[*] RE: Asterisk Digest, Vol 12, Issue 9

Kevin D Scott kevinds at cashette.com
Tue Dec 13 23:10:20 CST 2005


Unplug the coax from the modem, power cycle, and it will DHCP you an
192.168.100.11 IP address.  You will then have the complete menus of the
modem.  However, I did not find any config settings.

I first found this menu because of my modem's fault, I'm guessing it lost
its config,  Power LED blinking, all other lights solid.  And I was able to
access the full modem.

I had Shaw tech's send me a new config file, and it started working normally
again.

However, there is nothing configurable in there, other then a Factory Reset
button.

Kevin

-----Original Message-----
From: asterisk-bounces at muug.mb.ca [mailto:asterisk-bounces at muug.mb.ca] On
Behalf Of asterisk-request at muug.mb.ca
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 10:49 PM
To: asterisk at muug.mb.ca
Subject: Asterisk Digest, Vol 12, Issue 9

Send Asterisk mailing list submissions to
	asterisk at muug.mb.ca

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://www.muug.mb.ca/mailman/listinfo/asterisk
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	asterisk-request at muug.mb.ca

You can reach the person managing the list at
	asterisk-owner at muug.mb.ca

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Asterisk digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Shaw does not have QOS (John Lange)
   2. Re: Shaw does not have QOS (Bill Reid)
   3. RE: Shaw does not have QOS (Marcus J.)
   4. Re: Shaw does not have QOS (John Lange)
   5. Re: Shaw does not have QOS (John Lange)
   6. Re: Shaw does not have QOS (Bill Reid)
   7. Re: Shaw does not have QOS (Sean Walberg)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 15:47:05 -0600
From: John Lange <john.lange at open-it.ca>
Subject: [*] Shaw does not have QOS
To: Asterisk Open Source PBX SIG <asterisk at muug.mb.ca>
Message-ID: <1134510425.7701.50.camel at laptop.darkcore.net>
Content-Type: text/plain

I spent some considerable time today on the phone with a Shaw business
tech who was very helpful.

We've had some problems with "choppy" call quality at a certain site and
as a result we tried the Shaw QOS. It had no effect.

I figured it was because we weren't flagging the packets correctly so I
decided to do the homework and get things setup correctly.

As it turns out, Shaw does NOT have what anyone in the VOIP world would
consider QOS.

Shaw QOS is strictly the monitoring of the modem's signal-to-noise
ratios and other docsis reporting to ensure a level of "Quality of
Service".

It absolutely does NOT involve any traffic shaping or prioritizing of
packets of any kind.

I pressed him hard on this to make sure the facts were accurate. I asked
"are you certain you got an authoritative answer on this from someone
who knows what they are talking about?". Response: "Yes, I asked _the_
authority for this at Shaw in Calgary." (not a word-for-word quote)

Generally I find the use of the term QOS in this manner as deceptive. I
wouldn't have any great problem with it if they made the information on
what it means available. However, I think Shaw takes it too far.

Quote from their web site: 

"Shaw is now able to offer its High Speed Internet customers the
opportunity to improve the quality of Internet telephony services
offered by third party providers. For an additional $10 per month Shaw
will provide a quality of service (QoS) feature that will enhance these
services when used over the Shaw High Speed Internet network. Without
this service customers may encounter quality of service issues with
their voice over Internet service."

That statement is VERY deceptive.

Nothing Shaw does for QOS has any impact on "the quality of Internet
telephony services" in comparison to internet services in general.
Furthermore, assuming your modem was working properly to start with,
Shaw QOS would do nothing at all. If your modem isn't working properly
then that should be fixed regardless if you have QOS or not.

At least now we know.

On the positive side; the service was excellent. I am now working with
the techs to figure out what the real problem is at that location
(network debugging etc) which is more than I expected they would do. I
guess having a business account does have some advantages.

