# Reasons for NOT using DECA...



## CalifLove (Mar 25, 2009)

Hello all,

I've been doing a lot of research the past few days attempting to learn more about DTV and its offerings now that I am thinking of switching back.

Please forgive what may seem like a stupid question - What problems does using DECA present? There seems to be a lot of talk about finding ways around using DECA but I haven't been able to determine why. On the surface it seems like using a cable you have you have anyway (coax) running to the receivers makes life easier for everyone involved assuming the performance is just as good or better than what is acheived with alternatives.

My home has cat5 throughout and a jack at every TV which I realize may be the exception and not the rule, however even in my scenario if I can keep MRV and DTV traffic off my network and have it live on its own internal DECA deal that seems like a plus to me...

What am I missing?


----------



## lugnutathome (Apr 13, 2009)

Having the service activated

Seriously. Using the DECA gives you a fully supported environment by DTV. Choosing your LAN means you have to troubleshoot your own issues. Though issues are not frequent they do happen.

DECA was designed for most all homes as an end to end solution. It lacks scalability for excessively large homes where a lot of runs well over 100 ft are required to service the receivers. (or more than 16 net tuners) Certainly the exception and not the norm.

I run dual cascaded SWM8s for signal using all 4 auto gain SWM ports and Ethernet for WHDVR in my home due to it's sheer size. My infrastructure is anomaly however.

Other than a massive rambling estate with a boatload of receivers there is no reason to use one's own networking for a new install.

Now if you had an existing account and all was fine with it, having the LAN could mean just getting the proper settings to run unsupported activated. This could be accomplished without any equipment upgrades or installation fees. But troubleshooting would be up to you.

Don "drink the kool aid and enjoy the flavor" Bolton



CalifLove said:


> Hello all,
> 
> I've been doing a lot of research the past few days attempting to learn more about DTV and its offerings now that I am thinking of switching back.
> 
> ...


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

CalifLove said:


> Hello all,
> 
> I've been doing a lot of research the past few days attempting to learn more about DTV and its offerings now that I am thinking of switching back.
> 
> ...


"Nothing".
I'd guess most of the negativity comes from the cost of the upgrade, which for those that have their ethernet already in place, may seems high.
I've been on DECA for about 18 months, and wouldn't go back to having ethernet cables on the floor, running through the house as it was before DECA.
"Also" DECA networking is supported by DirecTV, where ethernet isn't.


----------



## richlife (Dec 4, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> "Nothing".
> I'd guess most of the negativity comes from the cost of the upgrade, which for those that have their ethernet already in place, may seems high.
> I've been on DECA for about 18 months, and wouldn't go back to having ethernet cables on the floor, running through the house as it was before DECA.
> "Also" DECA networking is supported by DirecTV, where ethernet isn't.


I just added whole-home despite have a complete wireless and wired home network. It would have cost me more to buy the WAPs needed than I paid, they ended up converting me to SWM and everything works flawlessly. My house is 2900 sq ft on 3 levels.

My only issue for me is the wired coax connection to my router that the installer insisted was a requirement. (My approach is to take the good deal and fix the details myself.) I want to replace that coax with wireless access point and I'm actually searching for a post I think I saw about that subject now.

Rich


----------



## ffemtreed (Jan 30, 2008)

Cost is about the only reason not to use it. If you have a solid Ethernet setup in your house you can use that and only pay $3 dollars per month for the service as opposed to the couple hundred they are now charging to come out and install the DECA and still have the $3 dollars per month charge.


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

richlife said:


> I just added whole-home despite have a complete wireless and wired home network. It would have cost me more to buy the WAPs needed than I paid, they ended up converting me to SWM and everything works flawlessly. My house is 2900 sq ft on 3 levels.
> 
> My only issue for me is the wired coax connection to my router that the installer insisted was a requirement. (My approach is to take the good deal and fix the details myself.) I want to replace that coax with wireless access point and I'm actually searching for a post I think I saw about that subject now.
> 
> Rich


Converting the connection to your router to wireless is pretty easy. Since you previously had 2 cables going to each receiver, find where you want to put the Broadband DECA. Use the now non-used wire from one receiver and plug it into the Broadband DECA. From the Broadband DECA, connect the ethernet cable to the wireless ethernet adapter. If the adapter had been setup previously for connecting to your wireless network, it should be good to go. Just make sure that the cable going to the Broadband DECA is also connected to the splitter where the other receiver cables are connected.

