Is Cable Uncapping 4 Real? Or just a Myth?
Gotenks98
it is illegal what are the chances of being caught? I am running windows
2000 and windows ME with a com21 modem and a realtek rtl8139(a)based pci
ethernet adapter. I am in alabama and upload is something like 12k
Cablegrrl
headend and there's no way around it, (at least not to my knowledge).
Cablegrrl
"Gotenks98" <gote...@home.com> wrote in message
news:O0L46.134772$iy3.29...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com...
Evan Mann
work, but whatever it did, uncapped him for @Home. He was getting 75K/sec
upload where he normally gets 15K/sec. It didnt' work for more then 10 or
15 minutes. He was using the Linux port of the original Windows version, so
maybe that was the problem. I have no clue how it worked,or what the deal
is, but he wasn't lying, because I was pulling the speed from him, and he's
someone I've know for a long time. So theres apparently something that can
be done somehow with some modems/systems.
"Cablegrrl" <kia...@spamhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:WMM46.207052$_5.47...@news4.rdc1.on.home.com...
John Navas
Myth. Fortunately, because it would probably be theft of service if it
were real. ;-)
p.s. Do you generally make your decision on whether or not to steal
based on your chances of getting caught? How often have you gotten
caught? ;-)
In <O0L46.134772$iy3.29...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com>, "Gotenks98"
<gote...@home.com> wrote:
--
Best regards,
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>
CABLE MODEM/DSL GUIDE: <http://Cable-DSL.home.att.net/>
mas...@rochester.rr.com
modem which most modems are and he flashed his bios. He can get
4000k/sec sometimes with his.....hes only ever had to flash it once.
He has RCA @home....ive been trying to look for a flashing utility.
But since my ISP sends me the bios frequently to prevent anyone from
"uncapping" their modem.......I would have to flash my bios using the
flashig utility everytime I wanted to use the internet with the
uncapped speed. It was a hastle according to the people that flashed
it everytime. But for the speed......I would do it.....anyone know of
one of flashing utilities could be found??
Cablegrrl
do with the modem. DOCSIS modems get the config file from the headend,
flashing the BIOS would do about the same as resetting the modem in that it
would restore it to factory defaults, (where those crazy 10mb speeds are
possible), and then the modem would contact the headend and get a config
file which would tell the modem it can only get 2mb, (typically), down. You
can flash the BIOS until the cows come home and as soon as that modem talks
to the headend it's gonna get the same 2mb config file.
To my knowledge, the only way to 'uncap' a DOCSIS modem would be to
manipulate the config file coming to your modem which would require access
to the server and/or headend which would be considered a 'break 'n enter'!!
There's tons o' files that claim to be able to 'uncap' a modem and they are
either designed for non-DOCSIS modems, are full of crap or are tempting
files that contain a virus.
My 8 cents
Cablegrrl
"Evan Mann" <e...@iag.net> wrote in message
news:uPN46.7304$Cd6.1...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
Evan Mann
> I'd bet that whatever he downloaded was more of a MTU patch that anything
to
> do with the modem. DOCSIS modems get the config file from the headend,
> flashing the BIOS would do about the same as resetting the modem in that
it
> would restore it to factory defaults, (where those crazy 10mb speeds are
> possible), and then the modem would contact the headend and get a config
> file which would tell the modem it can only get 2mb, (typically), down.
You
> can flash the BIOS until the cows come home and as soon as that modem
talks
> to the headend it's gonna get the same 2mb config file.
It was NOT an MTU change, because there was no registry settings involved.
And NO MTU change in the WORLD would make you go from 15K/sec to 75K/sec.
> There's tons o' files that claim to be able to 'uncap' a modem and they
are
> either designed for non-DOCSIS modems, are full of crap or are tempting
> files that contain a virus.
I know how cable modems work, but I saw first hand for myself, whatever he
used, working for a short amount of time.
RB
Oh, thats prison talk for doing time. Is a little speed worth it?.
On Wed, 03 Jan 2001 19:25:34 GMT, "Gotenks98" <gote...@home.com>
wrote:
Cablegrrl
decide you're not worth the cash and then, when you're back on dial-up, you
might just realize that 12k up wasn't so bad after all!
The Devil's advocate!
Cablegrrl
"RB" <Yeah...@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:nrq75tk9gvbcb07f2...@4ax.com...
Mark Cardwell
I think it's a bit extreme to say you would end up in jail, but uncapping (if it
were possible) would certainly put you at risk for getting your account
terminated.
Uncapping a DOCSIS modem is not possible despite any rumors you may have heard.
