# SWM, No DECA



## vict (Nov 26, 2007)

Hi,

Been a while since I posted, but I couldn't really find my answer searching through previous posts (which is kind of unusual, as normally almost every topic has been discussed on this awesome forum, and I can usually find what I need - thanks!!).

Anyway, I have two HD DVRs (HR20 and HR21), both networked over my ethernet (HR21 hardwired from access point, HR20 hard wired to Wirless N bridge). I have been able to get On Demand, as well as other internet features on both recievers, and have recently convinced DTV to set up the unsupported WHDVR over my network. I do not currently have a SWM, and have two coax sat cables going to each reciever.

My question is this: If I want to add another receiver (HD DVR or HD reciever) to my home, I will need to install a SWM - this I know and understand (Currently only 4 lines coming off my current "old school" multiswitch). However, will I need to install DECA with the added SWM to keep my connectivity and WHDVR service? Or can I just add the SWM to get more sat connections, and continue to run over my ethernet network (obviously adding the new reciever to this network)? 

Any help with this is appreciated. Again, great forum and great information.

Vic


----------



## Alebob911 (Mar 22, 2007)

What type of multiswitch do you currently have?


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

vict said:


> Currently only 4 lines coming off my current "old school" multiswitch.


What multiswitch do you have? Do you have any empty outputs? My previous one could output 8 cables, which I used until I upgraded and went to 11 tuners.


----------



## vict (Nov 26, 2007)

I currently have a 4 output multiswitch (not SWM, obviously). I thought of just getting a bigger switch (with more ouputs) and just running two lines to the new reciever (like the others), but since the place I wanted to put the new reciever is upstairs and at the opposite end of the house from the switch, I thought it would be easier to install a SWM, and spit the signal closer to the room where I want to install it (likely close to one of the other recievers). That cuts my cable run by over half, and makes it so I only have to run one cable (both plusses).

I just need to know if I run that setup, will I need to install DECA with the SWM to maintain my connectivity, or can I use a SWM and continue using an ethernet connection to all my recievers including the new one.


----------



## Alebob911 (Mar 22, 2007)

You will be able to use your current whole home/ internet ethernet connectivity with SWM. Your already listed as a "unsupported" Whole home so your good to go there. Have you called Directv to see what they could offer you? A SWM could cost you more that what Directv could do for you. For example a SWM16 could be somewhere in the neighborhood of 350-400 bucks. They may be able to do it for $49. I would give them a call.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

vict said:


> I currently have a 4 output multiswitch (not SWM, obviously). I thought of just getting a bigger switch (with more ouputs) and just running two lines to the new reciever (like the others), but since the place I wanted to put the new reciever is upstairs and at the opposite end of the house from the switch, I thought it would be easier to install a SWM, and spit the signal closer to the room where I want to install it (likely close to one of the other recievers). That cuts my cable run by over half, and makes it so I only have to run one cable (both plusses).
> 
> I just need to know if I run that setup, will I need to install DECA with the SWM to maintain my connectivity, or can I use a SWM and continue using an ethernet connection to all my recievers including the new one.


You should be "fine" moving to a SWiM and keeping your ethernet. DECA is used for networking, but it is more of an "add on" to a SWiM system, since it needs a SWiM to work, while SWiM doesn't need DECA.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Alebob911 said:


> You will be able to use your current whole home/ internet ethernet connectivity with SWM. Your already listed as a "unsupported" Whole home so your good to go there. Have you called Directv to see what they could offer you? A SWM could cost you more that what Directv could do for you. For example a SWM16 could be somewhere in the neighborhood of 350-400 bucks. They may be able to do it for $49. I would give them a call.


"Something as cheap" as a SWiM LNB would handle the tuner count here.


----------



## Alebob911 (Mar 22, 2007)

Yep your right again  I misread the receiver count.


----------



## vict (Nov 26, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> DECA is used for networking, but it is more of an "add on" to a SWiM system, since it needs a SWiM to work, while SWiM doesn't need DECA.


This is the answer I was looking for. Thanks VOS, and Alebob911!!

Vic


----------



## David Ortiz (Aug 21, 2006)

The H25 doesn't have an ethernet port, so you may want to stay away from that model.


