backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 52 comment(s) - last by ggordonliddy.. on Jun 5 at 8:30 PM
Motorola's SB6120 is first retail DOCSIS 3.0 cable model available

Consumers always want more from our sources of entertainment; more channels on TV, more minutes on mobile phones, and faster speeds from internet connections. Thankfully, there is an ongoing march by providers offering more of what consumers want -- at a price.

Motorola has announced that it is launching the world's first retail DOCSIS 3.0 cable modem's in conjunction with Fry's Electronics according to Engadget. The modem in question is the Motorola SURFboard SB6120 DOCSIS 3.0 eXtreme cable modem. Motorola says that this is the first time that a DOCSIS 3.0 modem has been offered via retail sales outlets and the SB6120 is the same modem available to cable providers.

“We’re witnessing the greatest advancement in DOCSIS cable modems in more than ten years, and Fry’s Electronics is at the forefront of the retail DOCSIS 3.0 movement,” said Alan Lefkof, corporate vice president & general manager, Motorola Broadband Home Gateways & Software. “We are pleased to work with Fry’s Electronics and to provide consumers with high-end modem that will work with any form of DOCSIS network their cable operators provide.”

The DOCSIS 3.0 modem allows users to enjoy data speeds up to 4 times faster than DOCSIS 2.0 and supports high-bandwidth internet services like gaming and streaming HD video. The modem works with Motorola's NBBS Device Management Software platform and eCare solution for remote customer configuration.

To be able to take advantage of the much faster speeds that the DOCSIS 3.0 modem is capable of, the ISP has to offer DOCSIS 3.0 connectivity like the 101Mbps service that Cablevision unveiled in April. Comcast also offers DOCSIS 3.0 speeds in several areas of the country. Pricing on the SB6120 modem is unknown.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Faster than ever
By djc208 on 6/3/2009 10:42:43 AM , Rating: 5
Now you can hit that bandwidth cap in half the time!




RE: Faster than ever
By Kefner on 6/3/2009 10:49:08 AM , Rating: 2
HAHA, I was thinking the same thing!


RE: Faster than ever
By AntiM on 6/3/2009 11:20:21 AM , Rating: 5
Yes, I can finally upgrade my TWC Roadrunner connection. Oh wait, they've decided not to roll out DOCSIS 3.0 anytime soon; not until their customers are "educated".

I have a feeling that it's going to be TWC that gets the education.


RE: Faster than ever
By Kougar on 6/3/2009 4:56:44 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, Time Warner only offers their "upgraded" DOCSIS 2.0 capable modem to their customers that sign up for Roadrunner Turbo. Still even those do not support DOCSIS 3.0... not that it matters with their current rates.


RE: Faster than ever
By quiksilvr on 6/3/2009 10:58:35 PM , Rating: 2
Dude get Grande if you can. It's a god send.


RE: Faster than ever
By CZroe on 6/4/2009 3:27:14 AM , Rating: 2
TWC "Grande."

What is that?


RE: Faster than ever
By michael67 on 6/3/09, Rating: -1
RE: Faster than ever
By amanojaku on 6/3/2009 5:32:26 PM , Rating: 5
Three reasons. Providers are stupid, lazy, and greedy.

Stupid
Few people thought the Internet would become as large as it did. Even Robert Metcalf predicted the Internet would implode. Metcalf is one of the founding fathers of Ethernet and 3Com. Even smart people are dumb.

Lazy
When it was clear the Internet wasn't going to go away and was only getting larger providers thought they could get away with oversubscribing links. I worked for an ISP and questioned the use of a single DS3 (44.736Mbit/sec) hosting ~400 SDSL customers who were sold links as slow as 384Mbit/sec and as high as 1.544Mbit/sec. "Why should we upgrade? They'll never use it!" That was also stupid.

Greedy
Fast forward to today, where everyone uses as much Internet as they can get their hands on. "Hey, why bother upgrading to support what we sold when we can just overcharge people?" Running an ISP is not a profitable business. $50USD a month doesn't leave a lot of room for profit. The technology isn't the problem; personnel is. When you're paying people $60-150K to run your infrastructure you look other places for revenue. There are only so many jobs that can be cut. For crying out loud, ISPs charge EACH OTHER just to connect to each other, and it's the large ISP that gets paid. Then there's the advertising. A lot of that is NOT sourced by the content sites; it comes from the provider. I interviewed with a company that wanted a networking guru. Its product intercepted web pages and inserted ads, without any interaction with the original site. I was so turned off I told the guy I wasn't interested in the job. Goddamn my ethics.