In summary, your modem can only transmit at the same speed as the headend. If
you did manage to adjust your modem somehow, it would be seen by the headend as
out of control and stopped. In order for the scheme to work, you would not only
have to uncap your modem, but the cable company's equipment as well.
Stay away from the various "uncapper" programs floating around. At best they're
just a fake, at worst they may be a virus or trojan.
Cablegrrl
is a program to uncap the modem so I apologize if I had offended you -
didn't mean to.
I'm still sitting on the fence, (with my legs dangling on the 'it didn't
make a difference' side), regarding this BIOS flash idea. If the speeds
reported went from 15k to 75k I'd be more of the opinion that the OS is just
reporting the speeds inaccurately - well the machine, in it's
oh-so-holy-numericalnessness, believes it's reporting it accurately due to
averaging out d/l times, caching, etc. My only other theory is that the
modem temporarily started acting like a bridge in which case you would get
phenomenal speeds but, theoretically, it should still be acting like a
bridge if that was the case.
I'd be interested in seeing the program he used, lemme know if you get a
hold of it.
"Evan Mann" <e...@iag.net> wrote in message
news:poR46.7734$Mq2.1...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
Roger A. Krupski
> Oh, thats prison talk for doing time. Is a little speed worth it?.
Many organizations say things are "illegal" to do... just to scare
you away. If something's "illegal", show me the Federal, State or
Local Code book that says so.
Do you think the Cable Modem Police are going to come to your home
in an APC, dressed in full SWAT gear, blow your front door open
with a grenade, machine gun you and take away your cable modem?
Probably not (unless you live in Waco, Texas). ;-(
Roger
--
#################################################
# Roger A. Krupski <kru...@acsu.buffalo.edu> #
# State University of New York at Buffalo #
# 408 Furnas Hall, North (Amherst) Campus #
# Amherst, New York 14260-4200, U.S.A. [H] #
#################################################
Evan Mann
msvbvm60.dll (or maybe its not, might just be needed) and then 2 .EXEs.
"Cablegrrl" <kia...@spamhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:qES46.209942$_5.47...@news4.rdc1.on.home.com...
Larry W4CSC
burn it into a regular ROM, then put the regular ROM where the
flashrom is so they can't flash it.....(c;
On Thu, 04 Jan 2001 02:22:14 GMT, "Cablegrrl" <kia...@spamhotmail.com>
wrote:
John Navas
In <3A53F840...@acsu.buffalo.edu>, "Roger A. Krupski"
<kru...@acsu.buffalo.edu> wrote:
>> How does 3 hots and a cot + 1 weekly visit sound?
>> Oh, thats prison talk for doing time. Is a little speed worth it?.
>
>Many organizations say things are "illegal" to do... just to scare
>you away. If something's "illegal", show me the Federal, State or
>Local Code book that says so.
>
>Do you think the Cable Modem Police are going to come to your home
>in an APC, dressed in full SWAT gear, blow your front door open
>with a grenade, machine gun you and take away your cable modem?
>
>Probably not (unless you live in Waco, Texas). ;-(
Instead they might well just take you to court for a bunch of bucks, as
they did with people stealing cable TV service.
James Knott
known to be a poor performer on high speed access. There
are many tweaks and patches to address this deficiency in
Windows.
--
Replies sent via e-mail to this address will be promptly
ignored.
To reply, replace everything to the left of "@" with
"james.knott".
James Knott
>
> How does 3 hots and a cot + 1 weekly visit sound?
> Oh, thats prison talk for doing time.
Speaking from experience? ;-)
Is a little speed worth it?.
>
> On Wed, 03 Jan 2001 19:25:34 GMT, "Gotenks98" <gote...@home.com>
> wrote:
>
> >If this is possible give me some details(like what exactly is happening). If
> >it is illegal what are the chances of being caught? I am running windows
> >2000 and windows ME with a com21 modem and a realtek rtl8139(a)based pci
> >ethernet adapter. I am in alabama and upload is something like 12k
> >
James Knott
>
> > How does 3 hots and a cot + 1 weekly visit sound?
> > Oh, thats prison talk for doing time. Is a little speed worth it?.
>
> Many organizations say things are "illegal" to do... just to scare
> you away. If something's "illegal", show me the Federal, State or
> Local Code book that says so.
Perhaps many people are assuming that. Any such thing would
be a civil matter, and subject to damages, but not fines or
jail.
>
> Do you think the Cable Modem Police are going to come to your home
> in an APC, dressed in full SWAT gear, blow your front door open
> with a grenade, machine gun you and take away your cable modem?