----------



## Alebob911 (Mar 22, 2007)

Good point and also requires SWM.


David Ortiz said:


> The H25 doesn't have an ethernet port, so you may want to stay away from that model.


----------



## vict (Nov 26, 2007)

David Ortiz said:


> The H25 doesn't have an ethernet port, so you may want to stay away from that model.


This is good to know. Thanks.

Should I assume any DVRs/Receivers newer than H24/HR24 will not have an ethernet port, and will require SWM and DECA to connect?

Sorry, I'm not as up on the newer recievers as I should be.......


----------



## WestDC (Feb 9, 2008)

SO far only the H25 Doesn't have one is the only "newest" receiver that doesn't have one. The H20 doesn't have however it's not the newest one it is one of the first D* HD recivers.


----------



## David Ortiz (Aug 21, 2006)

vict said:


> This is good to know. Thanks.
> 
> Should I assume any DVRs/Receivers newer than H24/HR24 will not have an ethernet port, and will require SWM and DECA to connect?
> 
> Sorry, I'm not as up on the newer recievers as I should be.......


It is quite possible that going forward only HMC HD DVRs will have an ethernet port.


----------



## vict (Nov 26, 2007)

WestDC said:


> The H20 doesn't have however it's not the newest one it is one of the first D* HD recivers.


That seems a little weird, since the HR20s do have a port. Although, I remember, at the time when I got that unit, there was no reason to have a port anyway . Yeah, it's an old unit. A workhorse though.....


----------



## vict (Nov 26, 2007)

David Ortiz said:


> It is quite possible that going forward only HMC HD DVRs will have an ethernet port.


I'm assuming that means you can only connect via DECA for those units without an ethernet port, correct?


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

"vict" said:


> I'm assuming that means you can only connect via DECA for those units without an ethernet port, correct?


That is correct.

- Merg


----------



## WestDC (Feb 9, 2008)

vict said:


> That seems a little weird, since the HR20s do have a port. Although, I remember, at the time when I got that unit, there was no reason to have a port anyway . Yeah, it's an old unit. A workhorse though.....


 I still have my frist one I use it to out put PIP/ to my HD TV's, controlled by a RF remote. 

It doesn't need a deca (no rj45 port) - I have a Band stop filter attached to it.


----------



## vict (Nov 26, 2007)

David Ortiz said:


> It is quite possible that going forward only HMC HD DVRs will have an ethernet port.


This is an interesting choice by DTV, and one that I think will hurt their business in the long run.

I'm sure this has been discussed ad naseum on the board, so forgive the dull, thumping sound as I beat this dead horse. However, it seems weird that DTV is basically forcing consumers to use their networking hardware to connect. Also, it's not really very innovative technology as far as I can tell, as it's basically a powerline network, but used over coaxial. At least with powerline, I don't have to add power to it (another connection, more wires, etc).

I mean, you don't see Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, and other streaming media or On Demand providers requiring use of their routers or other hardware to get their service. Just a live internet connection.

This wouldn't be much of an issue for me if the price matched what I thought it was worth. However, to me it seems excessive to pay $199 for this connectivity. I know other people have noted that you're basically paying for only the parts here, but in my research I've found it will cost me about $120 or less to purchase all the DECA/SWM equiment online. So even if I was going with DECA, I likely woudn't order it through DTV and save $80. I was able to get the same functionality over my own network with the purchase of a $60 bridge.

Lastly, the flexibility offered by using your own network seems to be better. For instance, as far as I can tell the DECA solution only offers one connection per, so I would still need some kind of ethernet switch, bridge, whatever to run my connected Blu-Ray and X-Box. So, two functionally different network connections to the same network at the same place?

This all being said, I definitely realize a lot of people out there can't or don't want to "DIY", so a simple networking solution from DTV is great for them to get all the functionality they want. But why limit to only that solution. Why not give the rest of us flexibility in how we connect? Is there something that the DECA network will give me in the future that will make me want to switch to DECA?

End Rant.

Overall, I'm pretty happy with DTV, I just thought this move is a little out of character.