John




------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 16:07:43 -0600
From: Bill Reid <billreid at shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: [*] Shaw does not have QOS
To: Asterisk Open Source PBX SIG <asterisk at muug.mb.ca>
Message-ID: <439F462F.8020602 at shaw.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

John Lange wrote:

> It absolutely does NOT involve any traffic shaping or prioritizing of
> packets of any kind.
> 

Thanks for getting clarification on this. I agree that this is not worth
$10/month.

> Generally I find the use of the term QOS in this manner as deceptive. I
> wouldn't have any great problem with it if they made the information on
> what it means available. However, I think Shaw takes it too far.
> 

Like saying their digital phone is not VoIP they are playing with words. In
the 
network world QoS does not refer to the quality of the signal. It is hard to

believe that they would use the term is this way.
> 
> On the positive side; the service was excellent. I am now working with
> the techs to figure out what the real problem is at that location
> (network debugging etc) which is more than I expected they would do. I
> guess having a business account does have some advantages.

Glad to hear you are getting good response from the techs.

-- Bill


------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 16:11:52 -0600
From: "Marcus J." <marcusjungbauer at hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: [*] Shaw does not have QOS
To: asterisk at muug.mb.ca
Message-ID: <BAY104-F72CF76BEF7079E7D6D45EA3390 at phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed

I'd prefer to call it ToS = Theft of Service... see the links below and 
you'll understand ;)

http://www.shaw.ca/NR/rdonlyres/9D8C3E29-75EE-440D-8EF5-3F03BA1405F9/0/Ellac
oya.pdf

http://news.fudo.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=15

MJ


>
>I spent some considerable time today on the phone with a Shaw business
>tech who was very helpful.
>
>We've had some problems with "choppy" call quality at a certain site and
>as a result we tried the Shaw QOS. It had no effect.
>
>I figured it was because we weren't flagging the packets correctly so I
>decided to do the homework and get things setup correctly.
>
>As it turns out, Shaw does NOT have what anyone in the VOIP world would
>consider QOS.
>
>Shaw QOS is strictly the monitoring of the modem's signal-to-noise
>ratios and other docsis reporting to ensure a level of "Quality of
>Service".
>
>It absolutely does NOT involve any traffic shaping or prioritizing of
>packets of any kind.
>
>I pressed him hard on this to make sure the facts were accurate. I asked
>"are you certain you got an authoritative answer on this from someone
>who knows what they are talking about?". Response: "Yes, I asked _the_
>authority for this at Shaw in Calgary." (not a word-for-word quote)
>
>Generally I find the use of the term QOS in this manner as deceptive. I
>wouldn't have any great problem with it if they made the information on
>what it means available. However, I think Shaw takes it too far.
>
>Quote from their web site:
>
>"Shaw is now able to offer its High Speed Internet customers the
>opportunity to improve the quality of Internet telephony services
>offered by third party providers. For an additional $10 per month Shaw
>will provide a quality of service (QoS) feature that will enhance these
>services when used over the Shaw High Speed Internet network. Without
>this service customers may encounter quality of service issues with
>their voice over Internet service."
>
>That statement is VERY deceptive.
>
>Nothing Shaw does for QOS has any impact on "the quality of Internet
>telephony services" in comparison to internet services in general.
>Furthermore, assuming your modem was working properly to start with,
>Shaw QOS would do nothing at all. If your modem isn't working properly
>then that should be fixed regardless if you have QOS or not.
>
>At least now we know.
>
>On the positive side; the service was excellent. I am now working with
>the techs to figure out what the real problem is at that location
>(network debugging etc) which is more than I expected they would do. I
>guess having a business account does have some advantages.
>
>John
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Asterisk mailing list
>Asterisk at muug.mb.ca
>http://www.muug.mb.ca/mailman/listinfo/asterisk




------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 17:57:17 -0600
From: John Lange <john.lange at open-it.ca>
Subject: Re: [*] Shaw does not have QOS
To: Asterisk Open Source PBX SIG <asterisk at muug.mb.ca>
Message-ID: <1134518238.3726.9.camel at ws50.darkcore.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-13

Further to my own message, and completely by coincidence I was reading
last weeks CRTC Part VII filings when I stumbled on a filing by
Cybersurf Corp. demanding that Shaw's QOS offering be made available to
resellers.

