[NMLUG] QWest DSL with Cisco 670 vs. Actiontec GT701 modem

[peter at espen.net (Peter Espen)]

 From my Cisco 678:

cbos>show int wan0
wan0   ADSL Physical Port
        Line Trained
Actual Configuration:
   Overhead Framing:           3
   Trellis Coding:             Enabled
   Standard Compliance:        T1.413
   Downstream Data Rate:       1536 Kbps
   Upstream Data Rate:         896 Kbps
   Interleave S Downstream:    4
   Interleave D Downstream:    16
   Interleave R Downstream:    16
   Interleave S Upstream:      8
   Interleave D Upstream:      8
   Interleave R Upstream:      16
   Modem Microcode:            G96
   DSP version:                0
   Operating State:            Showtime/Data Mode
Configured:
   Echo Cancellation:          Disabled
   Overhead Framing:           3
   Coding Gain:                Auto
   TX Power Attenuation:       0dB
   Trellis Coding:             Enabled
   Bit Swapping:               Disabled
   Standard Compliance:        T1.413
   Remote Standard Compliance: T1.413
   Tx Start Bin:               0x6
   Tx End Bin:                 0x1f
   Data Interface:             Utopia L1
Status:
   Local SNR Margin:           21.0dB
   Local Coding Gain:          7.5dB
   Local Transmit Power:       12.3dB
   Local Attenuation:          35.5dB
   Remote Attenuation:         22.0dB



On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 15:53:17 -0700
  Matt Grommes <matt@mattorama.net> wrote:
> You might just be too far from the CO to get the full 
>speed. If you are, I'd take that up with Qwest. You 
>shouldn't be paying for it if you can't get it due to the 
>limitations in the technology. I'm like 1000 feet from 
>the CO and I get the full 1.5mbps (up and down) on my 
>home service so I know it's possible.
> 
> 
> Don Wilde wrote:
>>>
>> So far, the Actiuontec has proven reliable and 
>>configurable. However, 
>> QWest does not deliver what they promise. I'm supposed 
>>to have their Pro 
>> service (1.1mbit guaranteed up AND down), but we're only 
>>getting 
>> 800Kbits consistently. Most of the configuration is very 
>>easy; however, 
>> they don't docuiment the advanced things like 
>>port-forwarding and such 
>> completely. It is, however, very similar to standard 
>>natd rulesets, so 
>> it's understandable.
>> 
>> I have yet to tackle getting reverse-DNS set up with 
>>QWest...
>> _______________________________________________
>> NMLUG mailing list
>> NMLUG@nmlug.org
>> http://www.nmlug.org/mailman/listinfo/nmlug
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> NMLUG mailing list
> NMLUG@nmlug.org
> http://www.nmlug.org/mailman/listinfo/nmlug