# woot! modem sale on again



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

Fantastic low prices on Arris (Motorola) surfboard reconditioned modems:

http://computers.woot.com/plus/arris-surfboard-cable-modems-2

Shipping is $5.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

Clearing out the stock of DOCSIS 3.0 modems in anticipation of the new DOCSIS 3.1 modems coming out later this year.


----------



## joewom (Dec 10, 2013)

tarheelblue32 said:


> Clearing out the stock of DOCSIS 3.0 modems in anticipation of the new DOCSIS 3.1 modems coming out later this year.


Which makes me laugh at this line in the specs:

16 download & 4 upload channels to future proof your modem as your Cable Internet Provider enhances capability.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

Good price on the SB8183, which is the only modem that anyone should really consider here (the SB6121/6141 will quickly be obsolete).


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

slowbiscuit said:


> Good price on the SB8183, which is the only modem that anyone should really consider here (the SB6121/6141 will quickly be obsolete).


 Why ??


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

The 21/41 cap out at 130mbps and Comcast for example is already raising Blast speeds to 150. I wouldn't be buying 8x4 modems now.


----------



## southerndoc (Apr 5, 2003)

slowbiscuit said:


> The 21/41 cap out at 130mbps and Comcast for example is already raising Blast speeds to 150. I wouldn't be buying 8x4 modems now.


Comcast is offering 250 in most places now (that's what I have with an SB6183, I get about 290-300 Mbps downstream).

Looking forward to gigabit cable via DOCSIS 3.1. Supposedly Atlanta is one of the first markets.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

slowbiscuit said:


> Good price on the SB8183, which is the only modem that anyone should really consider here (the SB6121/6141 will quickly be obsolete).


If I knew you better we could make a bet on this. I get 30 Mbps from TWC here and that's all I can afford -- it's also all I need. My SB6121 does fine with this and I would bet it will be fine for at least several years. I'm not in a big metro area like Atlanta where they are rolling out the 100+ Mbps services. Some folks may want (need?) higher bandwidth and live in service areas where it is available. That doesn't apply to a lot of people.


----------



## joewom (Dec 10, 2013)

geekmedic said:


> Comcast is offering 250 in most places now (that's what I have with an SB6183, I get about 290-300 Mbps downstream).
> 
> Looking forward to gigabit cable via DOCSIS 3.1. Supposedly Atlanta is one of the first markets.


Don't need 3.1 for gb Internet. Mediacom proved that offering it on 3.0.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

slowbiscuit said:


> The 21/41 cap out at 130mbps and Comcast for example is already raising Blast speeds to 150. I wouldn't be buying 8x4 modems now.


I have my own *Arris TM822 *and I now have 175Mb/s download most times, Comcast told me that 150Mb/s is the standard for my Blast connection.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

lessd said:


> I have my own *Arris TM822 *and I now have 175Mb/s download most times, Comcast told me that 150Mb/s is the standard for my Blast connection.


Yes, the TM822 is 8x4 and rated at 300Mbps, however I cannot believe anyone would cheap out $10-$20 and not pick up a SB6183 rated at 600Mbps instead of one of the lower rated units.

I doubt anyone would purchase a Roamio Plus @1TB if they could get a Pro @3TB for $20 more.


----------



## Noku Dzu (Jan 29, 2016)

according to web-site.


----------



## snerd (Jun 6, 2008)

slowbiscuit said:


> The 21/41 cap out at 130mbps and Comcast for example is already raising Blast speeds to 150. I wouldn't be buying 8x4 modems now.


That's quite misleading, since 130Mbps is upload speed, *the SB6183 has the same upload cap*, and Blast 150 caps upload speed at 10Mbps. The max download speed is 172Mbps for the SB6121 and 343Mbps for the SB6141.

If these magically become obsolete when DOCSIS 3.1 is deployed, then so will the SB6183. None of them will be obsolete any time soon.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

Noku Dzu said:


> according to web-site.


Woot seldom has these On sale for more than 24 hours.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

tarheelblue32 said:


> Clearing out the stock of DOCSIS 3.0 modems in anticipation of the new DOCSIS 3.1 modems coming out later this year.


http://www.fiercecable.com/story/cu...-full-duplex-docsis-31-report-says/2016-03-15


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> http://www.fiercecable.com/story/cu...-full-duplex-docsis-31-report-says/2016-03-15


I don't plan on running a server out of my basement, so I really don't see why I need a full-duplex gigabit connection.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

tarheelblue32 said:


> I don't plan on running a server out of my basement, so I really don't see why I need a full-duplex gigabit connection.