- Merg


----------



## richlife (Dec 4, 2006)

The Merg said:


> Converting the connection to your router to wireless is pretty easy. Since you previously had 2 cables going to each receiver, find where you want to put the Broadband DECA. Use the now non-used wire from one receiver and plug it into the Broadband DECA. From the Broadband DECA, connect the ethernet cable to the wireless ethernet adapter. If the adapter had been setup previously for connecting to your wireless network, it should be good to go. Just make sure that the cable going to the Broadband DECA is also connected to the splitter where the other receiver cables are connected.
> 
> - Merg


Thanks, that's what I was thinking.

Last comment -- this whole-home setup is really nice. With two HD DVR and an HD receiver and a new HDTF for the latter, it's very nice to have the access to all the shows. But more of that where it's appropriate. 

Rich


----------



## joed32 (Jul 27, 2006)

ffemtreed said:


> Cost is about the only reason not to use it. If you have a solid Ethernet setup in your house you can use that and only pay $3 dollars per month for the service as opposed to the couple hundred they are now charging to come out and install the DECA and still have the $3 dollars per month charge.


Also the installers in some cases can't get the equipment they need to install DECA. In my case a SWM 16.


----------



## Sim-X (Sep 24, 2009)

I love DECA, it works awesome no matter where the boxes are in the house. No lag at all. Before deca I only had 2 boxes networked via ethernet which I would say worked just as well as the DECA's. I also tried adding a 3rd via wireless N and that sucked. Dropped packets, errors, etc - I played around with it forever but never could get N working right. Now my DECA setup is rock solid and it's not straining my computer network. What's nice I still have all my boxes connected to my network but when using MRV the DECA bandwidth is all on the coax and not my switches. I don't really have bad things to say about it.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

Sim-X said:


> I love DECA, it works awesome no matter where the boxes are in the house. No lag at all. Before deca I only had 2 boxes networked via ethernet which I would say worked just as well as the DECA's. I also tried adding a 3rd via wireless N and that sucked. Dropped packets, errors, etc - I played around with it forever but never could get N working right. Now my DECA setup is rock solid and it's not straining my computer network. What's nice I still have all my boxes connected to my network but when using MRV the DECA bandwidth is all on the coax and not my switches. I don't really have bad things to say about it.


+1 here as well; :hurah:

Have flawless MRV streaming between three DVRs with plenty of bandwidth to spare that I even run a PC though the DECA cloud where I regularly stream videos from my HP Media Vault NAS at the same time in many cases without any issues.

Used some Panny PowerLine adapters pre-DECA which were supposedly HD capable and were fine for VOD and SD streaming to the DIRECTV2PC app, but were a complete wipeout for MRV even on SD recordings.

Have an old home which is obviously not wired for ethernet and DECA has been a virtual God-send relieving me of the need of having to pull cat5e cable all over the house.


----------



## Kodok (Feb 10, 2008)

I think if you already have ethernet runs and know how to manage your home network, you don't need to switch to DECA to save some cost. 

Then again, I have Cat 6 with Gb switch and still moved to DECA just for a simpler and cleaner look. With HR24s, no need for 3 cables run from the wall for the DVRs and no need to deal with those BBC pigtails that always get in the way.

My $0.02.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

I went to DECA even though me MRV worked pretty good for the most part but it was not 100% and I would not go back to my LAN Network as DECA is Optimized for delivering Audio and Video seemlessly and it works as advertised.

I am completely happy with it and definitely wouldn't go back to LAN/Ethernet.


----------



## hancox (Jun 23, 2004)

Ha ha. Amazing that nobody has mentioned OTA diplexing. Oh, but that's right, have to remember the audience here...

OTA diplexing FTW, seriously.


