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

[don at silver-lynx.com (Don Wilde)]

Peter Espen wrote:

> On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 11:56:48 -0700
>  Don Wilde <don@silver-lynx.com> wrote:
>
>> Mike Kruchoski wrote:
>>
>>> Has anyone had experience with both the Cisco 670 and Actiontec 
>>> GT701 modems on QWest DSL.  I recently "upgraded" to the higher 
>>> speed DSL.  QWest sent a new modem (not requested).  My present 
>>> Cisco "seems" to work just fine at the 1.5 Mbps, but the Actiontec 
>>> modem provides integrated wireless capability, which would be 
>>> helpful. However, I'm not eager to reconfigure the Actiontec to work 
>>> with the services I currently run on my network.
>>>
>>> In your experience, is the Actiontec reliable?  Easy to configure 
>>> (i.e., easier than Cisco)?  Is the documentation readily available & 
>>> easy to understand?  Any security concerns?  Any "gotcha's" that the 
>>> company propaganda doesn't mention?
>>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> When I upgraded my QWest DSL last spring, I had a Cisco 675 which only 
> does CAP (Carrier-less Amplitude Phase modulation), but the new and 
> faster speeds offered by QWest (with no price change) use DMT 
> (Discrete Multi-Tone) which is not supported with the Cisco 675.  
> Qwest updated my DSL connection/lines to DMT and I had already 
> purchased a Cisco 678 off of eBay in anticipation of the upgrade. The 
> Cisco 678 does both CAP and DMT, but needs to have a relatively new 
> firmware for the DMT support.  I have the most recent firmware code 
> for the Cisco 678.  I didn't want to use the ActionTec simply cause I 
> was used to the Cisco 67x and had some utils already written for them. 
> I also already had wireless all setup with my Linksys wireless boxes, 
> so I didn't need the ActionTec wireless stuff.
>
> I've been very happy with my Ciscos since I started with Qwest DSL in 
> 1999.
>
> Regarding your 1.1Mbit vs. 800Kbits, are you sure you're not really 
> getting 1.1Mbit, but only seeing 800Kbits because you're not counting 
> TCP/IP overhead, etc.?


That could be. This was a test from bandwidthplace.com, and I haven't 
checked their algorithm yet. It was actually recommended by a QWest tech 
when I mentioned that we were having obvious slowdowns.