----------



## David Ortiz (Aug 21, 2006)

vict said:


> This is an interesting choice by DTV, and one that I think will hurt their business in the long run.
> 
> I'm sure this has been discussed ad naseum on the board, so forgive the dull, thumping sound as I beat this dead horse. However, it seems weird that DTV is basically forcing consumers to use their networking hardware to connect. Also, it's not really very innovative technology as far as I can tell, as it's basically a powerline network, but used over coaxial. At least with powerline, I don't have to add power to it (another connection, more wires, etc).
> 
> ...


Again, "going forward", Whole-Home is included in new installations (if configured in the installation order). So the $199 is for existing customers. If most future installs are a combination of new HD receivers and an HMC server, the boxes are already on their own network. A single connection from the HMC to the home network is all that's needed to bridge the whole system to the internet.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

vict said:


> This is an interesting choice by DTV, and one that I think will hurt their business in the long run.
> 
> I'm sure this has been discussed ad naseum on the board, so forgive the dull, thumping sound as I beat this dead horse. However, it seems weird that DTV is basically forcing consumers to use their networking hardware to connect. Also, it's not really very innovative technology as far as I can tell, as it's basically a powerline network, but used over coaxial. At least with powerline, I don't have to add power to it (another connection, more wires, etc).
> 
> ...


You seem to be missing the important points:

1. To lower receiver costs.
2. To make support easier, if you only have one option to support, your customer service and techs only need to know one method. Not all the crazy network setups that some people try to use then complain when something isnt working the way they want it to.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

David Ortiz said:


> It is quite possible that going forward only HMC HD DVRs will have an ethernet port.


It seems that any of the available HMC client devices are either wireless or CAT5.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

We'll see if new regular DVRs come out (HR25 or whatever). I thought the H25 situation was more for size, since it is so much smaller than even an H24.

As for DECA, it's not that old of technology. The first MoCA box came out in 2009. It may not be exactly innovative, but it works quite well. That was likely an important criteria for DirecTV, generally doesn't generate a lot of calls and truck rolls to fix issues.


----------



## TAK3210 (Dec 11, 2011)

I think having all the box-to-box streaming traffic off the home network is also a good thing.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

TAK3210 said:


> I think having all the box-to-box streaming traffic off the home network is also a good thing.


Unless you still have hubs (or many small switches connected by a single backbone) in your home LAN, the MRV traffic shouldn't impact your LAN performance.

Unlike hubs (and DECA for that matter), conventional LAN traffic is point-to-point and what happens between two nodes isn't seen by any of the other nodes.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

harsh said:


> Unless you still have hubs (or many small switches connected by a single backbone) in your home LAN, the MRV traffic shouldn't impact your LAN performance.
> 
> Unlike hubs (and DECA for that matter), conventional LAN traffic is point-to-point and what happens between two nodes isn't seen by any of the other nodes.


Our resident expert [on everything] seems to know all about everyone's network and what is best, or not to do. :nono:
If you actually have DECA, for MRV it's simply better than running through a lot of home networking that may or may not have been designed for it.
I'm not knocking anyone that wants to use their home network for this, but if it was as faultless as this basset keeps barfing, then there wouldn't be the threads here posting issues.


----------



## BudShark (Aug 11, 2003)

CCarncross said:


> You seem to be missing the important points:
> 
> 1. To lower receiver costs.
> 2. To make support easier, if you only have one option to support, your customer service and techs only need to know one method. Not all the crazy network setups that some people try to use then complain when something isnt working the way they want it to.


3) MoCA/DECA is quite effective as a video streaming distribution platform.
4) It requires less in wiring infrastructure changes than any other mechanism other than wireless - and it is a more effective distribution medium than wireless.
5) MoCA/DECA is quite popular in the pay TV video sharing world as it does create a closed ecosystem that has proven to be more supportable, easier to install, and less susceptible to outside influences.
6) If box to box streaming is the only functionality required, no additional equipment is required as an HR24 or higher and an H24 and higher on the DirecTV wiring is a completely self-sufficient system with no additional costs/power/components necessary.


----------



## Beerstalker (Feb 9, 2009)

I don't think that they will remove the network port from the DVRs. Doing so would require them to supply broadband DECAs for everyone who wants to hook up for On Demand, etc. I would think keeping the network port in the DVR would be cheaper than supplying a bunch of broadband DECAs that aren't necessary.