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

Ha, Ha!!! I had OTA Diplexing but got rid of it when I found out how good my Locals look with the New MPEG-4 stuff became available for Local Station Viewing.


----------



## hancox (Jun 23, 2004)

While the OTA locals vs MPEG4 locals is a good fight, getting 2 DMA's local sets between the 2 evens it out.


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

hancox said:


> While the OTA locals vs MPEG4 locals is a good fight, getting 2 DMA's local sets between the 2 evens it out.


And the nich corner case get's smaller and smaller (with regards to the original question)


----------



## Skyboss (Jan 22, 2004)

CalifLove said:


> Hello all,
> 
> I've been doing a lot of research the past few days attempting to learn more about DTV and its offerings now that I am thinking of switching back.
> 
> ...


There is no reason for not goign to DECA. I used to think my home network, which is not some cheapo put together by Radio Shack setup, was the way to go... Not the case.


----------



## CorkyMuldoon (Oct 6, 2006)

I was using MRV in "unsupported" configuration (via my home network) for some time. Performance was fine, but there was some intermittent lag and MRV reach was limited to my two DVRs and one H21.

I bit the bullet and had DECA installed. Now throughput is terrific (no lag at all and remote trick modes are very responsive) and MRV reach is extended to all six STBs in the house, although the singular stream limitation still exists but hasn't been a problem.

I highly recommend going with DECA.


----------



## Thaedron (Jun 29, 2007)

No reason not to DECA. I like the fact that it reduces things to a single coax, though you do end up with "more stuff" tucked behind the receiver. Basically a wash IMO.

As far as DECA vs. my wired gigabit network (yes, I know the DVRs are only 100Mb), I honestly can't say that I notice a measurable difference. Trickplay is MAYBE marginally better. But IMO and experience, both are more than adequate. All things being equal, DECA is the way to go, though it did end up costing me more $$$ vs. a network I already had in place.


----------



## hancox (Jun 23, 2004)

Earl Bonovich said:


> And the nich corner case get's smaller and smaller (with regards to the original question)


...and subchannels
...and better bad weather coverage
...and more flexibility with switching elsewhere for things like PIP

...and yet, I put up with the since-day-1 OTA design flaws with the HR2x...


----------



## poppagene (Jul 20, 2007)

hancox said:


> While the OTA locals vs MPEG4 locals is a good fight, getting 2 DMA's local sets between the 2 evens it out.


How do you get locals for 2 dmas without moving?


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

poppagene said:


> How do you get locals for 2 dmas without moving?


He's referring to signals OTA, not from the DirecTV satellite feed. On the AM21 tuner module setup and for the HR20 series integrated one, you may enter up to two zip codes in either the same or different DMAs and receive stations from each.

Of course its up to you to purchase and install the necessary antenna system to actually accomplish it.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

poppagene said:


> How do you get locals for 2 dmas without moving?


One from your service address and through the SAT feed, and the other with a big antenna pointed at the other DMA towers and through OTA. "Simple"


----------



## j2fast (Jul 15, 2007)

poppagene said:


> How do you get locals for 2 dmas without moving?


You can't via satellite, I assume it's because he/she resides in an area that allows reception of signals from 2 DMA's using an antenna (OTA). Where I live I can actually easily receive stations OTA from 3 different DMA's, usually without having to adjust the antenna.

To answer the OP's question, I can't see a reason to not go with DECA. I ran MRV on my home network successfully for many months but I switched to DECA at the first opportunity.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

DECA isn't particularly scalable in an environment where you may have several LAN devices (TV, TV subscription box, disc player, gaming console, AVR) in each home entertainment station.

DECA hardware isn't compatible with services other than DIRECTV (though the basic wiring should be).

DECA adds to your technology collection -- it doesn't replace it. You need to have multiple technologies as connecting numerous non-DIRECTV devices via DECA is fundamentally not a good idea.

Within the practical margins, DECA does what it is supposed to do and it allows someone to come into your house and set up a network correctly. It definitely has its place.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

harsh said:


> DECA isn't particularly scalable in an environment where you may have several LAN devices (TV, TV subscription box, disc player, gaming console, AVR) in each home entertainment station.
> 
> DECA hardware isn't compatible with services other than DIRECTV (though the basic wiring should be).
> 
> ...