Clearly you did not read the article.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Clearly you did not read the article.


I read every word.


----------



## snerd (Jun 6, 2008)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Yes, the TM822 is 8x4 and rated at 300Mbps, however I cannot believe anyone would cheap out $10-$20 and not pick up a SB6183 rated at 600Mbps instead of one of the lower rated units.


Any sensible shopper who knew they would be very unlikely to need the extra capacity would save $20 and go for the SB6141. If your download speed is 150Mbps or less, there is no meaningful benefit to hiding away an SB6183 rather than an SB6141.

To put it another way, if you can get an SB6141 for $40, why pay 50% more if you don't need the extra capacity? Wanna buy some Monster Cables for your stereo?



> I doubt anyone would purchase a Roamio Plus @1TB if they could get a Pro @3TB for $20 more.


Bogus comparison, since paying $20 more is only a 5% increase over the price of a $400 Roamio Plus.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

*shrug* cheap out if you want, I don't care. Comcast is already EOL'ing the SB6120, the 21/41 won't be far behind. It's not like an extra $20 to get you a few more years of service is a big deal,and the more download channels you have the better your service is going to be anyway.

But yeah if you're stuck on ancient cable or don't care about getting rated speeds, cheap away. Those are good prices on 21/41s if that sale comes back.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

slowbiscuit said:


> *shrug* cheap out if you want, I don't care. Comcast is already EOL'ing the SB6120, the 21/41 won't be far behind. It's not like an extra $20 to get you a few more years of service is a big deal,and the more download channels you have the better your service is going to be anyway.
> 
> But yeah if you're stuck on ancient cable or don't care about getting rated speeds, cheap away. Those are good prices on 21/41s if that sale comes back.


My speed was upped to over 150M/s from 50M/s, the only difference I can see is the download speed from MS and a few other sights, many sights don't pay to download that fast, I just downloaded some software and the sight only went to about 2Mb/sec, took a long time for the download. Some web pages still load slow because they don't pay for the high speed. I don't play on-line games, and would guess they can take advantage of the higher download speed. Maybe in the future the speed will increase on most all web sights, but as of now I don't see the big gain going from 50Mb/s to 150Mb/s. Some on this Forum may use their computer as a server for outside the home access, then the speed could make a big difference. I wonder how many people see a big gain in web browsing going from 50Mb/s to say 150Mb/s or 300Mb/s. I never tested the speed of say Dropbox, but if you were backing up your computer to such a sight that can go a 150Mb/s or faster you would see a big difference in your backup speed.


----------



## randian (Jan 15, 2014)

My understanding is that even if your maximum download speed is not improved the extra channels the '83 has over the '41 make it more likely that you will achieve your rated speed in less than ideal conditions i.e you get a more reliable experience.


----------



## aaronwt (Jan 31, 2002)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Yes, the TM822 is 8x4 and rated at 300Mbps, however I cannot believe anyone would cheap out $10-$20 and not pick up a SB6183 rated at 600Mbps instead of one of the lower rated units.
> 
> I doubt anyone would purchase a Roamio Plus @1TB if they could get a Pro @3TB for $20 more.


Most people do just the opposite. They go the expensive route and rent the cable modem from their cable company. Paying many, many, many times the actual cost of the modem over many years.


----------



## justen_m (Jan 15, 2004)

snerd said:


> To put it another way, if you can get an SB6141 for $40, why pay 50% more if you don't need the extra capacity? Wanna buy some Monster Cables for your stereo?


So you are saying my SB6141 won't become obsolete, requiring me to spend more money on a 3.1 DOCSIS modem? Whew! I was worried! My current 110Mbps connection is obviously inadequate and I need 1Gbps. For... like... 12K 3D movies? Or something? My HD TV supports all those formats, right? There is tons of 4K content available for FREE, right?

If it takes a few minutes to download a new OS (~weekly, on Win10 Insider Fast Ring) vs a few seconds, I can live with that.