It states this about Shaw's QOS offering:

"QoS improves the quality of third party Internet telephony services
(i.e. essentially voice over Internet protocol (4VoIP!) services) by
reducing the delay associated with voice-over-packet services that
operate over the public Internet. [...]" (They go on to explain how QoS
works..)

"It appears that QoS can easily be provided on an individual customer
basis through a one-time configuration of the Shaw approved cable modem
used by the customer to obtain Shaws Retail IS. Apparently, QoS is
enabled through a one-time configuration of Shaws cable modem
terminating system (4CMTS!) which then initiates a one-time transfer of
software from a Shaw trivial file transfer file protocol (4TFTP!) server
to the cable modem thereby initiating QoS."

Clearly Cybersurf believes Shaw has a true QOS offering that would
prioritize VoIP. So either they have their own information that
contradicts what I was told today by Shaw, or they are just assuming
(like the rest of us) that QoS actually means QoS.

Perhaps Shaw will clarify it in their response to the CRTC.

The plot thickens.

-- 
John Lange
OpenIT ltd. www.Open-IT.ca (204) 885 0872
VoIP, Web services, Linux Consulting, Server Co-Location

On Tue, 2005-12-13 at 15:47 -0600, John Lange wrote:
> I spent some considerable time today on the phone with a Shaw business
> tech who was very helpful.
> 
> We've had some problems with "choppy" call quality at a certain site and
> as a result we tried the Shaw QOS. It had no effect.
> 
> I figured it was because we weren't flagging the packets correctly so I
> decided to do the homework and get things setup correctly.
> 
> As it turns out, Shaw does NOT have what anyone in the VOIP world would
> consider QOS.
> 
> Shaw QOS is strictly the monitoring of the modem's signal-to-noise
> ratios and other docsis reporting to ensure a level of "Quality of
> Service".
> 
> It absolutely does NOT involve any traffic shaping or prioritizing of
> packets of any kind.
> 
> I pressed him hard on this to make sure the facts were accurate. I asked
> "are you certain you got an authoritative answer on this from someone
> who knows what they are talking about?". Response: "Yes, I asked _the_
> authority for this at Shaw in Calgary." (not a word-for-word quote)
> 
> Generally I find the use of the term QOS in this manner as deceptive. I
> wouldn't have any great problem with it if they made the information on
> what it means available. However, I think Shaw takes it too far.
> 
> Quote from their web site: 
> 
> "Shaw is now able to offer its High Speed Internet customers the
> opportunity to improve the quality of Internet telephony services
> offered by third party providers. For an additional $10 per month Shaw
> will provide a quality of service (QoS) feature that will enhance these
> services when used over the Shaw High Speed Internet network. Without
> this service customers may encounter quality of service issues with
> their voice over Internet service."
> 
> That statement is VERY deceptive.
> 
> Nothing Shaw does for QOS has any impact on "the quality of Internet
> telephony services" in comparison to internet services in general.
> Furthermore, assuming your modem was working properly to start with,
> Shaw QOS would do nothing at all. If your modem isn't working properly
> then that should be fixed regardless if you have QOS or not.
> 
> At least now we know.
> 
> On the positive side; the service was excellent. I am now working with
> the techs to figure out what the real problem is at that location
> (network debugging etc) which is more than I expected they would do. I
> guess having a business account does have some advantages.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Asterisk mailing list
> Asterisk at muug.mb.ca
> http://www.muug.mb.ca/mailman/listinfo/asterisk
> 




------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 18:41:34 -0600
From: John Lange <john.lange at open-it.ca>
Subject: Re: [*] Shaw does not have QOS
To: Asterisk Open Source PBX SIG <asterisk at muug.mb.ca>
Message-ID: <1134520894.3727.36.camel at ws50.darkcore.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-13

And yet another reply to my own message (sorry).