Why don't you just say there is no downside.. Because NOTHING you state is a reason to NOT use Deca for Directv's WHDVR setup...

The main (ok, 99% of the reasoning) reason you hear so much talk about not using it and getting around it is for current customers who tested MRV in Beta form (most of whom only found out about the beta because they are on this website to boot) with networking not wanting to pay the upgrade fee...


----------



## Earl Bonovich (Nov 15, 2005)

hancox said:


> ...and subchannels
> ...and better bad weather coverage
> ...and more flexibility with switching elsewhere for things like PIP
> 
> ...and yet, I put up with the since-day-1 OTA design flaws with the HR2x...


Didn't say a thing about the validity of use of OTA...
But with regards to "why not DECA", this particular case, is a nich/corner case.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> Why don't you just say there is no downside.. Because NOTHING you state is a reason to NOT use Deca for Directv's WHDVR setup...


Because it doesn't work on his Dish system. :lol:


----------



## CalifLove (Mar 25, 2009)

Thanks for the replies folks - this has turned into an interesting discussion.

I have decided to move back to DTV with an install date after the turkey day holiday. I haven't seen any additional fees quoted so far for getting a DECA setup - is this somthing I should be on the lookout for during install? Did the DECA fees only apply to existing Dtv customers wanting to "upgrade" ?

Thanks!


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

Can you post your order info as listed in your confirmation e-mail or on your DirecTV on-line account? If you have gotten your account number, you can create your on-line account and see your order there, too.

- Merg


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

I wrestled with going to DECA because my LAN Network based system worked pretty good for the most part and I could save $3 which is not a big deal to me but HDTVFAN0001 kept telling me how Flawless his DECA WHDVR System worked so I bit the bullet and I am very glad I did because problems are a non event and it works faster, better as I guess it is Optimized for the Purpose of Delivering HD Audio/Video Content.

You can definitely tell that!!! I definitely wouldn't go back for a measly $3 and have to deal with the occasional glitches and pixellation and having DVRs dropped from my WHDVR.

But to each his own.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

inkahauts said:


> Because NOTHING you state is a reason to NOT use Deca for Directv's WHDVR setup...


I'm not disputing that. I'm simply pointing out that there may be more to life than watching TV through a DIRECTV receiver.

Why maintain two or three network topologies if you can successfully use fewer.

Are you saying that DIRECTV will maintain and expand/upgrade your DECA system for free?


----------



## bobcamp1 (Nov 8, 2007)

harsh said:


> I'm not disputing that. I'm simply pointing out that there may be more to life than watching TV through a DIRECTV receiver.


You do realize that comments like that could get you in deep trouble in this forum. :lol:


----------



## lugnutathome (Apr 13, 2009)

Actually his statements do give a reason not to.

If you already have an infrastructure in place for other purposes and it is more than capable to run WHDVR in addition to its other services then one might wish to not add yet another network technology and all it's "moving parts" to the mix.

That is an entirely valid reason not to use DECA but one that is limited to a minuscule subset of subscribers. A large percentage of which are probably here in these forums.

For some reason I see this "dog pile on the rabbit" response on Harsh's postings, yet his statements although clinical (OK harsh) in nature frequently seem to me to have technological merit.

Don "yeah he does use 'brand-X' but:grin:" Bolton



inkahauts said:


> Why don't you just say there is no downside.. Because NOTHING you state is a reason to NOT use Deca for Directv's WHDVR setup...
> 
> The main (ok, 99% of the reasoning) reason you hear so much talk about not using it and getting around it is for current customers who tested MRV in Beta form (most of whom only found out about the beta because they are on this website to boot) with networking not wanting to pay the upgrade fee...


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

lugnutathome said:


> Actually his statements do give a reason not to.
> 
> If you already have an infrastructure in place for other purposes and it is more than capable to run WHDVR in addition to its other services then one might wish to not add yet another network technology and all it's "moving parts" to the mix.
> 
> ...


