Actually, now that I think about it, I'm totally not sure if this can apply to cable modems. For example, if you have a static IP, and you need to keep your modem turned on all the time...is that true? I'm don't know.
Anyways, I was having problems with my download speed, so after calling tech support, someone suggested the following:
<font color=green>A lot of times, errors will build up in the modem, and resetting it is the only way to get rid of them. Once you get a lot of errors built up, the modem cannot function properly. Hence, the slow downs in speeds. 5 minutes is just a standard time. Some modems will discharge quicker, but 5 minutes is a safe amount for any brand and type.
To reset the modem, while it's turned on, unplug the modem. After five minutes, plug it back in and reconnect.
So, I was getting as low as 260 or something. Then after doing this, I was higher than I've ever seen before = 1190 kbps! (BTW, the speed test is done from <A HREF="http://www.dslreports.com/stest?loc=2" target="_new">DSL Reports</A>)
I just know that this is a great tip that everybody should remember if they're having problems with this speed. If you test your system every month, and find a decrease in performance, you could try this to possibly regain that. I know I will now... :wink:
Static IPs aren't affected I think. If the router is properly configured with the config saved etc then on restart it will be fine. As long as the DNS server IPs of your ISP are still in there etc and the ISP is trying to send the correct IP to you for the WAN side of your router.
Im having a bit of trouble, and tech support from my isp hasn't beet precisly helpful.
I just signed up for an ADSL connection, but for some reason, the modem (Efficient 5667 DSL modem/router), althoug it seems to be OK, the Internet connection isn't working. The ISP ask me to leave all my TCP/IP settings to auto set, but my pc's sync to an 169.xxx.xxx.xxx ip address that is suposed to be an error. One tech support guy told me that it was a problem with my NIC, that somehow it wasn't releasing (via ipconfig /release) the ip address. he asked me to uninstall then reinstall the TCP/IP comoponent of WinXP (something kinda impossible i think) then he told me that my NIC had to be uninstalled from from WinXP then reinstalled so the IP address should be reset. No avail, I still got the error IP. I thought that the repair connection function from WinXP could help me, but It says that is unable to renew the IP address from the DHCP. Later that day, (when I was finnaly able to recontact the ISP tech support) I went through all the uninstall/reinstall proccess and attempts, when finally he told me that the problem seemed to be with their DSLAM. He gave me a follow-up number and 72 hours for their operations department to contact me. Now, which tech support should I believe, the one that told me that the problem was my NIC (which I believe less and less as the problem, since I phisically removed the NIC then I reinstalled it, and since my other pc's also got an IP starting with 169, even in Win98) or the one that tells me that is their DSLAM???
PC1: IP 10.0.0.2 MASK 255.0.0.0
PC2: IP 10.0.0.3 MASK 255.0.0.0
Then try to ping each other. If that works, your TCP/IP is fine and you can believe the DSLAM problem. After the test set it back to auto IP and wait for the vendor to fix their problem, of course deducting the out of service time from your bill.
BTW - how are there PC's wired together? a hub? Router?
<i>It's always the one thing you never suspected.</i>
well, im believing the DSLAM problem, cause I just was able to share my dial-up between my 2 xp systems, and for that to work, my guess is that my NIC's are fine, and the TCP/IP is also fine. For the question regarding the interconnection of the PC's, when I put them together, they are coneccted by a Netgear DS104 hub. Right now, the DSL modem is off and totally disconeccted from the network. I tried two configs to add the modem, the firs was to conecct it to the HUB using the hub's uplink port, and both my xp systems (one of which is Win98SE/WinXPpro dual-boot) obtained the faulty 169.xxx.xxx.xxx ip address from the DSL modem. Then I connected the modem directly to one of the PC's NIC, and it obtained the exact same IP address. When I disconnect the modem and make the XP box with dial-up to act as a server, the systems configure themeselves to other IP addresses and the Internet works (dial up never gets f'd up)
So, I'm guessing that the DSLAM thing is the guilty part
An easy way to check for functionality is to use those nifty little LED-indicators on the front of the hub. If when you plug in the cable from PC-#1 (or PC-#2) to the hub, and you see a solid/flashing indicator then you can be assured that the NIC is not the source of error. When connecting the Uplink to the modem, you're looking for a solid indicator with brief flashes. (Make sure with DS104 that the Hub's Uplink/Normal button is pushed in. Sounds silly, but it's easy to overlook). Also check the indicator on the modem, it should show that their as a computer connected ot it on the client side. That should run down the full line of hardware on your side and give you a better feeling.
Otherwise, I would reccomend trying the connection the modem directly from one PC. The way they have the modem's set for most cable companies is that no computer will have access to the modem service, if there is a second computer detected (unless an additional IP address has been issued to you). you would obviously skip over this entire paragraph if you have a router somewhere in this maze that wasn't told to us.
there seems to be a nation-wide problem with the dsl modems (SpeedStream 5667 from efficient). I know that the system works on Cisco 56260 (router or DSLAM, not sure) and I know that the problem isn't is my NIC's 'cause I tried to use the USB conection and still no net. I've decided a while ago to connect the modem dirctly to one pc until the connection works. And jut to be sure, that pc was completle wiped, so I tried to connect through mandrake 8 and a clean XP pro install, but no avail.