----------



## fcfc2 (Feb 19, 2015)

randian said:


> My understanding is that even if your maximum download speed is not improved the extra channels the '83 has over the '41 make it more likely that you will achieve your rated speed in less than ideal conditions i.e you get a more reliable experience.


Your understanding is my understanding. The problem is that it is not the capacity of the equipment, it is what the ISP's decide what equipment they will support and at what levels. Some cable companies seem to be moving away from 4x4 modems already even though they are capable of handing the lower speed tiers quite well. On some systems, the 8x4 6141 is capped at 100 Mbps even though it is capable of higher speeds. The issue is the ISP's tend to overload their systems so to get the speed you pay for all the time, including in prime time, you tend to need a higher capacity modem. 
I would not recommend anyone invests in a 4x4 modem at this time and if you are "needing" to buy something now, I would go for the highest capacity modem you can afford especially if the price differential is modest. If you don't "need" something new, run with whatever you have as long as you can.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

For $20 extra the 6183 was a no-brainer just to get better service with more download channels (and a much longer service life), but whatever.


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

tarheelblue32 said:


> I read every word.


Cleally you did not understand it as it supported your position.


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Cleally you did not understand it as it supported your position.


Perhaps we are having a miscommunication. What exactly was your point in responding to my comment with the link?


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

tarheelblue32 said:


> Perhaps we are having a miscommunication. What exactly was your point in responding to my comment with the link?


Check your post #2 stating that they were clearing out these modem in anticipation of Docsis 3.1 modems later this year (actually they are refurbished modems - not clearing out of new stock, but I digress).

I posted the link to show that you were jumping the gun on Docsis 3.1 modems (jumping into Docsis 3.1 at this stage is early as standards are not set and enough testing has been done by the MSO yet so the higher speed Docsis 3.0 modems are fine for now)

Then in post #16 you responded to my link, responding that you had no plans to run a server farm out of your basement(which in reality supports the claim made in the link that one should beware Docsis 3.1 at this point and, as thus, be content with the speeds Docsis 3.0 supplies today).


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

If you're buying a modem now, get at least a 16x4, if not a 24x4, but if you're like me and you have a 6141, it's just fine for up to 150mbps service. If you have a 6121, it's fine up to 75mbps service I think.

DOCSIS 3.1 is really going to crank up the speeds.


----------



## Patrickcg (Jul 15, 2003)

The link shows it sold out, but they are still offering a factory refurbished one for even cheaper:

http://computers.woot.com/offers/arris-cable-modem-wi-fi-router-white-3?ref=cp_cnt_wp_21_1


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

snerd said:


> Any sensible shopper who knew they would be very unlikely to need the extra capacity would save $20 and go for the SB6141. If your download speed is 150Mbps or less, there is no meaningful benefit to hiding away an SB6183 rather than an SB6141.
> 
> To put it another way, if you can get an SB6141 for $40, why pay 50% more if you don't need the extra capacity? Wanna buy some Monster Cables for your stereo?


To those unlucky TCF members who followed snerd's advice (and others) to purchase the SB6141 instead of the SB6183, be aware that there is a serious flaw in the modem that allows hackers access to it - and the ability to disable the modem.


----------



## HerronScott (Jan 1, 2002)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> To those unlucky TCF members who followed snerd's advice (and others) to purchase the SB6141 instead of the SB6183, be aware that there is a serious flaw in the modem that allows hackers access to it - and the ability to disable the modem.


Arris has released a firmware update for this.

http://www.arriseverywhere.com/2016/04/update-on-our-surfboard-sb6141-modem/

DSLReports Comcast forum discussion here.

https://www.dslreports.com/forum/r30690458-Security-SB6141s-with-older-version-firmware-vulnerable-to-CSRF-flaw

Comcast reps have reported to some sources that this will be deployed "soon" to the cable modems on their network (Be interesting to see how soon!).

At least on Comcast's network, this does not allow hackers to "disable" the cable modem. If you manage to hit a compromised website/URL (which has not been found in the wild yet), it could cause your cable modem to reboot or reset to factory defaults which would cause an Internet outage while it automatically downloaded and updated for Comcast's network.

Note that one user was able to do something similar to his SB6183 as well using Javascript versus a URL embedded as an image.