The complete Cybersurf Part VII application to the CRTC, along with the
responses from and contributions from other companies is here:

http://www.crtc.gc.ca/PartVII/eng/2005/8622/C122_200512716.htm

The most interesting response comes from Vonage Canada:

---
Vonage Canada has attempted to obtain meaningful information regarding
this QofS Service from Shaw's customer service representatives, without
success.

In Vonage Canada's view, Shaw's QofS Service is a thinly disguised "VoIP
Tax"

"Indeed, this so-called "enhancement" may in fact be a red-herring with
little basis in fact.

Vonage Canada's customers have raised serious concerns about whether
they are receiving any enhancement to their existing Shaw high-speed
retail IS service for their money whatsoever.
---

Basically, Vonage thinks Shaw came up with this QoS offering as a
marketing ploy. Its a way of scaring customers away from 3rd party VoIP
service and steering them to "Shaw Digital Phones". And if they don't
choose Shaw Digital Phones then they can still get $10/month from them. 

-- 
John Lange
OpenIT ltd. www.Open-IT.ca (204) 885 0872
VoIP, Web services, Linux Consulting, Server Co-Location

On Tue, 2005-12-13 at 17:57 -0600, John Lange wrote:
> Further to my own message, and completely by coincidence I was reading
> last weeks CRTC Part VII filings when I stumbled on a filing by
> Cybersurf Corp. demanding that Shaw's QOS offering be made available to
> resellers.
> 
> It states this about Shaw's QOS offering:
> 
> "QoS improves the quality of third party Internet telephony services
> (i.e. essentially voice over Internet protocol (4VoIP!) services) by
> reducing the delay associated with voice-over-packet services that
> operate over the public Internet. [...]" (They go on to explain how QoS
> works..)
> 
> "It appears that QoS can easily be provided on an individual customer
> basis through a one-time configuration of the Shaw approved cable modem
> used by the customer to obtain Shaws Retail IS. Apparently, QoS is
> enabled through a one-time configuration of Shaws cable modem
> terminating system (4CMTS!) which then initiates a one-time transfer of
> software from a Shaw trivial file transfer file protocol (4TFTP!) server
> to the cable modem thereby initiating QoS."
> 
> Clearly Cybersurf believes Shaw has a true QOS offering that would
> prioritize VoIP. So either they have their own information that
> contradicts what I was told today by Shaw, or they are just assuming
> (like the rest of us) that QoS actually means QoS.
> 
> Perhaps Shaw will clarify it in their response to the CRTC.
> 
> The plot thickens.
> 
> -- 
> John Lange
> OpenIT ltd. www.Open-IT.ca (204) 885 0872
> VoIP, Web services, Linux Consulting, Server Co-Location
> 
> On Tue, 2005-12-13 at 15:47 -0600, John Lange wrote:
> > I spent some considerable time today on the phone with a Shaw business
> > tech who was very helpful.
> > 
> > We've had some problems with "choppy" call quality at a certain site and
> > as a result we tried the Shaw QOS. It had no effect.
> > 
> > I figured it was because we weren't flagging the packets correctly so I
> > decided to do the homework and get things setup correctly.
> > 
> > As it turns out, Shaw does NOT have what anyone in the VOIP world would
> > consider QOS.
> > 
> > Shaw QOS is strictly the monitoring of the modem's signal-to-noise
> > ratios and other docsis reporting to ensure a level of "Quality of
> > Service".
> > 
> > It absolutely does NOT involve any traffic shaping or prioritizing of
> > packets of any kind.
> > 
> > I pressed him hard on this to make sure the facts were accurate. I asked
> > "are you certain you got an authoritative answer on this from someone
> > who knows what they are talking about?". Response: "Yes, I asked _the_
> > authority for this at Shaw in Calgary." (not a word-for-word quote)
> > 
> > Generally I find the use of the term QOS in this manner as deceptive. I
> > wouldn't have any great problem with it if they made the information on
> > what it means available. However, I think Shaw takes it too far.
> > 
> > Quote from their web site: 
> > 
> > "Shaw is now able to offer its High Speed Internet customers the
> > opportunity to improve the quality of Internet telephony services
> > offered by third party providers. For an additional $10 per month Shaw
> > will provide a quality of service (QoS) feature that will enhance these
> > services when used over the Shaw High Speed Internet network. Without
> > this service customers may encounter quality of service issues with
> > their voice over Internet service."
> > 
> > That statement is VERY deceptive.
> > 
> > Nothing Shaw does for QOS has any impact on "the quality of Internet
> > telephony services" in comparison to internet services in general.
> > Furthermore, assuming your modem was working properly to start with,
> > Shaw QOS would do nothing at all. If your modem isn't working properly
> > then that should be fixed regardless if you have QOS or not.
> > 
> > At least now we know.
> > 
> > On the positive side; the service was excellent. I am now working with
> > the techs to figure out what the real problem is at that location
> > (network debugging etc) which is more than I expected they would do. I
> > guess having a business account does have some advantages.
> > 
> > John
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Asterisk mailing list
> > Asterisk at muug.mb.ca
> > http://www.muug.mb.ca/mailman/listinfo/asterisk
> > 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Asterisk mailing list
> Asterisk at muug.mb.ca
> http://www.muug.mb.ca/mailman/listinfo/asterisk
> 