RE: Faster than ever
By RandomUsername3463 on 6/3/2009 5:45:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Running an ISP is not a profitable business. $50USD a month doesn't leave a lot of room for profit.


The cable companies sure make a nice profit on their internet service. Maybe the local mom-and-pop ISP isn't a profitable business, but the major players are. Do you have data to show otherwise?


RE: Faster than ever
By quiksilvr on 6/3/2009 11:00:22 PM , Rating: 3
Fortunately for us, we're paying $30 a month. Granted its only 1.5 Mbps but hey! Its okay...right? RIGHT? *sobs in corner*


RE: Faster than ever
By michael67 on 6/3/2009 5:52:40 PM , Rating: 4
Gready:

You are forgetting one major reason for data caps

Here is a VERY good article from ARStechnica:

ISPs' costs, revenues don't support data cap argument
Numbers don't lie, so Ars took a look at the first-quarter earnings reports from major US ISPs. Even in the midst of a recession, broadband is a great business to be in, even with metered billing.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/05/is...


RE: Faster than ever
By amanojaku on 6/3/2009 7:23:45 PM , Rating: 3
Awesome article! I agree with you and RandomUsername3463 that the large players, and to a lesser extent the smaller players, make a profit, but just how much is the question. The article does point out that it's hard to tell where the profit comes from, but triple play packages are really the most profitable since all of the services come over a single infrastructure. In particular, phone services don't require a lot of bandwidth, yet the cost for IP phones is quite high. I'll wager that's the source of the profit.

Getting back to the margins, I remember working at a Burger King franchise 13 years ago and we had a special promotion: two for Tuesdays, where you got two Whoppers for $2 between 4 and 6PM. I asked how we could do this and make money and the manager laughed. "A Whopper only costs $.20 to make!" That included our measly salaries, when minimum wage was $4.75/hr. If a regular Whopper cost $2 that means the place made $1.80 profit per Whopper. That's 9x the cost of the burger!

I doubt it costs the cable companies $5 per customer to provide cable services at $50 each. Triple play is the only way they companies will reap a significant profit. Millions of customers can add up to significant profits, sort of like chewing gum sales. And then there's the fact that they are government-granted monopolies. Ever look at your cable bill? What the heck are all those taxes for? Someone is greasing someone's palms and getting kickbacks.


RE: Faster than ever
By jhb116 on 6/3/2009 5:45:35 PM , Rating: 3
The major problem in the US is that there is no "real" competition when it comes to broadband access - at least until recently. The cable companies have divided up major areas such that even in areas like LA (where I currently reside) you only get ONE cable provider. Your only other option that is reasonably priced is DSL which most people seem to loath. (I like it but it does have a couple of disadvantages).

Personally - I'll take a top speed hit for a more stable or guaranteed minimum service. I don't have much use for 3 to 10 MBts (or more) at 3 AM in the morning. Let’s hope AT&T and Verizon change this landscape with their offerings based on fiber....


RE: Faster than ever
By Jackattak on 6/3/2009 7:57:04 PM , Rating: 4
PRECISELY!

I just wrote my representative on this very issue.

I live in Downtown Portland, OR and Comcast and Qwest are the only two ISPs allowed here (besides Clear, but they're not even recognizable as an ISP).

I need high upload speeds in order to work. Comcast gets me those (20mb/s down, 10mb/s up), but at a disgustingly high price. $65/mo. with my TV service.

Verizon has FiOS. Same speeds. $45/mo. Verizon isn't allowed to service Downtown Portland because of this stupid bill preventing too many big ISPs pushing on the little guy (i.e. Qwest).

Qwest only offers DSL. From a purely technological standpoint, DSL isn't able to provide high upload speeds. It's just not possible. The best Qwest offers is 896kb/s up. This is hardly usable for anything at all. Qwest has no idea when they are rolling out fiber optic service to Downtown Portland.

