 3.1
>>
>>>
>>   Above exhausts that "bunch".
>>   Like i meant to say there NO Docsis 3.1 modems with WiFi and 
>> telephone (voice).
>>
>>   Thanks.
>>
> 
> https://www.newegg.com/netgear-cm1150v-100nas-modem-router-combo/p/N82E16825124027 
* NO WiFi. Nice tho, 4 Ethernet and 2 telephones.
   Believe i need WiFi as in shadowland and "smart" phone BAERly works 
with one bar.

* Talk about incompatibility..I remember a few years ago i fiddled 
around with Google Maps, satellite view of 3928 14th Ave SE looking at 
the round pavers by the management office.
   Resolution maybe 1.5 pixels in WinXP and 4 pixels in Win7.

   Now, same equipment, same OS; "resolution" if you want to call it 
that is at best one quarter of the remembered original.

   And one of the "informative" e-mails from Xfinity said i am paying 
for more bandwidth and should consider "upgrading" to take advantage; 
offering 3 Docsis 3.1 modems as choices.

   Methinks they purposely throttled the bandwidth to give excuse for 
"upgrading" to Docsis 3.1.

   Naturally, they rent them out..at a higher FEE than previous grabrate 
of $10/mo.

   Cannot win for losing.


> 
> 
>     # Two security bulletins at the bottom.
> 
>     https://www.netgear.com/support/product/CM1150V.aspx
> 
> It may have an Intel PUMA inside. You'll have to research the
> PUMA saga, to decide whether a PUMA 7 is safe to use or not.
> 
> There is also an optional power brick with battery backup which
> sits outside the CM1150V, and provides telephone service when the
> house power is off. It's based on Lithium, rather than the
> alternate chemistries used in the past on voice-equipped kit.
> 
> One customer review mentions "crashing", in which case you'd
> return it within the return period.
> 
> *******
> 
> There is an Arris TG9442 here, with Broadcom chipset. It only
> has two LAN ports. It's unobtanium, can't find it, released
> nominally 2019, perhaps hasn't had the blessing of a NA cable co.
> 
> http://en.techinfodepot.shoutwiki.com/wiki/List_of_DOCSIS_Cable_Modems
> 
> No idea whether an external brick battery-backup is available.
> 
> *******
> 
> It's relatively difficult to select a box which is issue
> free. Like, did the 2017 example receive a "Cable Haunt" patch ?
> Or a patch for the two exploits since then ?
> 
> I'm also not a fan of units with only Quick Install Guide two
> page PDF files either. That's usually a sign there isn't
> a full-featured port-forwarding QOS interface to use from
> a web browser. My last "properly documented" networking box
> here, was years and years ago. The modem I've got now, has
> the "dummy interface", and you can barely flip it to bridged mode.
> 
> When they offer WAN and LAN ports, those port *could* be off
> the same network switch chip or hardware block. In which case the
> WAN port just has the interfaces swapped (in the old days, would
> need a crossover cable). Now, when one of those boxes offers
> a 2.5Gbit WAN RJ45, is that compatible with a RealTek 2.5Gbit/sec
> based external four port switch ? So you can run 2.5Gbit networking ?
> Having to think about that, is what happens when a standard claims
> to offer absurdly high download BW.
> 
> I'm sure you'll find something, but it will likely contain
> Intel PUMA 7, and you'll have to try to find info. (From a web site
> that has not received legal threats etc.) This is Intel we're
> talking about here.
> 
>     Paul