"After a good bit more testing it turns out the SB6183 can be rebooted if you use Javascript. Embedding the links as an image doesn't work like it does with the SB6141, however jQuery's $.ajax() has no problem posting the needed data to the appropriate URL. In fact I was able to knock my SB6183 offline for over 10 minutes by doing a 3-step factory default -> set to European frequency plan -> reboot sequence."

Scott


----------



## SomeRandomIdiot (Jan 7, 2016)

HerronScott said:


> Arris has released a firmware update for this.
> 
> http://www.arriseverywhere.com/2016/04/update-on-our-surfboard-sb6141-modem/
> 
> Scott


Yes, but the end user cannot update their firmware.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> To those unlucky TCF members who followed snerd's advice (and others) to purchase the SB6141 instead of the SB6183, be aware that there is a serious flaw in the modem that allows hackers access to it - and the ability to disable the modem.


Great. I have one that's several years old from when back when it was hot stuff. Doesn't sound like that big of a deal though.


----------



## HerronScott (Jan 1, 2002)

SomeRandomIdiot said:


> Yes, but the end user cannot update their firmware.


And if anyone with Comcast was really worried about this security issue (which has yet to be found released in the wild), Comcast has pushed out the firmware update that fixes it to the SB6120, SB6121, and SB6141 as of Thursday (SB_KOMODO-1.0.6.16-SCM00-NOSH). The fix for the SB6183 should be pushed out next week.

Scott


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

HerronScott said:


> And if anyone with Comcast was really worried about this security issue (which has yet to be found released in the wild), Comcast has pushed out the firmware update that fixes it to the SB6120, SB6121, and SB6141 as of Thursday (SB_KOMODO-1.0.6.16-SCM00-NOSH). The fix for the SB6183 should be pushed out next week.
> 
> Scott


Well that's good. Time Warner Cable should get around to pushing out that firmware update in about 18 months.


----------



## HerronScott (Jan 1, 2002)

tarheelblue32 said:


> Well that's good. Time Warner Cable should get around to pushing out that firmware update in about 18 months.


 Comcast actually did an interim workaround which blocked access to the web pages in question before releasing the update.

Scott


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

tarheelblue32 said:


> Well that's good. Time Warner Cable should get around to pushing out that firmware update in about 18 months.


I'm also on TWC and using my customer-owned SB6121 modem. In the Internet Equipment list on my TWC account it shows a customer owned modem and the MAC number -- but doesn't identify it by the SB6121 model number. So I'm wondering if it will ever get any updates.


HerronScott said:


> Comcast actually did an interim workaround which blocked access to the web pages in question before releasing the update.
> 
> Scott


What was the nature of their workaround? I've added a rule to my router that prevents LAN access to WAN 192.168.100.1 (which works).

I'm wondering if I really want TWC to push an update, since nothing seems broken (with my router rule in place).


----------



## tarheelblue32 (Jan 13, 2014)

dlfl said:


> I'm also on TWC and using my customer-owned SB6121 modem. In the Internet Equipment list on my TWC account it shows a customer owned modem and the MAC number -- but doesn't identify it by the SB6121 model number. So I'm wondering if it will ever get any updates.


I'm pretty sure it will whenever they get around to pushing out the update. I have a SB6141 that doesn't list the model number when I log into my TWC account, but I know it has received at least 1 firmware update since I purchased it. TWC's system should know what model of modem is on its system and what firmware version it is running even if they don't show it on your user account page.


----------



## dlfl (Jul 6, 2006)

tarheelblue32 said:


> I'm pretty sure it will whenever they get around to pushing out the update. I have a SB6141 that doesn't list the model number when I log into my TWC account, but I know it has received at least 1 firmware update since I purchased it. TWC's system should know what model of modem is on its system and what firmware version it is running even if they don't show it on your user account page.


Good to hear and hopefully it works that way in my TWC region.

You might find this thread I just started on the TWC forum interesting:
http://forums.timewarnercable.com/t...B6121-modem/m-p/102256/highlight/false#M31328
In particular I thought the following comments by MsRaye were interesting:


> You cannot change the login anyway and the cable co uses the same credentials for all modems that require a login.You can't change user user or user password, lol
> 
> BTW, TWC has the reset to factory default command disabled for years on the 6121-6141, there is a physical sequence that has to be performed otherwise the command does nothing


This is saying that even if a modem does require a user/password login they are fixed and commonly known for most modems. Thus security isn't much better than for the Arris modems that don't require credentials.