>
> Probably not (unless you live in Waco, Texas). ;-(
I believe that's "Wacko", Texas. ;-)
>
> Roger
>
> --
> #################################################
> # Roger A. Krupski <kru...@acsu.buffalo.edu> #
> # State University of New York at Buffalo #
> # 408 Furnas Hall, North (Amherst) Campus #
> # Amherst, New York 14260-4200, U.S.A. [H] #
> #################################################
John Navas
In <3A5479B2...@home.com>, James Knott
<the.lights.are....@home.com> wrote:
>... Windows is
>known to be a poor performer on high speed access.
Windows actually works quite well.
>There
>are many tweaks and patches to address this deficiency in
>Windows.
The only tweak that matters is to increase TCP Receive Window for
connections with both high speed and high latency.
John Navas
In <3A547AD5...@home.com>, James Knott
<the.lights.are....@home.com> wrote:
>"Roger A. Krupski" wrote:
>>
>> > How does 3 hots and a cot + 1 weekly visit sound?
>> > Oh, thats prison talk for doing time. Is a little speed worth it?.
>>
>> Many organizations say things are "illegal" to do... just to scare
>> you away. If something's "illegal", show me the Federal, State or
>> Local Code book that says so.
>
>Perhaps many people are assuming that. Any such thing would
>be a civil matter, and subject to damages, but not fines or
>jail.
Assuming the case could be made for theft of service, then it seems to
me that it could be a criminal matter (misdemeanor).
Evan Mann
"James Knott" <the.lights.are....@home.com> wrote in message
news:3A5479B2...@home.com...
> It's not likely doing anything to the modem. Windows is
> known to be a poor performer on high speed access. There
> are many tweaks and patches to address this deficiency in
> Windows.
LIke I said, there is NO windows tweak in the world that will make you jump
from a constant 15K/sec upstream to 75K/sec.
Cablegrrl
jump
> from a constant 15K/sec upstream to 75K/sec.
Might not be a tweak but there's definately inconsistencies in the way
Windows calculates speeds, just because it says it's 75/sec doesn't mean it
is. My Win98 box likes to report speeds of 14k on my 33.3 modem...does this
mean I'm defying the speed limits of my 33.3 modem or does it mean that
Windows is reporting this inaccurately?? Take a look at the MS Knowledgebase
for the various "bugs" Windows has when reporting speeds.
Evan Mann <e...@iag.net> wrote in message
news:Nr256.44$eo5....@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
Cablegrrl
could manipulate the modem but then again...I don't know. Does your friend
no longer have the program?
Evan Mann <e...@iag.net> wrote in message
news:t2T46.9558$Mq2.1...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
John Navas
In <Wl356.214010$_5.487...@news4.rdc1.on.home.com>, "Cablegrrl"
<kia...@spamhotmail.com> wrote:
>> LIke I said, there is NO windows tweak in the world that will make you jump
>> from a constant 15K/sec upstream to 75K/sec.
>
>Might not be a tweak but there's definately inconsistencies in the way
>Windows calculates speeds, just because it says it's 75/sec doesn't mean it
>is. My Win98 box likes to report speeds of 14k on my 33.3 modem...does this
>mean I'm defying the speed limits of my 33.3 modem or does it mean that
>Windows is reporting this inaccurately?? Take a look at the MS Knowledgebase
>for the various "bugs" Windows has when reporting speeds.
The usual problem is not a "bug" but cockpit error -- if the modem is
installed without the correct driver (INF file), Windows has no way to
interpret the result codes, and so falls back to reporting the serial
port speed. There is no problem if the modem is installed with the
correct driver.
Narsuss
Not saying you would go to jail, but it could be serious if your cable
company decided to make an example of you.
It's all moot though uncapping is a myth AFAIK. The only way to do it with
a DOCSIS modem is to spoof the TFTP file from a "fake" DHCP (from bronze to
platinum). But it wouldn't be able to communicate with the UBR anymore
unless your MSO has tiered service. (useful huh?). And this MSVBVM60.DLL
if from the non-DOCSIS uncapper that did work (kinda).
Narsus
"Cablegrrl" <kia...@spamhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:shS46.209703$_5.47...@news4.rdc1.on.home.com...
Evan Mann
> > LIke I said, there is NO windows tweak in the world that will make you
> jump
> > from a constant 15K/sec upstream to 75K/sec.
>
> Might not be a tweak but there's definately inconsistencies in the way
> Windows calculates speeds, just because it says it's 75/sec doesn't mean
it
> is. My Win98 box likes to report speeds of 14k on my 33.3 modem...does
this
> mean I'm defying the speed limits of my 33.3 modem or does it mean that
> Windows is reporting this inaccurately?? Take a look at the MS
Knowledgebase
> for the various "bugs" Windows has when reporting speeds.
