> On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 00:38:31 -0400, RobertVA
> <robert_c72athotmail@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> While I'm not certain, I believe the ISP is using an ID number in the
>> modem for authentication. My modem carton is labeled with an number
>> labeled "HFC MAC ID..." with is duplicated on the modem itself (there
>> are four spare stickers like the one on the modem). The stickers also
>> bear a "USB CPE MAC ID...". I see no mention of a CPE Ethernet MAC ID.
>> When I switched from the USB connection to the Ethernet connection
>> through the router on my computer the connection was promptly
>> established and has been operating properly (at least through the
>> router) for several months since. My cable modem was purchased over the
>> counter at the ISP's service and payment center.
>>
>> While I did use the modem's installation CD to get the USB interface
>> running, I didn't find it necessary to use the ISP's setup CD for either
>> the connection via USB or connection via the router. The ISP
>> installation CD I have predates the release of Windows Vista and refuses
>> to run on the relatives Vista system.
Barb Bowman wrote:
> who is the ISP?
> using Ethernet is much preferred over USB.

The ISP is Cox Cable (Hampton Roads VA, USA).

I'm aware of the potential of a USB internet connection to clog the USB
buss with a large quantity of traffic. I am also aware of the security
advantages of the NAT and SPI functions featured in many routers. As I
upgraded from dial up when I first obtained the broadband service, the
speed of the budget tier broadband was QUITE satisfactory and didn't
seem to overwhelm USB. The firewall included with Windows XP appears to
have pretty much the same features as a router's SPI. I obtained my
router later from someone who had replaced it with a newer router. I'm
not presently concerned about its lack of WPA encryption because I'm
only using the wired functions and have turned off the WAP.

The ISP's field technician had no better luck than I did. The relative
said the field technician's notebook worked fine. I don't know which
version of Windows he was using. The relative appears to have become the
victim of a game of hot potato with the ISP and computer dealer (on
behalf of the computer manufacturer) blaming each other for the problem.

The only idea I have at present is to try my router on her computer (as
a test) and allow the relative to chose between buying a router (I saw a
Netgear one on sale for $40 until Saturday) or doing without internet if
it works. I'm not familiar enough with Vista to be very comfortable
changing settings with a registry editor.

Peter Foldes wrote:
> Did you reset the cable modem. ???? Connect to the computer and unplug the power source to the modem in the back for 5-10 seconds and plug it back on. Now open your computer and it will recognize the modem and vica versa
>
The relative's modem was reset so many times I lost count. The surge
suppressor for the whole setup was turned off for several days before
the new computer was first powered up. The modem had plenty of time to
negotiate with the ISP's network before the Ethernet cable was connected
to the computer. Subsequently the modem's power cord was unplugged and
reconnected while connected to the computer more than once.

there are a lot of routers that work with Vista and don't need
regedits, etc. I'd start with something from the listing on
http://winqual.microsoft.com/HCL/Pro...=v&cid=712&g=d



On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 13:53:40 -0400, RobertVA
<robert_c72athotmail@invalid.com> wrote:

>
>The only idea I have at present is to try my router on her computer (as
>a test) and allow the relative to chose between buying a router (I saw a
>Netgear one on sale for $40 until Saturday) or doing without internet if
>it works. I'm not familiar enough with Vista to be very comfortable
>changing settings with a registry editor.
--

Barb Bowman
MS-MVP
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/e...ts/bowman.mspx
http://blogs.digitalmediaphile.com/barb/
http://digitalmediaphile.wordpress.com