I'm not suprised they removed them from the H25 though, since the only thing it could really be used for other than MRV is IP control (no On Demand access on HD receivers).


----------



## vict (Nov 26, 2007)

Thanks for the help and discussion.



BudShark said:


> 3) MoCA/DECA is quite effective as a video streaming distribution platform.
> 4) It requires less in wiring infrastructure changes than any other mechanism other than wireless - and it is a more effective distribution medium than wireless.
> 5) MoCA/DECA is quite popular in the pay TV video sharing world as it does create a closed ecosystem that has proven to be more supportable, easier to install, and less susceptible to outside influences.
> 6) If box to box streaming is the only functionality required, no additional equipment is required as an HR24 or higher and an H24 and higher on the DirecTV wiring is a completely self-sufficient system with no additional costs/power/components necessary.


What if I want more than just box to box streaming? What if I want to stream Netflix or Amazon to the same TV? Can I install a switch at the DECA module to run ethernet from DECA to a Blu Ray or xBox player? Or do I basically need a second non-DECA network to run those?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

veryoldschool said:


> I'm not knocking anyone that wants to use their home network for this, but if it was as faultless as this basset keeps barfing, then there wouldn't be the threads here posting issues.


I'm not knocking DECA, just addressing the red herring that your home network would be negatively impacted by MRV traffic.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

harsh said:


> I'm not knocking DECA, just addressing the red herring that your home network would be negatively impacted by MRV traffic.


No, you're saying a home network couldn't be impacted by MRV traffic, which it can be.
It's not a "red herring", though may not be a problem for all.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

veryoldschool said:


> No, you're saying a home network couldn't be impacted by MRV traffic, which it can be.


It can be, but I believe it much less likely than you insist absent broadcast-oriented networking technology.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

BudShark said:


> 5) MoCA/DECA is quite popular in the pay TV video sharing world as it does create a closed ecosystem that has proven to be more supportable, easier to install, and less susceptible to outside influences.


Any authoritative documentation on this claim?


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

harsh said:


> It can be, but I believe it much less likely than you insist absent broadcast-oriented networking technology.


And you know this from first-hand experience of using MRV over your home network compared to using MRV over DECA, correct?

- Merg


----------



## lugnutathome (Apr 13, 2009)

vict said:


> Thanks for the help and discussion.
> 
> What if I want more than just box to box streaming? What if I want to stream Netflix or Amazon to the same TV? Can I install a switch at the DECA module to run ethernet from DECA to a Blu Ray or xBox player? Or do I basically need a second non-DECA network to run those?


While the rest of the crew rattles spears and sabers I'll attempt to answer your question. Yes you could use an external DECA module's (CCK) RJ45 port to connect up a switch and use your coax as your home LAN's cabling. I believe solidsignal.com offered such a marketing spin at one point recently.

However the cable and satellite providers have invested in the Ethernet over coax transport layer for their own purposes and would not condone the application. So if you had issues in either use case it would be your problem to resolve (or hide when the repairman comes to call).

But it is everyday garden variety Ethernet traffic in either case. When I first heard about it it struck me as a great thing where the providers could also offer a home LAN (for a fee) to their subscribers but alas. They focused on their own streaming requirements and scaled it to a limited scope which when used in their specification covers nearly every residential installation they have.

So you should be able to do it assuming you aren't running a fully loaded SWM16:grin: and not have the BlueRay or xBox traffic affect your receiver's client server streaming.

Don "it really could be a marketable product for so many people" Bolton


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

The Merg said:


> And you know this from first-hand experience of using MRV over your home network compared to using MRV over DECA, correct?


Do you experience with switched CAT5 LANs and WHDS that suggests otherwise?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

vict said:


> Can I install a switch at the DECA module to run ethernet from DECA to a Blu Ray or xBox player?


There have been reports of success doing this as long as only one service is streaming at a time. If you have something like a GoogleTV device or a networked gaming console, I'd recommend stepping up and running CAT5 or similar. One run of CAT5 goes a long way.


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

"harsh" said:


> Do you experience with switched CAT5 LANs and WHDS that suggests otherwise?


Okay... That question does not make sense...

- Merg


----------

