• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Only getting 100Mbps down on TWC 200Mbps service with SB6141 modem and TP-Link N600

Tarvaln

Senior member
Problem: I have 200Mbps Time Warner Cable internet service. However, I'm only getting a 100Mbps download rate. I'm using a Motorola Surfboard 6141 Cable Modem and a TP-Link N600 router.

Links: MOTOROLA SB6141 SURFboard DOCSIS 3.0 Firmware - SB_KOMODO-1.0.6.14-SCM01-NOSH
TP-LINK TL-WDR3600 Dual Band Wireless N600 Firmware - 3.14.1 Build 141022 Rel.33470n

I called TWC on an unrelated issue. While on the phone the service rep informed me that my internet speed was now 200Mbps. I told them that I was only getting around 100Mbps top download speed. I've done many test at different times of the day and 108Mbps was the fastest I've gotten. The service rep told me that in order to get 200Mbps, I would have to upgrade my modem to a SB6183. That doesn't make sense to me because the SB6141 is listed for over 300Mbps download. I'm also really sure my router could handle that. I'm on a lan connection not wireless.

Was that person full of it or would I have to get a SB6183 to use my full service? Or is there a setting I'm not using?

Thanks.
 
You both are correct. While your modem is capable of getting the 200Mbps, TWC refuses to go above 100Mbps on anything other than 16 channel down modems (like the SB6183). If you want your 200Mbps, you're going to have to get the SB6183.

I've followed the TWC forum at Broadbandreports.com for years and sadly, that's the case.
 
Thanks for the reply. That really sucks that it's just because TWC choose not to do it. I wonder why though?
 
Its because of channel assignment/alignment on their network. The way they provision speed requires a certain number of channels up and down, hence why they only support ones that can do 16 channels down.
 
I had similar issues and spent countless hours with their tech 3 support on the phone. I finally had it with the arris docsis modem they provided and then switched out.

I decided to purchase the sb6141 after a lot of research. Once I made the switch, TWC cancelled my previous triple play package and my $115/mo. bill jumped to $180/mo. I called to cancel my services outright and they created a new package for me getting me back to my original $115/mo. with a free upgrade from 100mbps to 200mbps.

However, the sb6141 cannot handle 200mbps because of the 8 channels as discussed. 16 is needed to effectively attain these speeds.

The second issue is with the firmware. Since its pushed out from your provider (i.e. TWC), they refuse to update your modems firmware if it is not provided by TWC. Loophole with the "no support provided for customer purchased modem."

They're sneaky. And and downright monopolizing broadband because there is literally no other service available in my neighborhood. Brooklyn, NY

It should be illegal.
 
I wouldn't say the SB6141 cannot handle it, it's more that it's just not compatible with TWC for those speeds.

And yes, I realize this is a semi-necro.
 
It should, the spec sheet says "up to 343 Mbps download and 131 Mbps upload"


You just ignored the TWC specifics?


While your modem is capable of getting the 200Mbps, TWC refuses to go above 100Mbps on anything other than 16 channel down modems (like the SB6183). If you want your 200Mbps, you're going to have to get the SB6183.


http://www.timewarnercable.com/en/support/internet/topics/lease-or-buy-modem.html


The SB6141 is only for 100Mbps and under.
 
I picked up a refurbished SB6183, 16x4 channels, from Walmart when it was on sale. I'm getting the 16x4 bonded channels and it'll be good for the highest MAXX speed when that gets to my area.
 
I had the same problem. Turned out to be that the ethernet cable was cat 5 and only capable of 100 Mbps.
 
Back
Top