My point is, if legislation is going to be put in place to keep the big ISPs from pushing the little ISPs out, then the little whiny ISPs NEED TO STAY COMPETITIVE. They are obligated to us, the consumers, to stay competitive if they are going to push for legislation to keep competition out.


RE: Faster than ever
By ggordonliddy on 6/3/2009 7:38:15 PM , Rating: 2
What is this "whit" that you speak of so much?


RE: Faster than ever
By Jackattak on 6/3/2009 7:50:53 PM , Rating: 2
Don't be an ass.


RE: Faster than ever
By ggordonliddy on 6/5/2009 8:30:03 PM , Rating: 3
You sir are a jackattakass. Discussion points, please?


RE: Faster than ever
By Souka on 6/3/2009 11:37:20 AM , Rating: 5
I'm kinda amazed Comcast hasn't been sued...or someone rasing a stink...about the bandwidth caps and lack of monitoring tools.

First Comcast touts unlimited plans starting at $19.99/mo (special pricing for 6 months)

Then they impose a 250GB/month thoughput (up+down) limit...exceed it twice? and you're banned from their service. They also stated they would have a way for consumers to monitor bandwidth availble shortly...

Now DOCSIS 3.0 is here...no change in throughput limit...and no monitoring tools...

Fortunately for me I'm runnign a Linksys router with the tomato firmware so I can track my bandwidth. Sad to say, I have to limit my torrent upload now.

Oh... and recently my Comcast bandwidth increased... used to be 6Mb/s down, 1Mb/s up. Now it is around 18Mb/s down, 8Mb/s up... yeah...great...I can really hit the cap now... *sigh*

My $.02 of rant...


RE: Faster than ever
By Tsuwamono on 6/3/2009 12:05:22 PM , Rating: 3
I feel your pain man. I've been with my ISP for 8 years now and they have always been great. I had unlimited for the past 6 of the 8 years and have downloaded over 300GB many times.

However last week I received an email saying I went over my limit for acceptable use for a consumer. I was like... uhhh I only downloaded like 150GB.. WTF.

I called them and they apparently switched the TOS on me and made "Unlimited" caped at 100GB/month.

They also refused to release me from my contract which is up in Sept. Apparently the only way out is to receive 2 more of those warning emails...

So since receiving that email I have already downloaded 220GB. I intend on forcing them to cut me off :D lol

Unfortunately Canada is in worse shape then you Americans for ISPs. All we have left now is Bell, Rogers, Cogeco, Videotron and Eastlink. Eastlink, and Videotron both arent available in my area. Bell's Fibre optic option isn't available in my city(.. the capital of the damn country..) and Rogers/Cogeco are both expensive and limit you at 60GB for the same price I pay now...


RE: Faster than ever
By Yawgm0th on 6/3/2009 4:17:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Unfortunately Canada is in worse shape then you Americans for ISPs.
That's arguable. Provider options for typical metropolitan American households are one cable company and one DSL company. The lucky ones have two DSL options and/or a fiber optic option. I don't know if your ISPs stack up to ours in terms of bandwidth (probably worse for you, admittedly), but I doubt the competition is any worse.

Rural and even exurban homes are lucky to get DSL. There are many Americans who still only have dial-up as an option. For effect, I will point out that these Americans outnumber the entire population of Canada. ;)


RE: Faster than ever
By Spivonious on 6/3/2009 12:06:18 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah my speeds have been upped too. Last time I checked I got 21Mbps down, 8Mbps up. They still advertise 6/1 though, so maybe they're just testing the higher speeds to see if the network can take it?


RE: Faster than ever
By 67STANG on 6/3/2009 1:44:17 PM , Rating: 2
I got an upgrade too. Before, the fastest I could ever download was 700Kb/s. About a month ago, I started downloading at up to 1.8Mb/s. Champagne started falling from the Heavens...

I am suspicious though. Just before I got my speed "upped", AT&T brought their "U-verse" fiber into town-- offering 18Mbps. I'm assuming Comcast simply uncorked what they were holding back for customer retention. No complaints here though.