RobertVA wrote:
> Main issue is a problem getting a relative's new computer to connect to
> the Internet.
>
> The relative has been operating a non-branded Windows 2000 computer for
> several years with an Ethernet cable connecting the computer directly to
> a cable modem. That computer developed registry problems that it cannot
> recover from with the "last known good configuration" option. Windows
> 2000 can't start in safe mode either. The relative doesn't have a
> Windows 2000 installation CD and there's no indication there's a
> recovery partition on the small hard drive. She decided to acquire a
> replacement computer.
>
> The new Vista Home Premium SP1 64 bit computer doesn't appear to be
> recognizing the IP address setting from the ISP. As a result the
> Internet is inaccessible and the computer is reporting limited
> connectivity to an "Unidentified network". By comparison to articles on
> the ISP's web site (obtained and printed out on another computer at
> another location) the cable modem is connected to the computer in the
> recommended way (directly with a standard cat 5 cable) and the various
> TCP/IP settings are as the ISP recommends. As prompted in a telephone
> conversation with one of the ISP's customer service representatives I
> rechecked the TCP/IP settings, disconnected and reconnected the Ethernet
> cable at both ends and cycled the power on the cable modem to reset it.
> the CS representative reset the modem via remote control as well and
> indicated that his terminal indicated that the computer's network
> adapter was visible through the cable modem. All the resets, power
> cycling and cable reconnect ions resulted in the computer reporting the
> disconnection and attempt to renegotiate the connect. Unfortunately the
> computer always resumed the "limited connectivity" to the "unknown network"
>
> The relevance to the Windows XP group IS coming!
>
> MY computer is running Windows XP SP2 and I am using a different brand
> cable modem with dual USB and Ethernet interfaces (same ISP). When I
> upgraded to broadband I was using the USB connection between the
> computer and cable modem (loading a driver was required). I later
> acquired a router and the additional cables to connect the components.
> The computer had no problem detecting the different connection.
>
> With the intention of taking my computer to my relative's residence to
> see if her cable modem was working properly I bypassed my router. With
> the same Ethernet cable I normally use between the router and the
> computer connected directly to MY cable modem in my residence my windows
> XP computer appeared to be having the same problem the relative's new
> Vista computer was having! My settings also correspond to those listed
> in the ISP's web article.
>
> Not wanting to spoil my settings for operating through the router I am
> reluctant to make any changes to my computer's settings. I haven't had
> the opportunity to try the router on her system and she would prefer not
> to use the additional piece of equipment with the additional power
> supply and cables.
>
> Do cable modems normally require a driver when connected directly to the
> computer's Ethernet adapter? My router doesn't appear to require one. Is
> there some difference between the communications protocols required by
> the Ethernet side of a cable modem and the computer side of a router?

Status report:

ISP's customer service representative couldn't get Ethernet connection
directly to the cable modem working. TCP/IP settings checked. Modem
reset multiple times through remote command and disconnect/reconnect of
modem's power cable.

Chain retailer was able to get a connection at their facility, but don't
have information about weather connection was through the store's LAN or
directly to a cable modem.

The ISP's field technician wasn't able to get the new Vista system to
make a connection with the Ethernet cable connected directly to the
cable modem either. Field technician was able to get his notebook to
connect when connected directly to the cable modem. Replacement cable
modem didn't work connected directly to the new Vista system either.

Relocated my router to the relative's home. Found new modem completely
powered down. After connecting router between computer and modem turned
the equipment on (modem, router, then the computer). New Vista system
recognized the network. SUCCESS!!! Router isn't exactly the latest model
(no WPA on WAP) but wired functions work well. WAP is deactivated.
Plenty of entertainment from the numerous LEDs on the front panel! I was
wondering for a while, since Vista promptly downloaded over 70 MB of
Microsoft's various updates.

Since it wasn't looking like she was going to be going online without
the added equipment (despite the earlier Windows 2000 computer not
requiring the router) the relative settled for the addition of a router.
She is now using the router I had been using and I acquired a nice new
802-11g router for on sale for only $40 (before sales taxes).

I spent a while using the new computer's function to manufacture optical
recovery media (in case the HD failed). It took three DVD-Rs! Glad I
wasn't trying to use CDs! I set up her parameters for Windows Mail and
called it a night. I'll educate her about the security advantages of
using a router at a later date.

well, at least she has the protection of a router. this was a good
solution.

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 00:30:34 -0400, RobertVA
<robert_c72athotmail@invalid.com> wrote:

>I'll educate her about the security advantages of
>using a router at a later date.
--

Barb Bowman
MS-MVP
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/e...ts/bowman.mspx
http://blogs.digitalmediaphile.com/barb/
http://digitalmediaphile.wordpress.com

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:42:22 -0400, Barb Bowman <barb@nospam.com>
wrote:

>there are a lot of routers that work with Vista and don't need
>regedits, etc. I'd start with something from the listing on
>http://winqual.microsoft.com/HCL/Pro...=v&cid=712&g=d

That's a lamely short list and omits 95% of the routers in use - and
does not include what most ISP's install.

if someone wants to buy a router and wants guidance, it is
recommended to select from this listing. there are devices not on
the list that work fine, but if you don't want to take a chance, the
list is available.