But what real proof does harsh have that DECA is only really capable of supporting program streaming of MRV and no others?

As I really see no technical reason why the DECA coax network can't do everything the actual MOCA standard networks do such as used by FiOS and U-verse, where at least FiOS I know places everything on the coax network nowadays without issue.

Therefore I contend that DirecTV is simply being overly conservative and cautious in advising that no ethernet devices should be connected to the DECA cloud other than their receiver client/servers.

I mean I'm using a computer connected to the DECA cloud right now, and it works just fine even in the midst MRV streaming going on between DirecTV boxes elsewhere.


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

HoTat2 said:


> But what real proof does harsh have that DECA is only really capable of supporting program streaming of MRV and no others?


Proof - 0.

Firsthand knowledge - 0.

Information construed from other DECA user's posts - some.

DECA itself - priceless.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

hdtvfan0001 said:


> Proof - 0.
> 
> Firsthand knowledge - 0.
> 
> Information construed from other user's posts - some.


Let's not limit this to just DECA, since it's true for all DirecTV services & hardware.
I'd say more, but forum rules and all, prohibit it.


----------



## jdspencer (Nov 8, 2003)

Once the Beta ended I too thought of going with DECA. 

But, I have the philosophy that "if ain't broke, don't fix it".
With only the two DVRs, my network is working just fine.


----------



## lugnutathome (Apr 13, 2009)

Sorry to have driven this off topic earlier.

But since I did... I can see DTV not wanting other devices on their DECA as it adds complexity and possible causality to abhorrent behaviors that they would be clueless on how to troubleshoot.

My first thought on DECA was how cool it would be to give their subscribers a hardwired LAN to use in their home. Then after seeing all the absolute confusion between DTV techs and subscribers bringing WHDVR to life I can understand they want to limit it to their controlled environment which is difficult enough for the vast majority of subscribers

Reality is, it's just another Ethernet pipe perhaps enhanced for specific uses but it was built to be a controlled infrastructure. Adding our non DTV stuff takes that control away.

Yeah I know, most of us here know enough to work around it all

Don "let go of my ears I know what I'm doing" Bolton



HoTat2 said:


> But what real proof does harsh have that DECA is only really capable of supporting program streaming of MRV and no others?
> 
> As I really see no technical reason why the DECA coax network can't do everything the actual MOCA standard networks do such as used by FiOS and U-verse, where at least FiOS I know places everything on the coax network nowadays without issue.
> 
> ...


----------



## Richierich (Jan 10, 2008)

lugnutathome said:


> Sorry to have driven this off topic earlier.
> 
> But since I did... I can see DTV not wanting other devices on their DECA as it adds complexity and possible causality to abhorrent behaviors that they would be clueless on how to troubleshoot.
> 
> Reality is, it's just another Ethernet pipe perhaps enhanced for specific uses but it was built to be a controlled infrastructure. Adding our non DTV stuff takes that control away.


Yes, in my opinion Directv wanted a Simplified Network that Optimized Audio/Video Distribution throughout the Home that was fairly Easy for Installers to Install, Easy for CSRs to Troubleshoot and not too Expensive for the Consumer and WHDVR/DECA Delivers Big Time in my opinion because mine works Flawlessly!!!


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

lugnutathome said:


> Sorry to have driven this off topic earlier.
> 
> But since I did... I can see DTV not wanting other devices on their DECA as it adds complexity and possible causality to abhorrent behaviors that they would be clueless on how to troubleshoot.
> 
> ...





richierich said:


> Yes, in my opinion Directv wanted a Simplified Network that Optimized Audio/Video Distribution throughout the Home that was fairly Easy for Installers to Install, Easy for CSRs to Troubleshoot and not too Expensive for the Consumer and WHDVR/DECA Delivers Big Time in my opinion because mine works Flawlessly!!!


And I couldn't agree more with these assessments. DirecTV wanted a relatively simple and reliable performing system that could leverage the preexisting cable plant, and was easy on the techs and CSRs to install and help troubleshoot.