As far as the cap goes... I am a software engineer that works from home nearly every day and am a HEAVY user. I average 200GB-300GB every month, testing applications, streaming music and file sharing and have never gotten a letter, email or dirty look... I also have Vonage which leeches the bandwidth too.

If they keep it up for $60/mo., they won't have to worry about me leaving any time soon.


RE: Faster than ever
By Kefner on 6/3/2009 1:19:36 PM , Rating: 2
It was a great feeling a few months ago to cancel my Comcast. When I walked into the showroom to return my equipment, there must have been 15 other people in line returning their equipment. I, like most of the people I talked to that day, have went to FiOS. I love it so far, but I used to love my Comcast service. I guess eventually I'll get tired of Verizon too then!!


RE: Faster than ever
By Souka on 6/3/2009 3:47:45 PM , Rating: 2
I live just East of Seattle, WA... Verizon FIOS is not available, nor will it be... why? Because Qwest phone/DSL is in this area already... Verizon said they are "prohibited by law" to offer service in areas where Telco's like Quest already offer service.

I"m fine with Comcast...but come on... give us a tool (website) where we can see our useage...

Streaming web-radio via Windows Media player 24/7 will consume 20-30GB a month alone... a family with 2+ kids...adults...watching HD netflix/Hulu moves...yikes...250GB easy.


RE: Faster than ever
By Darkk on 6/4/2009 1:31:29 AM , Rating: 2
Are you getting those U/D rates all the time now or just certian times of day? I thought PowerBoost was cool but I noticed my throughput was alot higher than normal but at only certian times of the day. Could be they limit high speeds at peak hours and then open the pipes all the way at night for bit-torrent users?

Hmmm


RE: Faster than ever
By scottrichard on 6/3/2009 12:42:57 PM , Rating: 1
i feel sorry for the American broadband buyers, firstly you only have a choice from a few providers so they can monopolize the market and charge through the roof for a capped service that will sting you after you have only spent a few hours downloading. in the uk you can get capped BB but they are significantly cheaper than the unlimited ones, i currently have DOCSIS 3.0 with virgin media and have there 50mb subscription which don't slow me down at peak times or have a bandwidth cap, i currently pay on £35 for the fasted BB you can buy in the uk and have no limits on the first day of having it i downloaded 200gb in 24hrs. the american government really needs to step in and sort this out as its the consumers who are paying the price for rubbish internet.


RE: Faster than ever
By aegisofrime on 6/3/09, Rating: -1
RE: Faster than ever
By Veerappan on 6/3/2009 2:17:08 PM , Rating: 4
Part of the problem is local monopolies which are put in place by the cities in question. It is not uncommon for a city to allow only one cable internet provider and/or a single DSL provider. It's not so much the consumer that is permitting this as the local government which is acting against the consumer's best interests in favor of whatever payout they're receiving from the ISPs.


RE: Faster than ever
By walk2k on 6/3/09, Rating: 0
RE: Faster than ever
By callmeroy on 6/3/2009 3:46:12 PM , Rating: 2
Well I like to give some people the benefit of the doubt that they may be doing legitimate uploading and downloading -- but once you hear some folks talk about 400, 500 and 750 GB per month (or higher) its very very hard for me to think that is legitimate downloading and uploading. I mean you don't have to be a genius to research the prices of the most popular main stream movie/music/video rental sites to then compute how much money that amount of downloaded data would then cost if it were all purchased legally....its highly doubtful folks would be dropping hundreds of dollars a month buying downloads or live streams of whatever (I probably don't want to know...;) ).

So unless you are doing honest work (and you are doing a HELLUVA lot of honest work if you are sending hundreds of gigs per month back and forth), my first instinctive response to any "consumer" user of home broad band saying they use several hundred gigs a month will be "oh so in other words you download music, games, movies that you never pay for..."...

which in turn makes me grin at threads like this where folks are near boiling mad at the dictator like restrictions limiting how much "free stuff" they can get in a month....


RE: Faster than ever
By mikeyD95125 on 6/3/2009 5:35:46 PM , Rating: 3
The problem I have is that Comcast advertises as an "unlimited" service. Most of my neighbors I talked to didn't even know such a cap existed. It is deceptive in my opinion. Do you not agree Comcast should be able to provide enough bandwidth for everyone when it advertises as an unlimited service?