I don't know how authoritative MsRaye's comments are but she does have over 17K posts and is classified as a "Resident Wiz" on that forum. I think she stayed at a Holiday Inn Express too!


----------



## HerronScott (Jan 1, 2002)

dlfl said:


> What was the nature of their workaround? I've added a rule to my router that prevents LAN access to WAN 192.168.100.1 (which works).


Comcast's temporary workaround was the same as yours except at the cablemodem. By powercycling the cablemodem manually you could get to the webpages again if needed (signal levels etc) until the block was applied again (twice a day I think).

Scott


----------



## CCourtney (Mar 28, 2006)

What's everyone's experience in terms of what's promised by the service vs what's received?

I've got a 75Mbps Down / 6Mbps up and I rarely get anything better than 40Mbps Down (usually get ~6Mbps up but that's really a cap on comcast side, not a bottle neck.) 

During weekdays from ~6pm-10pm it's all over the place on the DL speed and occasionally it'll even go dead for a short period of time.

I admit I stream a decent amount, I average around 300-400GB's of consumption a month (for the house - I have a teenage son as well) but it really pisses me off when I'm paying for 75Mbps and I get bottlenecked because of network usage in my neighborhood. 

And they were trying to talk me into buying a 150Mbps package. 75Mbps would be more than sufficient for everyone in the house to stream if we wanted assuming we actually got what we paid for.


----------



## slowbiscuit (Sep 19, 2006)

I routinely get 95mb all the time on a 75mb Comcast Blast service. My experience is common.

You've got an oversubscribed node that they need to split or a signal-level issue, I would complain loudly especially given the cost today.


----------



## markyr17 (Mar 21, 2016)

CCourtney said:


> What's everyone's experience in terms of what's promised by the service vs what's received?
> 
> I've got a 75Mbps Down / 6Mbps up and I rarely get anything better than 40Mbps Down (usually get ~6Mbps up but that's really a cap on comcast side, not a bottle neck.)
> 
> ...


As slowbiscuit says - yes, complain, and they'll fix it.


----------



## lessd (Jan 23, 2005)

slowbiscuit said:


> I routinely get 95mb all the time on a 75mb Comcast Blast service. My experience is common.
> 
> You've got an oversubscribed node that they need to split or a signal-level issue, I would complain loudly especially given the cost today.


And I get (most of the time) 175Mb/s on my Comcast blast that rated at 150Mb/s


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

CCourtney said:


> What's everyone's experience in terms of what's promised by the service vs what's received?
> 
> I've got a 75Mbps Down / 6Mbps up and I rarely get anything better than 40Mbps Down (usually get ~6Mbps up but that's really a cap on comcast side, not a bottle neck.)
> ....
> And they were trying to talk me into buying a 150Mbps package. 75Mbps would be more than sufficient for everyone in the house to stream if we wanted assuming we actually got what we paid for.


Yes, it's weasely marketing, but you're promised _up to_ that speed.


----------



## JoeKustra (Dec 7, 2012)

CCourtney said:


> What's everyone's experience in terms of what's promised by the service vs what's received?


Up to last month I was paying for 30/3. I received that speed, or slightly better, 24/7. This happened after my ISP did a nice upgrade of everything. I'm using a SB6183 and getting 16/4 channels. My speed is now 40/4 or just under. It's not relevant why it went up. Speed checked by my router, PC and Roku 3. No peak hour slow down since the upgrade. Signals are 8-9 dBmV down and 51 dBmV up, and SNL of 41 dB down. It's nice.


----------



## BRiT wtfdotcom (Dec 17, 2015)

CCourtney said:


> What's everyone's experience in terms of what's promised by the service vs what's received?


In the 15 years I have had cable based internet I have always gotten the advertized speed or higher. Always. 24 /7. I have never had slower. Right now I have 200mbit down and I always get that speed or higher. I almost always have downloads running all times of day and they always hit the top speeds. I don't do much uploading but when i speed test I have always hit or exceeded the speed indicated.


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

These are back on Woot today

http://computers.woot.com/?ref=cp_gh_cp_4


----------

