# 622 Ethernet



## stick30 (Feb 26, 2007)

Don't know if this is coincidence but reading the forum last night I connected the 622 to the network and shortly after it has a switch error 502 and cannot get out of the testing area. Now I never had my phone line connected so could it be possible that is receive an update via the internet?

Or it could be a bad switch but the other 211 receivers are working fine.


----------



## ChuckA (Feb 7, 2006)

The Ethernet connection is currently not active so I doubt connecting it has anything to do with the problem. Software updates are received over the dish connection. Disconnect the Ethernet cable and power off the 622 and see if it comes back up properly.


----------



## INHUMANITY (Aug 8, 2005)

Mines been plugged into an ethernet jack for a few weeks now and nothing has happened.

The actual port is active with respect to power and activity lights, but as everybody else has said it doesn't do anything.


----------



## mwgiii (Jul 19, 2002)

Yet.

Dish Online is coming, hopefully soon.


----------



## William (Oct 28, 2006)

mwgiii said:


> Yet.
> 
> Dish Online is coming, hopefully soon.


Just like USB storage is coming soon. :sure: They are always coming soon, they just NEVER get here.


----------



## Hunter Green (May 8, 2006)

I plugged mine into my network just so I wouldn't have to get back there to run cables again if it ever becomes active, but my router doesn't report it asking for DHCP, and I don't get a link light, so the port is definitely not active.


----------



## stick30 (Feb 26, 2007)

I am getting connectivity but no activity. I did isolate the problem with a port on the switch.


----------



## INHUMANITY (Aug 8, 2005)

Hunter Green said:


> I plugged mine into my network just so I wouldn't have to get back there to run cables again if it ever becomes active, but my router doesn't report it asking for DHCP, and I don't get a link light, so the port is definitely not active.


My 622 link light is on as well as my firewall light.


----------



## tm22721 (Nov 8, 2002)

William said:


> Just like USB storage is coming soon. :sure: They are always coming soon, they just NEVER get here.


I have been with Dish for over ten years and htye NEVER deliver promised upgrades until the next receiver comes out. Bait and switch dontcha know but they have always gotten away with it so why change now ?

That's why I started a thread on the next receiver so that we can realistically discuss USB HD, ethernet, etc without the angst of the 622 delays.


----------



## Hunter Green (May 8, 2006)

Hmm, actually I haven't checked my link light in a long while. Maybe it started being active in a later upgrade. I'll have to check tomorrow.


----------



## Tylast (May 27, 2006)

I REALLY wish Dish would enable the Ethernet port. I only have phone service at home for the DVR. I use my cell phone exclusively. Such a waste of money...ughhh.


----------



## wje (Mar 8, 2006)

I wonder how much of the delay is technical (which there really isn't any real reason for, other than priorities of implementation), and how much is just not wanting to have to deal with the no-doubt-large number of people that will connect it up in various silly ways and then bug CS.

I can hear it now.... "I plugged in the cable, but it wouldn't fit in the phone jack, so I just pushed real hard until it fit. It does't work. How dare you people sell such a piece of junk. I'm switching to D*!".


----------



## TulsaOK (Feb 24, 2004)

Tylast said:


> I REALLY wish Dish would enable the Ethernet port. I only have phone service at home for the DVR. I use my cell phone exclusively. Such a waste of money...ughhh.


How much do you pay for phone service for the DVR?


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Tylast said:


> I REALLY wish Dish would enable the Ethernet port. I only have phone service at home for the DVR.


Having Internet connectivity on your receiver isn't going to answer the phone line issue in any meaningful way.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

harsh said:


> Having Internet connectivity on your receiver isn't going to answer the phone line issue in any meaningful way.


Actually he expect to wave no-phone-line fee, if Dish will use ethernet port thru Internet for same purpose.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

wje said:


> I wonder how much of the delay is technical (which there really isn't any real reason for, other than priorities of implementation), and how much is just not wanting to have to deal with the no-doubt-large number of people that will connect it up in various silly ways and then bug CS.
> 
> I can hear it now.... "I plugged in the cable, but it wouldn't fit in the phone jack, so I just pushed real hard until it fit. It does't work. How dare you people sell such a piece of junk. I'm switching to D*!".