Although to remove the cap you can get the "business class" plan for more money each month.


Price is 99.97
By Siphen on 6/3/2009 10:50:26 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.frys.com/product/5851863?site=sr:SEARCH...

Now you know :P - stop paying the cable companies rent on using their crappy cable modems.




RE: Price is 99.97
By Cobra Commander on 6/3/2009 11:13:32 AM , Rating: 2
I've bought two cable modems and they failed just as-quickly as Comcast's. However Comcast gave me a Scientific-Atlanta brand modem 2-3 years ago and it's the longest-running cable modem I've had with them in the Atlanta suburbs. I've been with Comcast, and AT&T Broadband (whom Comcast acquired) before that, for 8 years now and no other cable modem has lasted >18 months for me. So I'm not so sure they're all crap, although for many years they certainly were!


RE: Price is 99.97
By Goty on 6/3/2009 11:25:49 AM , Rating: 2
You just need to get an ARRIS modem, then all of your problems will be solved!


RE: Price is 99.97
By Chernobyl68 on 6/3/2009 11:36:38 AM , Rating: 2
My Linksys Cablemodem is gtill going after 7 years.


RE: Price is 99.97
By Souka on 6/3/2009 6:47:10 PM , Rating: 2
$99 + tax + shipping... or rent a modem from Comcast for $4/month....

Advantage by renting is if modem fails, you get another free... if their system changes and requires a different modem (for compatiblity or performance issues) you're all set. Technical support... Comcast will support their rental modems...but will not typically support others (although they might walk you through a few steps).

I myself picked up a dlink modem 2+ years ago for $20-30 AR...so it has paid for iteself and works fine. (currently dishing out 18+Mb/s down, 8Mb/s up).

One little issue I've had from time to time is their tech support trying to blame my modem...issue being latency going from 10-30ms to 400ms+. Despite me stating my two neighbors who rent their modems, and had same problem when I do...Comcast digs in and tries to blame my modem....heh... My solution is when problem happens, I call in while on my neighbors wi-fi and pretend to be them (I support my neighbors networks already...so no big deal, I know all the necessary info).

:)


RE: Price is 99.97
By Spivonious on 6/3/2009 12:02:35 PM , Rating: 3
My 6 year-old Motorola modem is still going strong. Maybe you have some power surge issues?


RE: Price is 99.97
By Siphen on 6/3/2009 12:24:15 PM , Rating: 2
Wise man, get a good surge protector for both power and the coax cable that won’t interfere with your cable signal and the modem might last longer, I’ve only had Comcast for 2 years now and have gone through 2 modems already, although I don’t have them hooked into surge protection currently.

I'm mostly concerned about the speed and efficiency I get out of my cable modem, a long time ago, before cable companies where capping speeds, I heard Motorola cable modems where some of the best, things change over time though… Now I guess the main benefit would be to own a good modem without having to pay the monthly fee.


RE: Price is 99.97
By Serlant on 6/3/2009 1:11:54 PM , Rating: 2
We've had our motorola SB4200 since about 2001? got it with 512kb/s service, and it was still good for 20mb/s 8 years on, only swapped it for the 50mb service, it still works perfectly fine.


RE: Price is 99.97
By Elementalism on 6/3/2009 1:14:53 PM , Rating: 2
Same, in fact mine fell into my sump pump one day lol

Dried it out and still works fine.


IPv6 (wired only) routers?
By vailr on 6/3/2009 12:16:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The SB6120 supports both IPv4 and IPv6

So: where are some (or any) "wired only" routers that have IPv6 support? Yes, Apple's Airport Extreme and several other wireless routers have IPv6 support. But if you don't need wireless, why pay the extra $ for it?




RE: IPv6 (wired only) routers?
By Motley on 6/3/2009 3:20:00 PM , Rating: 2
Wouldn't that be a switch?


RE: IPv6 (wired only) routers?
By HrilL on 6/3/2009 3:46:20 PM , Rating: 1
No. A switch which a lot of wired routers and some wireless one do have built into them is not a wired router.

A switch doesn't route traffic and most of the time only work at level 2 of the OSI modal which is the hardware level. Switches use MAC addresses also known as Hardware addresses to route Traffic.