------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 18:56:25 -0600
From: Bill Reid <billreid at shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: [*] Shaw does not have QOS
To: Asterisk Open Source PBX SIG <asterisk at muug.mb.ca>
Message-ID: <439F6DB9.6010109 at shaw.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-13; format=flowed

John Lange wrote:

> terminating system (4CMTS!) which then initiates a one-time transfer of
> software from a Shaw trivial file transfer file protocol (4TFTP!) server
> to the cable modem thereby initiating QoS."
> 

Each cable modem has its own config file which is tftped down when the modem
is 
powered up or on request. I thought that QOS would be a setting in the
config file.

In looking at some specs for the Motorola 5100 cable modem I came across the
IP 
address. You can access a Web page for the modem at 192.168.100.1. It is
only 
the help page no status pages. I do not know why they do not allow users to
see 
the status pages. John, perhaps you can ask the Shaw tech.

-- Bill



------------------------------

Message: 7
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 22:47:29 -0600
From: Sean Walberg <sean at ertw.com>
Subject: Re: [*] Shaw does not have QOS
To: Asterisk Open Source PBX SIG <asterisk at muug.mb.ca>
Message-ID: <1134535650.29856.7.camel at bob.ertw.com>
Content-Type: text/plain

On Tue, 2005-12-13 at 18:41 -0600, John Lange wrote:
> ---
> Vonage Canada has attempted to obtain meaningful information regarding
> this QofS Service from Shaw's customer service representatives, without
> success.

I once tried to find out how Shaw classifies the packets as VoIP.  After
getting bounced around from queue to queue, and eventually being
promised a call back from a senior guy that never came, I gave up.

I think there's a good reason Shaw does their own voice service using a
separate cable modem channel.  Voice needs priority queuing at every hop
in the network in order to be effective.  Simply reserving bandwidth
doesn't do it.

All that said, a guy at work claims a noticeable difference on his
Primus service after adding Shaw QoS (TM).

Sean



------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Asterisk mailing list
Asterisk at muug.mb.ca
http://www.muug.mb.ca/mailman/listinfo/asterisk


End of Asterisk Digest, Vol 12, Issue 9
***************************************




More information about the Asterisk mailing list