You can't makeup such silly reason- BTW AT&T installing 622HZ without such 'concerns'.

Perhaps you're kidding ?


----------



## AVJohnnie (Jul 27, 2004)

harsh said:


> Having Internet connectivity on your receiver isn't going to answer the phone line issue in any meaningful way.


I would think that any communication activity the 622 does with Dish's servers via its dialup modem could be done equally well if not better via its LAN port and a BB internet connection. The catch, my guess, is Dish's understandable concern over potential problems with the security of the customer's home network implementation - for example:

Instead of hardwiring their home network they went with the easier, neater all WiFi solution that the local electronics store sales guy suggested. This "set-up" has been in place for a while and as far as these people know, is working just fine for their computers, media players, etc. Naturally, they go talk with the sales guy again to figure out a wireless solution for their 622(s) - Sales guy suggests a nifty wireless access point plugged into the 622's LAN port to handle the situation. So far, so good&#8230;

Now suppose they have neglected to use any WiFi security (WEP, etc.) in their implementation.

Next suppose someone (outside these people's home, but within WiFi range) is using a simple packet sniffer. They could, theoretically, obtain these individual's credit card info, etc. from the payment features of Dish Home screens.

And I can hear their call to the CS department now&#8230; (My CC info has been stolen and it's all your fault&#8230


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

AVJohnnie said:


> I would think that any communication activity the 622 does with Dish's servers via its dialup modem could be done equally well if not better via its LAN port and a BB internet connection.


And you would be wrong. One of the primary reasons that the receivers require a dial-up connection is that it is uniquely qualified to rat you out if your receiver is not connected to your phone line of record. IP numbers aren't a particularly useful measure of where a device is located. Often the best you can hope for is to locate a city that an IP number is assigned to. Knowing that all receivers have the same IP number suggests that they are all together, but it doesn't assure that they are located at your residence.

Obviously VOIP invalidates the phone number association with a particular residence, but that's another problem to address.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

I hope AVJohnnie that if they plan on sending sensitive information like credit card info over the net they would encrypt it. WiFi is not the only means of sniffing packets. But I do agree that once net connectivity to the box is established they could use it for security enforcement given that there was someway to uniquely identify the receivers in the house. 

Ideally it would be nice if you had a 622 that could figure out what receivers you have and then use the ethernet port to report back. They could then authenticate the user configuration. Allow one more means to validate rather than a phone line would be helpful to users without landlines. I am sure it would not solve all user environments, but the more options a user has the better in my opinion.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Ron Barry said:


> I hope AVJohnnie that if they plan on sending sensitive information like credit card info over the net they would encrypt it.


Transactions that require money to change hands are handled through a third party service (kind of like PayPal) that has your financial information on file. Card numbers and other sensitive information will not be required.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

Since I have not Dish home features for payment I am not sure what info they require.... If there is a way to pay by CC on DishHome then I would assume the Credit card is sent across the phone line so the same would hold with a ethernet. But since I have not played with these applications, I assumed that CC information was required based on AVJohnnie's response so that would be sent across the wire.


----------



## AVJohnnie (Jul 27, 2004)

Ron Barry said:


> Since I have not Dish home features for payment I am not sure what info they require.... If there is a way to pay by CC on DishHome then I would assume the Credit card is sent across the phone line so the same would hold with a ethernet. But since I have not played with these applications, I assumed that CC information was required based on AVJohnnie's response so that would be sent across the wire.


I have used the feature -- and you are required to enter your CC info.

And I agree -- One would hope that they have the wherewithal to encrypt the communication packets in which such information is contained, regardless of the transport method.

Harsh brings up a good point about Dish using the Telco system to derive the locus of the receiver. However, as already stated, this method has been effectively invalidated by VOIP installations that (so far) function properly with the 622. VOIP can make a receiver appear (to Dish) to be located anywhere one would like it to be.


----------



## Ron Barry (Dec 10, 2002)

That is why I made the comment about the ability to determine uniqueness via some other means rather than phone. That way a box connected to internet could phone home the receiver inventory and a comparison can be made at home base. This then can be used flag suspect accounts and a phone line would not be required. This is something I hopped would be added with the addition of ethernet but since I don't know the internals of the Dish systems I don't know i uniqueness could be determined using Dish hardware. 

The ideal world would be... One box connected to the net and no requirement for your other receivers to be hooked up to a phone line, but I don't even know if that is feasible.


----------



## wje (Mar 8, 2006)

P Smith said:


> You can't makeup such silly reason- BTW AT&T installing 622HZ without such 'concerns'.
> 
> Perhaps you're kidding ?


Of course not. If you've ever been involved in customer support, you know that anything, no matter how absurd, will be tried by someone, somewhere.

My company provides software to the largest telecom companies in the world. You'd think they would know what they're doing, right? Wrong. We've had more that one emergency call from customers like, hmm, well, three letters in the name, going something like 'we shut down our Oracle servers and now we can't access any data. What's wrong with your software?'. No kidding.


----------



## AVJohnnie (Jul 27, 2004)

Ron Barry said:


> That is why I made the comment about the ability to determine uniqueness via some other means rather than phone. That way a box connected to internet could phone home the receiver inventory and a comparison can be made at home base. This then can be used flag suspect accounts and a phone line would not be required. This is something I hopped would be added with the addition of ethernet but since I don't know the internals of the Dish systems I don't know i uniqueness could be determined using Dish hardware.
> 
> The ideal world would be... One box connected to the net and no requirement for your other receivers to be hooked up to a phone line, but I don't even know if that is feasible.


Unfortunately for Dish, because of functional VOIP, the cow is already out of the barn in this regard. And due to the Internet's structure, at least without a total revamp of same (which BTW is being discussed), another method of locus determination and compliance will be necessary.

With the advent of very low cost GPS chips, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if, in the non-too-distant future, that we each will receive in the mail, a Dish supplied, USB based, GPS locater device - one for each activated receiver in our possession - which we will be required to plug into said receiver(s) in order to maintain authorized activation.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

If E* can get GPS to work indoors they are better engineers than for what many here have given them credit!

_Perhaps_ a unique ID chip could be added to a satellite feedline (something powered by the switch that would transmit a unique code on the coax where every receiver on the system would read the unique code). At least then E* would have an idea that the receivers were connected to the same dish. But whatever they do it needs to be done cheap. Replacing all of our LNBs with GPS enabled LNBs isn't cost effective and passing out USB GPS devices that won't work buried in equipment cabinets isn't practical.

DishCOMM between boxes is practical, except for the RF limitations of DishCOMM ... perhaps a USB wifi connection where secondary receivers on an account will self distruct if they can't see the master unit ... but not GPS.

The primary question is if the receivers are all in the same household ... not where all the receivers are. That is the question the "phone line connection" is answering ... and in most cases, the answer is accurate!


----------



## wje (Mar 8, 2006)

Actually, for anyone that has network connectivity via DSL, Cable, or FIOS, the location can be determined with excellent accuracy already. The upstream connection goes directly to the provider's equipment, and the location of that doesn't change, nor does its IP address, except for very rare circumstances. Usually, YOUR address from them is geographically localized, too, since a particular CO or cable head has a pool of addresses assigned to it that it in turn assigns to you. While you can spoof that, you can't spoof the upstream routing. At the very least, the provider's first upstream core router can be determined, and this will localize you to, at worst, a relatively small geographic area.

Of course, this doesn't hold true for those with dialup access. It all depends upon just how paranoid E* wants to be. As has been mentioned already, anyone using VOIP can have a number that appears to come from just about anywhere. So, I would think that E* would certainly find the localization via non-dialup internet access to be adequate.


----------



## Tylast (May 27, 2006)

TulsaOK said:


> How much do you pay for phone service for the DVR?


 The cheapest plan my tele company has works out to be about $20 per month with all the taxes.


----------



## Jim5506 (Jun 7, 2004)

All my TiVos are connected to a central router that then connects to the internet. They all have the same IP address except for the last number and the router is the only appliance that gets its DHCP from the ISP. All devices on my network get DHCP from the router. Very simple for one appliance to gather and report all devices behind the router.

Someone who knows what he is doing could set up another network next door or down the block that would have its appliances have almost identical IP addresses, but the router IP would be different.

Router IP might be spoofable.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

wje said:


> Usually, YOUR address from them is geographically localized, too, since a particular CO or cable head has a pool of addresses assigned to it that it in turn assigns to you.


Geographically localized is not good enough. They want to know that it is inside your residence and not in the residence next door that shares your neighborhood wireless connection. Many of us live in isolated homes, but in apartment and condo complexes, it isn't all that unusual to all be using the same gateway.

I have cable broadband and my DHCP lease is about two weeks. Fixed IP service can be surprisingly hard to come by without some sort of business class Internet connection. IP information isn't specific enough to insure that your receiver isn't moving from place to place.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Jim5506 said:


> They all have the same IP address except for the last number and the router is the only appliance that gets its DHCP from the ISP.


If you're using DHCP to get your router IP address, it may change weekly (or semi-monthly at least). That's not going to help.


----------



## wje (Mar 8, 2006)

Your IP address may change, but the upstream provider's router address doesn't. I'm not referring to your router's (if you use one) address. That's not spoofable, either, since the routing can be determined by the other end (E* in this case).
However, if E* wants to localize to a specific house, then the routing info in general isn't going to be sufficient.


----------



## AVJohnnie (Jul 27, 2004)

I’ve long wondered what the rationality is for Dish’s desire to resolve the locus to a specific dwelling? I can understand their need to resolve its location to a given area in order to meet compliance requirements for protected viewing venues – blacked-out sporting events, local programming, etc. But aren’t those generally based on zip codes, not a specific address?

Jim brings up a good point about Tivo – do the Tivo equipped DirectTV receivers require a Telco connection (not having one, my assumption is that they do), or can they function like their brethren do over internet? And if so, how does Direct address this problem?

As for the USB GPS idea, my thought was that the dongle would contain only the GPS chip, an encrypted interlock key that marries it to the receiver, and whatever other support electronics / firmware might be required – And granted, as James pointed out, the antenna would be an issue – perhaps it could be derived in a shared duty situation with your existing dish – otherwise it would require a roof mounted GPS antenna as well – something like that used for marine configurations. One thing’s for certain though, such a configuration would be pretty hard to “spoof”.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

harsh said:


> If you're using DHCP to get your router IP address, it may change weekly (or semi-monthly at least). That's not going to help.


It is enough to know that the receivers are behind the same gateway. Unless you have a rare setup where different machines in your house get a different public IP lease all E* has to do when it sees a new IP is tell your other receivers via satellite to report in to see if all your receivers changed IP or just the one. How many residential broadband customers have more than one public IP at a time?

One issue would be ISPs that run private IP networks and only give access to the public internet via proxy servers. Many people would share the same IP in that situation. That is where some other means (perhaps connectivity between boxes) would be needed. IMHO this is another rare situation, but it is possible.


AVJohnnie said:


> One thing's for certain though, such a configuration would be pretty hard to "spoof".


GPS would be nice, but it goes beyond the issue - which is people sharing accounts - to a second issue of people lying about their location. Obviously those sharing accounts are also lying about their location but E* is losing more money on shared accounts than "movers". The first step is to make sure all the receivers are in the same place. E* can worry about where that place is later.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

AVJ. You are not a SW person - aren't you ? GPS itself usually use low speed serial protocol, non-encrypted; so, it would be pretty easy to emulate it replacing receiver module to RS232 connector.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

James Long said:


> It is enough to know that the receivers are behind the same gateway.


In a multifamily housing complex with community broadband, everyone may be behind a single gateway IP number. Until IPv6 gets going, it is likely to stay this way.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

AVJohnnie said:


> I've long wondered what the rationality is for Dish's desire to resolve the locus to a specific dwelling?