A router on the other hand works at level 3 of the OSI modal and that is known as the software level I believe. IP address are software. A router routes traffic from one ip network to another. Like say 10.x.x.x to 192.x.x.x this is how the different networks of the internet are connect. Now home routers or any router running NAT does this but also allows the local clients to share one or more external IP address and thus not every computer needs an external address and this saves address space since IPv4 is getting very limited but once IPv6 is working in full force everything could in theory have its own external address because there should be enough available.


RE: IPv6 (wired only) routers?
By Yawgm0th on 6/3/2009 4:30:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A switch doesn't route traffic and most of the time only work at level 2 of the OSI modal which is the hardware level. Switches use MAC addresses also known as Hardware addresses to route Traffic.
Err... You mean the data link layer. Layer one is the physical level. Layer two can be implemented in hardware (ie switches, which have ASICs) or software (most bridges, PC "virtual switches", etc). There is no "hardware level" of the OSI.

Layer 3 is the network layer, which is responsible for defining and separating networks or "broadcast domains." There is no "software' level in the OSI.

In any case your general direction is correct. IP addressing support occurs at layer 3, so your router must provide it. Whether it also acts as a wireless access point or small switch (layer 2 again) is irrelevant. A switch needn't recognize IP addresses (in this scenario).

In any case, many modern SOHO routers will have IPv6 support, wired or wireless. The DD-WRT-based routers do, IIRC. But why on Earth would you need it? The Internet is still IPv4 based and no home is ever going to saturate IPv4 private IP addressing space.


Cox
By Bremen7000 on 6/3/2009 11:01:02 AM , Rating: 2
Cox just unveiled a 28//2.5 DOCSIS3.0 plan with a required $100 modem purchase, guess we know what modem that is.




RE: Cox
By Spivonious on 6/3/2009 3:35:21 PM , Rating: 2
Why do you need DOCSIS 3 to get 28 down? The DOCSIS 2 spec allows for up tp 38 down (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOCSIS#Speed_Table).

I wouldn't be surprised if the modem you get from Cox is just a normal old DOCSIS 2 modem.


Another misleading title
By adiposity on 6/3/2009 6:46:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Gadgets Motorola DOCSIS 3.0 SB6120 Cable Modems Hit Fry's Electronics


Nice.

quote:
Pricing on the SB6120 modem is unknown.


Oh, so you mean the title was a lie. Ok.

-Dan




RE: Another misleading title
By Calihan on 6/3/2009 9:14:54 PM , Rating: 2
The modem is up for sale. Most places have it at $95 but I just ordered it through provantage for $85. Hopefully setup will be easy. Live in Minneapolis MN where comcast has 3.0 rolled out already.


I can just imagine...
By Tegrat on 6/3/2009 11:21:58 AM , Rating: 3
Average Buyer Beware!
The sales(wo)men will tell you that this modem is up to 4x faster than your old modem.... but what they will fail to tell you is that your 3MB/512 account is your bottleneck!




Incorrect press release
By Lord 666 on 6/3/2009 11:10:57 AM , Rating: 2
Best Buy and Amazon has had them for a while. Fry's might be the only location that is carrying them at their retail stores as BB is online only.




FINALLY
By Yawgm0th on 6/3/2009 4:11:39 PM , Rating: 2
Comcast required I pay the ridiculous installation fee to have someone come out and swap the modem for the faster service. It has been available in the Twin Cities area for months now but I've been waiting for this.

Despite my habits, I haven't yet hit the download cap. Maybe I'll finally be able to. :D




I have this modem
By Zorlac on 6/3/2009 5:07:45 PM , Rating: 2
I got this modem around the first week of April. I called Comcast and the customer service rep had never heard of it. It took them FOREVER to activate it over the phone. I was getting really worried that it would not work (I had read stories of folks buying cable modems that Comcast did not support). Finally we got it to work. I got off the phone and tested my bandwidth and almost skipped a heart beat. I was showing WAY higher down stream and up stream bandwidth than what I am paying for. The modem also shows that I am receiving bonded downstream, but the upstream is not bonded.

Interesting stuff.




"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen











botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki