Forum Discussion

gjett1's avatar
gjett1
New Contributor III
6 years ago
Solved

Uncorrectables on ALL downstream channels. What could be the problem?

I live in Springfield, VA. I have a Netgear CM600 modem and have been receiving uncorrectables of hundreds of thousands and millions in a very limited uptime (< 24 hours). I am having this problem on...
cox coxsupport
crashing
downstream
errors
event log
gaming
internet
modem
modem issues
packet loss
  • Rob_H_'s avatar
    Rob_H_
    6 years ago

    gjett1 Actually, I think the best people to contact would be the AWS customer, which is the gaming company.  The trick will be to get the attention of upper management with specific details to support your case.  Otherwise, your complaint will likely be immediately filed in the "circular file" system. 

    Send a detailed letter via certified mail to a member or members (i.e. CEO, Senior VP).  It may help to select "restricted delivery" which means that either the addressee or an authorized agent for the addressee must sign.  That's an extra attention getter.  Otherwise, whoever normally gets the mail at the company will sign for it.  You don't need to pay extra for a return receipt unless you want to.

    If that fails, then file an online complaint with the Better Business Bureau (BBB) against the gaming company and reference your certified letter(s).

    How does that sound to you?

  • Rob_H_'s avatar
    Rob_H_
    6 years ago

    gjett1 Oh, I see now.  The Motorola SB6121 was only a 4x4 modem, while the Netgear CM600 is a 24x8 modem and the Arris SB6190 is a 32x8 modem.  In your case, you appear to have gone from 4 downstream channels to 16 downstream channels.  Your connection doesn't appear to be handling the new total of 16 downstream channels very well. 

    I think you are correct when you stated that the issue now points at Cox side (facilities, cabling) after having tried 2 newer modems, both running 16 downstream channels, with the same result.  As an aside, I wonder if your SNRs are rather misleading because of the high downstream power levels.

    All the best in getting Cox to resolve it quickly during the next visit.

Rob_H_'s avatar
Rob_H_
Contributor II

gjett1

Cox isn't responsible for packet loss on the AWS 54.239 (and/or 52.239) networks.  To reiterate, based on the testing I outlined above, this appears to be a QoS issue within the AWS networks when the source IP address is from Cox.  Their 54.239 and 52.239 networks aren't the first AWS networks the packets reach once leaving the Cox network.  There is no packet loss observed between Cox and the first AWS network the packets reach. As an aside, it looks like Cox peers directly with AWS.

gjett1's avatar
gjett1
New Contributor III
6 years ago

If there is any evidence you can provide me in regard to the QoS issue on the AWS 54.239/52.239 networks that would be greatly appreciated. I am sure I can show them the problem from my individual network, but they will most likely want something a little more concrete. Proof that they are timing out requests from only Cox IPs would be the real kicker, if I can find the proof.

  • Rob_H_'s avatar
    Rob_H_
    Contributor II
    6 years ago

    gjett1  I'll reply with that as soon as possible.

  • Rob_H_'s avatar
    Rob_H_
    Contributor II
    6 years ago

    gjett1My apologies, but I'm only able to share my findings.  The test results of the other forum member testing with me don't appear to support their claims.  Instead of showing ping results en route to the gaming server over a T-Mobile hotspot, it only shows to the 54.239 network as the target.  Also, he or she must have mistyped 54.239 as 52.239.  The discussion kinda went off the rails when I made the same suggestion of presenting evidence to upper management at the gaming companies.

    Nonetheless, here is  the link to my results showing the packet loss at their 54.239 network en route to the gaming server with  512-byte packets..  https://imgur.com/i8mE2YG

    If you can run similar 512-byte tests using the PingPlotter app over a hotspot and a VPN over Cox, that would prove or disprove the alleged QoS issue on their 54.239 network when the source IP is from the Cox network.  BTW, 256-byte packets should also be sufficient.  The default packet size is only 56 bytes as I seem to recall.

    Please keep us apprised on how things are going with getting your various issues resolved.