To insure that all of your equipment is being used exclusively in your home as opposed to in your place of business (where the rates are much higher) or your neighbor's or relative's homes.


> Jim brings up a good point about Tivo - do the Tivo equipped DirectTV receivers require a Telco connection (not having one, my assumption is that they do), or can they function like their brethren do over internet? And if so, how does Direct address this problem?


They do need to phone home to receive software updates. DIRECTV doesn't address the problem: it is up to the subscriber to provide a suitable phone line if they want the software updates (and to dodge the nag screens).


> As for the USB GPS idea, my thought was that the dongle would contain only the GPS chip, an encrypted interlock key that marries it to the receiver, and whatever other support electronics / firmware might be required - And granted, as James pointed out, the antenna would be an issue - perhaps it could be derived in a shared duty situation with your existing dish - otherwise it would require a roof mounted GPS antenna as well - something like that used for marine configurations. One thing's for certain though, such a configuration would be pretty hard to "spoof".


My original GPS theory was that the GPS would be incorporated into the dish assembly. The Sirf GPS modules aren't as cheap as you might think (certainly not as cheap as Motorola promised their's would be) but if the subscriber pays for the privilege, they can get away without a land line.


----------



## AVJohnnie (Jul 27, 2004)

harsh said:


> In a multifamily housing complex with community broadband, everyone may be behind a single gateway IP number. Until IPv6 gets going, it is likely to stay this way.


I'm aware of at least two multifamily housing complexes that specifically forbid individual DBS ownership, presumably to alleviate the account sharing problem that James mentioned. Those complexes provide, via an arrangement with Dish, a hybridized cable-distributed "Dish Experience" for those willing to pay for it.


----------



## EVAC41 (Jun 27, 2006)

mwgiii said:


> Yet.
> 
> Dish Online is coming, hopefully soon.


On their website they said it was coming this spring...


----------



## AVJohnnie (Jul 27, 2004)

P Smith said:


> AVJ. You are not a SW person - aren't you ? GPS itself usually use low speed serial protocol, non-encrypted; so, it would be pretty easy to emulate it replacing receiver module to RS232 connector.


And you would be wrong in your assumption -- I am a SW person, since 1973 actually, specializing in Hardware Arbitration Layer implementations and RTP control. I'm quite aware of the commonly used GPS serial interface implementations - and that's one of the reasons why I put forth the "encryption key" idea, in order to hard-marry the "dongle device" to the individual receiver.

WARNING: Possible run-away thread has been detected!


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

harsh said:


> My original GPS theory was that the GPS would be incorporated into the dish assembly. The Sirf GPS modules aren't as cheap as you might think (certainly not as cheap as Motorola promised their's would be) but if the subscriber pays for the privilege, they can get away without a land line.


An RF dongle (as suggested above) could be a cheaper approach. Just a little transmitter that one would connect before the switch so all receivers on that switch would see it. On systems without a separate switch it could be placed on an input to a DPP LNB (such as the DPPTwin). Systems without a switch or with no inputs should be small enough (four DP receivers on a DPQuad) and rare enough that E* could let those pass or continue the phone line requirement.

It would not 100% solve the issue (due to shared dishes) but it would be cheaper than a GPS enabled dongle that really doesn't provide much more information (except moving on to the question of "movers"). Just make a tiny transmitter that would send a unique number as telemetry somewhere around 1450 MHz.

Eventually this could be built into switches (including switches in LNBs) ... but a dongle would be reasonably cheap.


AVJohnnie said:


> I'm aware of at least two multifamily housing complexes that specifically forbid individual DBS ownership, presumably to alleviate the account sharing problem that James mentioned. Those complexes provide, via an arrangement with Dish, a hybridized cable distributed "Dish Experience" for those willing to pay for it.


If they are providing E* service through their own dishes they are just cutting down on the clutter of having possibly multiple dishes per unit in all sorts of configurations around the complex. Having it sold this way could help prevent sharing ... as complex owners could disconnect the cable from apartments that are not subscribing (preventing a customer from loaning their second receiver to a neighbor). Careful tracking would have to be in place or they might cut off a subscriber!