Who said anything about windows? I was using other programs that calculate
their own speed irrelavent to what windows thinks. And when times to
complete the same sized file are decreased by 4x, it's obvious its a speed
increase. C'mon now.
Evan Mann
> msvbvm60.dll is some kind of VB component so I don't really see how this
> could manipulate the modem but then again...I don't know. Does your friend
> no longer have the program?
the VB componenet is probably just necessary for the program. He gave me a
windows version, but he used a linux port. E-mail me and I'll send what I
have.
Cablegrrl
Still trying to be devil's advocate!
"Evan Mann" <e...@iag.net> wrote in message
news:kj656.534$eo5.1...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
Gary Hughes
> msvbvm60.dll is some kind of VB component so I don't really see how this
> could manipulate the modem but then again...I don't know. Does your friend
> no longer have the program?
It is the interpreter for 'compiled' visual basic (MicroSoft Visual Basic Virtual Machine 6.0).
Most MS dll's and exe's fill in the image headers so that if you select properties in
explorer you will get a brief description of what the file is.
A couple of other comments on other aspects of this thread...
- it is easy to configure a modem so that when it says 'connected at' it reports
the line speed between the modem and the serial port. That is often the reason
you get 'connected at 144,000 bps' or similar.
- if this uncap DOES work, it may get undone if the modem is periodically refreshed
from the CMTS (or the CMTS may be configured to detect speed anomalies and
refresh the modem)
- if you are using FTP transfers to test link speed, it should not be affected by any
intermediate cacheing (unless you've explicitly told the FTP client to use a proxy)
gary
Dave
modem, the bandwidth opening would show up in the database, and they'd
terminate your service instantly.
Gotenks98 <gote...@home.com> wrote in message
news:O0L46.134772$iy3.29...@news1.rdc1.tn.home.com...
Evan Mann
"Dave" <we...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8z766.194830$hD4.50...@news1.rdc1.mi.home.com...
> It's very easy to be caught, seeing as how IF you were able to uncap your
> modem, the bandwidth opening would show up in the database, and they'd
> terminate your service instantly.
I have a perosn I knowon @Home who has a friend inside @Home who uncapped
his modem. They merely replaced his cap, and did not terminate his service.
jfa...@phreaker.net
try it out myself an post the results. From all i've ready of the
DOCSIS standard, there is supposed to be no way for it to be modified
via the user end of the cable modem.. And I have a RCA cable modem also.
jfalcon
In article <3a53bd11...@news-server.nyroc.rr.com>,
mas...@rochester.rr.com wrote:
> Ive been trying to get some info about it.....My freind has a DOCSIS
> modem which most modems are and he flashed his bios. He can get
> 4000k/sec sometimes with his.....hes only ever had to flash it once.
> He has RCA @home....ive been trying to look for a flashing utility.
> But since my ISP sends me the bios frequently to prevent anyone from
> "uncapping" their modem.......I would have to flash my bios using the
> flashig utility everytime I wanted to use the internet with the
> uncapped speed. It was a hastle according to the people that flashed
> it everytime. But for the speed......I would do it.....anyone know of
> one of flashing utilities could be found??
>
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Cablegrrl
talking about was sent to me and it is for NON-DOCSIS modems...if you have a
NON-DOCSIS modem, (ie - Lancity), you're in luck.
There ya go..
<jfa...@phreaker.net> wrote in message news:93fc0p$quu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
James Dalrymple
it ...... I used to get the official upload speed of 128 kbps (14 K/s or
so?) , but now I average somewhere around 80 KB/s at busy times and over 200
K/s at low usage times.
The only thing I can tell you about how it works is by telling you what I
had to do to get it to work: I first had to make my IP static (not that
hard, it's really static anyways). Then I made my gateway something like
10.10.10.10 Then added this autloader program (that was with the uncapper
docs) in my startup dir so it gets loader upon starting windows. That's it.
My 'guess' is that the speed cap is at the @home gateway for my ISP and the
program tricks the cable modem into thinking IT'S the gateway so the
speed-capping is never reached..... ? I've used it for 6+ months now and my
ISP has no clue (or doesn't care because I don't serve a bunch of files). I
like it cause I can access my computer from work at great speeds or give a
file to another person with high-speed access in seconds ..........
fu...@my-deja.com
Beasts....what is this program called? And also
has anyone tried it out with success?