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 00:15:49 -0400, +Bob+ <uctraing@ultranet.com>
wrote:

>That's a lamely short list and omits 95% of the routers in use - and
>does not include what most ISP's install.
--

Barb Bowman
MS-MVP
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/e...ts/bowman.mspx
http://blogs.digitalmediaphile.com/barb/
http://digitalmediaphile.wordpress.com

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 05:16:17 -0400, Barb Bowman <barb@nospam.com>
wrote:
>
>On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 00:15:49 -0400, +Bob+ <uctraing@ultranet.com>
>wrote:
>
>>That's a lamely short list and omits 95% of the routers in use - and
>>does not include what most ISP's install.

>if someone wants to buy a router and wants guidance, it is
>recommended to select from this listing. there are devices not on
>the list that work fine, but if you don't want to take a chance, the
>list is available.

Agreed... still, most of what anyone will find in a store or provided
by an ISP is not on the compatibility list. That's way less that
convenient (and yet another bonehead move by MS).

+Bob+ wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 05:16:17 -0400, Barb Bowman <barb@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 00:15:49 -0400, +Bob+ <uctraing@ultranet.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> That's a lamely short list and omits 95% of the routers in use - and
>>> does not include what most ISP's install.
>
>> if someone wants to buy a router and wants guidance, it is
>> recommended to select from this listing. there are devices not on
>> the list that work fine, but if you don't want to take a chance, the
>> list is available.
>
> Agreed... still, most of what anyone will find in a store or provided
> by an ISP is not on the compatibility list. That's way less that
> convenient (and yet another bonehead move by MS).

Microsoft may be demanding a hefty funds transfer from the device
manufacturer for Microsoft's labor costs of product review and testing.
There may be a combination of product cycles replacing models too
quickly and manufacturers' reluctance to pay Microsoft's fee.

Also an academic exercise, since the relative is successfully on line
with the modem I had and I am using the new modem I bought on sale
Thursday at the chain electronics store to post this article and access
the web. I'm still curious as to what the problem is, but both systems
are working online. I don't want to tie up your time typing out or
researching equipment recommendations.

Obviously the CPE side of the cable modems are doing SOMETHING different
than the LAN side of the routers. Three modems manufactured by two
different manufacturers are having the same problem on two computers
from different manufacturers and different Windows versions. The
settings on the HFC side of both routers corresponds to the ISP's
recommended TCP/IP setting for CP and Vista computers connected directly
to the CPE side of the modems. I'm beginning to think so few ISP
customers are connecting without routers the ISP's staff haven't learned
how to make that configuration work.

what brand and model cable modem exactly demonstrated the problem?
what did you replace it with?

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 17:24:03 -0400, RobertVA
<robert_c72athotmail@invalid.com> wrote:

>
>Also an academic exercise, since the relative is successfully on line
>with the modem I had and I am using the new modem I bought on sale
>Thursday at the chain electronics store to post this article and access
>the web. I'm still curious as to what the problem is, but both systems
>are working online. I don't want to tie up your time typing out or
>researching equipment recommendations.
--

Barb Bowman
MS-MVP
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/e...ts/bowman.mspx
http://blogs.digitalmediaphile.com/barb/
http://digitalmediaphile.wordpress.com

> <robert_c72athotmail@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> Also an academic exercise, since the relative is successfully on line
>> with the modem I had and I am using the new modem I bought on sale
>> Thursday at the chain electronics store to post this article and access
>> the web. I'm still curious as to what the problem is, but both systems
>> are working online. I don't want to tie up your time typing out or
>> researching equipment recommendations.
> --
Barb Bowman wrote:
> what brand and model cable modem exactly demonstrated the problem?
> what did you replace it with?
>
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 17:24:03 -0400, RobertVA

The relative's original modem was a D-Link DCM200

My modem is a Motorola Surfboard SB5120

I didn't get the model number from the relative's new modem, but it too
is a Motorola and could be the same model as mine.

the DCM-200 was a DOCSIS 1.0 (supposedly 1.1 capable but it was
discontinued before upgrades were available AFAIK) first generation
cable modem. It only had a 10 meg Ethernet port as well, which in
today's world is not good enough.

The 5100/5101/5120 line from Motorola is a DOCSIS 2.0 capable cable
modem and these are "current generation".

So, basically, you've done quite well..

On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 00:02:05 -0400, RobertVA
<robert_c72athotmail@invalid.com> wrote:

>The relative's original modem was a D-Link DCM200
>
>My modem is a Motorola Surfboard SB5120
>
>I didn't get the model number from the relative's new modem, but it too
>is a Motorola and could be the same model as mine.
--

Barb Bowman
MS-MVP
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/e...ts/bowman.mspx
http://blogs.digitalmediaphile.com/barb/
http://digitalmediaphile.wordpress.com