----------



## Hunter Green (May 8, 2006)

wje said:


> I can hear it now.... "I plugged in the cable, but it wouldn't fit in the phone jack, so I just pushed real hard until it fit. It does't work. How dare you people sell such a piece of junk. I'm switching to D*!".


My *installers* did this, but once they left I switched things back around.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

AVJohnnie said:


> I put forth the "encryption key" idea, in order to hard-marry the "dongle device" to the individual receiver.


We don't want the dongle married to the receiver, we want the dongle married to all receivers in the household.


> WARNING: Possible run-away thread has been detected!


CAUTION: Moderator presence detected. Don't forget this is a support forum!


----------



## koralis (Aug 10, 2005)

James Long said:


> _Perhaps_ a unique ID chip could be added to a satellite feedline (something powered by the switch that would transmit a unique code on the coax where every receiver on the system would read the unique code). At least then E* would have an idea that the receivers were connected to the same dish.


That's very clever... I'd probably change it so that each reciever is actually programmed to only respond if hooked up to a given ID. They could virtually eliminate dual-residence use at the same time (taking a reciever to a summer home, etc) unless someone goes to the trouble of crawling onto their roof to get the ID inserter. Most wouldn't know about it, and it's no longer convenient.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

I'd be nicer about it than that ... perhaps a 48 hour nag screen before killing the receiver. The main thing is that it (in general) prevents sharing without adding a phone line or ethernet requirement. Anyone close enough to share a dish is close enough to share a phone line anyways.


----------



## jsuboh (Jun 7, 2005)

It would seem that the best solution is to drop the local ID requirements of the DVR/Phone connections and trust their customers. The new hardware are harder to hack and the headaches that everyon is going through is not worth the investment - How many businesses are taking their home unit to their business (less than a million or less than a thousand). An IP solution will be the best solution especially if they tie it in to a web access portal that allows you to ad/change and schedule programming.

my 2 cents


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Yep ... The Ethernet port was not put there as a high-tech phone line. If it can ALSO be used for that great! There are much more interesting and important ways to use ethernet!


----------



## Matt20V (Oct 5, 2006)

harsh said:


> And you would be wrong. One of the primary reasons that the receivers require a dial-up connection is that it is uniquely qualified to rat you out if your receiver is not connected to your phone line of record.


I have caller ID blocked through my telco so I'm not sure I'm buying this explanation.
-Matt


----------



## INHUMANITY (Aug 8, 2005)

Matt20V said:


> I have caller ID blocked through my telco so I'm not sure I'm buying this explanation.
> -Matt


Your receiver dials an 800 number, so your number is revealed whether or not your caller ID is "blocked" with your telco.


----------



## Stewart Vernon (Jan 7, 2005)

Matt20V said:


> I have caller ID blocked through my telco so I'm not sure I'm buying this explanation.
> -Matt


As Inhumanity said... the blocking service that your phone company provides only blocks from normal caller ID services. Calling a 1-800 number you are still identifyable by the number you call.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

Matt20V said:


> I have caller ID blocked through my telco so I'm not sure I'm buying this explanation.


To add to what INHUMANITY said, here's a link to the Wikipedia entry for ANI.


----------



## Matt20V (Oct 5, 2006)

harsh said:


> To add to what INHUMANITY said, here's a link to the Wikipedia entry for ANI.


I didn't know that, learned something new today!

-Matt


----------



## Bill R (Dec 20, 2002)

Matt20V said:


> I didn't know that, learned something new today!
> 
> -Matt


And just another FYI. ALL 911 calls use ANI, not caller ID.


----------



## LinkNuc (Jul 4, 2007)

Tylast said:


> I REALLY wish Dish would enable the Ethernet port. I only have phone service at home for the DVR. I use my cell phone exclusively. Such a waste of money...ughhh.


No phoneline needed for DVR functions, mine works perfectly I haven't had a land line in over 7 years

When I signed up for dish they told me aboout the access fee for not having a phone line I said forget it, and they put me on hold, and thgey waived teh fee, if you are a new customer I'd take that approach


----------