In article <rbn76.270217
$_5.603...@news4.rdc1.on.home.com>,
"Cablegrrl" <kia...@spamhotmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry it took me so long to post but the
proggie that we were initially
> talking about was sent to me and it is for NON-
DOCSIS modems...if you have a
> NON-DOCSIS modem, (ie - Lancity), you're in
luck.
>
> There ya go..
>
> <jfa...@phreaker.net> wrote in message
news:93fc0p$quu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > I would like to see this. If you can get a
copy of this software I'll
> > try it out myself an post the results. From
all i've ready of the
> > DOCSIS standard, there is supposed to be no
way for it to be modified
> > via the user end of the cable modem.. And I
have a RCA cable modem also.
> >
> > jfalcon
> >
> >
> > In article <3a53bd11.73141834@news-
John Navas
Yet another snake oil stand makes its appearance on the Internet. <g>
In <03t76.135886$15.28...@news1.rdc1.az.home.com>, "James Dalrymple"
<jbd...@home.com> wrote:
--
Greg.Tomilson
500kbps to 2.5mbps
"Evan Mann" <e...@iag.net> wrote in message
news:Nr256.44$eo5....@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
Evan Mann
"Greg.Tomilson" <Greg.T...@Home.com> wrote in message
news:QfP86.160748$59.44...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
Considering your an @Home user, I don't believe your getting 2.5mbps, and my
comment doesn't stand for the fact that your registry settings were probably
out of wack to begin with. Using the default settings frm any Windows MS,
you won't get a 75K/sec increase from just a small registry tweak.
John Navas
In <CiQ86.36613$68.46...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com>, "Evan Mann"
<e...@iag.net> wrote:
>"Greg.Tomilson" <Greg.T...@Home.com> wrote in message
>news:QfP86.160748$59.44...@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
>> I used a Windows tweak from www.Speedguide.net that increased my speed from
>> 500kbps to 2.5mbps
>
>Considering your an @Home user, I don't believe your getting 2.5mbps, and my
>comment doesn't stand for the fact that your registry settings were probably
>out of wack to begin with. Using the default settings frm any Windows MS,
>you won't get a 75K/sec increase from just a small registry tweak.
That depends on the latency. With sufficient latency and sufficient
speed, such a jump is possible by increasing the TCP Receive Window.
Jan Johanson
no problemo...
now e-mail... that's a whole nuther story - UGH!
"Evan Mann" <e...@iag.net> wrote in message
news:CiQ86.36613$68.46...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
James Knott
fast e-mail. Not both. ;-)
Craig Calandrelli
"Jan Johanson" <j...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:3a658727$0$21317$45be...@newscene.com...
John Navas
In <ppta6.20252$Af.2...@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net>, "Craig Calandrelli"
<CSCALA...@wi.rr.com> wrote:
>I would like to see that verified at DSL reports' speed test!
Speed test sites on the Internet (e.g., BCTEL MultiMedia Gateway at
<http://speedtest.mybc.com/>) do NOT provide reliable measurement of
local link speed. The reason is that no speed test from an arbitrary
remote server will tell you much about anything other than that
particular route at that particular time under that particular server
load, all things that can and do vary widely. (Worse, some speed test
sites are so badly implemented that the results are pretty much
meaningless.)
To accurately measure the speed of your local link, download a large
file from a local server under light load (e.g., Internet software from
your ISP in the wee hours) and time how long it takes.
If you are running Windows 98, you can continuously monitor the speed at
which data is being sent and received over a network adapter (commonly
used to connect a cable or DSL modem) by installing Network Monitor
Agent, which is located in the Windows 98 CD directory
\Tools\ResKit\NetAdmin\NetMon. Once installed, you will be able to add
Network Monitor Performance items to the display in System Monitor.
(Network Monitor Agent is also available for Windows 95 in the Windows
95 CD directory \Admin\NetTools\NetMon, and can also be downloaded from
Microsoft at
<http://www.microsoft.com/Windows95/downloads/contents/WUAdminTools/S_WUNetworkingTools/W95NetworkMonitor/Default.asp>,
but it apparently does not include speed monitoring capabilities.) For
more information see Q200910 "How to Install Network Monitor in Windows
95/98" at
<http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q200/9/10.ASP>.
If you are running Windows NT, you can continuously monitor the speed at
which data is being sent and received over a network adapter (commonly
used to connect a cable or DSL modem) with Performance Monitor. The
Object to use is Network Interface. (For information on Instances, see
Q154535 "Multiple Instances of Network Interface in Performance Monitor"
at <http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q154/5/35.asp>.)