But harsh is acting as though unlike an actual MoCA network he knows DECA is technically incapable of handling the communication needs of a multiplicity of ethernet devices in addition to MRV streaming. And I've never actually seen any proof of this, but if he has it, I'd certainly be interested in seeing it and would be more than happy to retract my contention if true.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

HoTat2 said:


> But harsh is technically incapable.


"Fixed that for you".  :lol:


----------



## hdtvfan0001 (Jul 28, 2004)

I'm not sure responding to anything a Dish customer posts about DirecTV technology is worthy of the time it actually takes to even do it. In some cases, it even feeds some trolls, something I had to learn is not a good use of my time either.

Certainly is does make a person wonder why any Dish customer would be in the least bit interested in another service's technology, unless they were considering switching to that other service. 

I suspect legit posters wanting to talk about the pros and cons of anything DirecTV (tech wise) would likely want to hear from folks who actually test or use the equipment to get some form of assessment based on facts and experiences. 

The First Look documents were created to share just that kind of information. Furthermore, the FAQ on DECA has great information, some of which is authored by the same testers/users posting in this thread.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

lugnutathome said:


> Actually his statements do give a reason not to.
> 
> If you already have an infrastructure in place for other purposes and it is more than capable to run WHDVR in addition to its other services then one might wish to not add yet another network technology and all it's "moving parts" to the mix.
> 
> ...


The original question was,

" I am going to become a directv customer. Any reason I should go around their system and NOT have them install WHDVR via DECA and hook it up myself to my network.. "

That is the original question, and as usual, Harsh added a post that, while possibly containing some facts (although I know he is wrong in several ways) has no real value to answering the actual question of why not allow directv to hook it up the way they consider to be approved.

This is why Harsh's post has been quoted and debunked, its misleading in many ways, especially to people who do NOT have much knowledge... There is NO reason for this customer to not go DECA. I would guess that no more than .0001% of their customers would be in a situation where DECA would actually not be the ideal way to hook up their WHDVR system.

And When it comes to adding "more moving parts"... Deca actually makes it simpler and less invasive to a persons network than to actually hook up all DVR's and such to their network.


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

inkahauts said:


> This is why Harsh's post has been quoted and debunked, its misleading in many ways, especially to people who do NOT have much knowledge...


I've seen a several summary dismissals, but I can't recall any debunking that was supported by authoritative documentation.

This is what makes the DIRECTV forums interesting: joy-joy quite often trumps reason, physics or binding agreement.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

harsh said:


> I've seen a several summary dismissals, but I can't recall any debunking that was supported by authoritative documentation.
> 
> This is what makes the DIRECTV forums interesting: joy-joy quite often trumps reason, physics or binding agreement.


 Where's your authoritative documentation? I'll wait....


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

harsh said:


> I've seen a several summary dismissals, but I can't recall any debunking that was supported by authoritative documentation.
> 
> This is what makes the DIRECTV forums interesting: joy-joy quite often trumps reason, physics or binding agreement.


Of course there's no "authoritative" documentation, because DirecTV does not OFFICIALLY endorse using DECA for any other than streaming amongst their MRV clients. But that does not mean it does not have the capability to do so.

And the evidence is empirical, not officially documented, where others are successfully using the DECA cloud to connect other ethernet devices, such as Wii, Playstations, TVs, BD players, computers, etc. without reporting any signs of negative impact on MRV streaming.


----------



## peters4n6 (Jun 19, 2007)

+1


----------



## bpaulson (Jul 12, 2009)

I didn't want to pay for mrv and I don't want to pay for additional equipment, especially after spending about 35 hours total wiring my house (all wall jacks.) That's 5 bedrooms and two living rooms.

I dont know what you guys run on your network but streaming HD over 100mbps equipment is more than enough (I have 1gbps equipment here but that is besides the point.

MRV works great over hard wired Ethernet... I watch at least 20 hours a week of tv and most of it is through mrv (4 DVRs currently).

Yes if you don't have an extensive network already in place go with deca but if you do I see no reason wasting money on deca!


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

bpaulson said:


> Yes if you don't have an extensive network already in place go with deca but if you do I see no reason wasting money on deca!


As posted in post #3


----------

