ledzepp14 Posted July 13, 2005 Author CID Share Posted July 13, 2005 Here's the URL for the tweak test: http://ttester.broadbandreports.com/tweak/block:15dd33b?service=cable&speed=9999&os=winXP&via=normal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ledzepp14 Posted July 13, 2005 Author CID Share Posted July 13, 2005 Log created by AutoCheck.bat on Tue 07/12/2005 Pinging testmy.net [67.18.179.85] with 32 bytes of data: Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=58ms TTL=50 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=50 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=53ms TTL=50 Reply from 67.18.179.85: bytes=32 time=54ms TTL=50 Ping statistics for 67.18.179.85: Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss), Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds: Minimum = 53ms, Maximum = 58ms, Average = 54ms Ping Complete. Tracing route to testmy.net [67.18.179.85] over a maximum of 30 hops: 1 17 ms 9 ms 9 ms 10.96.64.1 2 10 ms 11 ms 42 ms dstswr1-vlan-2.rh.nantny.cv.net [67.83.252.161] 3 15 ms 9 ms 15 ms r1-ge11-0.mhe.prnynj.cv.net [67.83.252.129] 4 18 ms 21 ms 19 ms r2-srp13-0.wan.prnynj.cv.net [65.19.112.18] 5 10 ms 20 ms 22 ms r2-srp1-0.in.nycmny83.cv.net [65.19.96.38] 6 49 ms 20 ms 33 ms 65.19.101.130 7 * * * Request timed out. 8 29 ms 18 ms 19 ms so-4-0-0.mpr2.iad2.us.above.net [64.125.30.122] 9 28 ms 31 ms 25 ms so-4-0-0.mpr1.iad1.us.above.net [64.125.28.213] 10 29 ms 45 ms 22 ms so-0-0-0.mpr2.iad1.us.above.net [64.125.29.110] 11 33 ms 22 ms 24 ms so-1-0-0.cr2.dca2.us.above.net [64.125.28.129] 12 63 ms 45 ms 44 ms so-2-2-0.cr2.dfw2.us.above.net [64.125.29.9] 13 62 ms 64 ms 55 ms 216.200.6.237.theplanet.com [216.200.6.237] 14 56 ms 62 ms 51 ms dist-vlan31.dsr3-2.dllstx3.theplanet.com [70.85.127.30] 15 64 ms 60 ms 55 ms dist-vlan-42.dsr2-2.dllstx4.theplanet.com [70.85.127.91] 16 72 ms 55 ms 75 ms gig1-0-2.tp-car9-1.dllstx4.theplanet.com [67.18.116.85] 17 56 ms 55 ms 57 ms 85.67-18-179.reverse.theplanet.com [67.18.179.85] Trace complete. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ledzepp14 Posted July 13, 2005 Author CID Share Posted July 13, 2005 And finally, the signal from 192.168.100.1 Frequency 603000000 Hz Locked Signal to Noise Ratio 37 dB QAM 64 Network Access Control Object ON Power Level -6 dBmV The Downstream Power Level reading is a snapshot taken at the time this page was requested. Please Reload/Refresh this Page for a new reading Upstream Value Channel ID 4 Frequency 25008000 Hz Ranged Ranging Service ID 1215 Symbol Rate 2.560 Msym/s Power Level 47 dBmV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REV0LUTI0NIZED Posted July 13, 2005 CID Share Posted July 13, 2005 Is it direct connected to the Cable Modem or too a router Also if it's connected to the router are their other user's using a computer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ledzepp14 Posted July 13, 2005 Author CID Share Posted July 13, 2005 I've connected it directly to the cable modem. It's a Motorola SBV4200. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REV0LUTI0NIZED Posted July 13, 2005 CID Share Posted July 13, 2005 Well.....it looks like the Cable Modem is the issue. Also from looking at your Cable Modems Signal the QAM is to low it's on 64 it should be at 256. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ledzepp14 Posted July 13, 2005 Author CID Share Posted July 13, 2005 Is there anyway I can configure the cable modem? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REV0LUTI0NIZED Posted July 13, 2005 CID Share Posted July 13, 2005 Is there anyway I can configure the cable modem? No. You can try calling your ISP and telling them that issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swilson-ccvn Posted July 27, 2005 CID Share Posted July 27, 2005 The Qam 64 should not matter. Qam 64 is still very capable of 10Mbit. I think Qam 64 does around 35Mbit or so If i am not mistaken. Qam 256 only does a tad more than that at around 45Mbit I think. Both should be very capable of a 10Mbit connection. The Qam 64 would slow down those speeds if alot of users on the same node were trying to download lots of stuff at the time of your tests. But out of all your speed tests it looks like that might not be the case. Either way the issue IMO is not the Qam 64. I am willing to bet their whole system is Qam 64. To better explain what I said: One node (using one 6MHz wide downstream channel) has a max downstream pipe thru the cable lines depending on what the Qam is set to. If its Qam64 then the pipe would be around 35MBit/s or so shared by all users on that node. If it is Qam256 then it would be around 45MBit/s or so shared by all users. Not really that big of a difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.